Page 175 - CW E-Magazine (1-10-2024)
P. 175

Special Report                                                                   Special Report




 European Parliament’s recent diktat directs EU Member   this trace level (1 gm in 100 tonnes of   https://www.europarl.europa.eu/  ppm on many pesticides widely used in
                                                                          crop production in countries outside the
                                           doceo/document/B-10-2024-0021_
       food), a pesticide residue would not be
 States to disregard WTO obligations. Shocking!  biologically, toxicologically, and envi-  EN.html  EU. This is shocking, to say the least.
       ronmentally relevant and there is also
       no  scientifi c  evidence  to  show  that  it   This is the third time in the last 10  The EP Resolution should be held to
 About WTO and EU  local  regulations if they discriminate   causes  adverse  health  effects.  It  only  months that the EP used its veto power  in contravention of the WTO law on
 he World Trade  Organization  between  and among  the  “like”  traded   S. GANESAN  acts as an effective trade barrier.  on the rules concerning MRLs in  following counts:
 (WTO) deals with the global  products.  Advisor   imported foods. In December 2023, the
 Trules of trade between nations.   Centre for Environment and Agriculture   The European Parliament’s ques-  EP rejected a similar proposal to amend  The EP  Resolution is inconsistent with
 Its main function is to ensure that trade   The  WTO has over 160 members   (CENTEGRO) Mumbai  tionable diktat  the  MRL beyond 0.01 ppm for  Tri-  the provisions of the SPS Agreement
 fl ows  as  smoothly,  predictably  and  as  representing 98% of world trade.  All   Email: ganesanicc@gmail.com  On 12th Sept 2024, the EC moved  cyclazole, a rice fungicide. In January   Globally, determining pesticide
 freely as possible. The WTO has many  the 27 Member States of the European  Maximum Pesticide Residue Limit   its proposals  before the European  2024, the EP rejected  the proposal to  MRLs is governed by the legal frame-
 roles: it operates a global system of  Union (EU) are also WTO members in  under the SPS Agreements  Parliament  (EP) to amend  the  MRLs  amend the MRL beyond 0.01 ppm for  work established under the SPS Agree-
 trade rules, it acts as a forum for nego-  their own right. The EU is a single cus-  A Maximum Residue Limit (MRL)   beyond 0.01 ppm for fi ve pesticides –  Thiacloprid, an insecticide.  ment. Determining and implementing
 tiating trade agreements, and it settles  toms union with a single trade policy  is the maximum concentration of a pesti-  cyproconazole, spirodiclofen, benomyl,   pesticide MRLs is not an unfettered
 trade disputes between its members.  and tariff. The  European  Commission  cide residue (expressed as mg/kg), to   carbendazim and thiophanate methyl –   The reasons given by the Members  right in the hands of Member Coun-
 (EC) – the EU’s executive arm – speaks  be legally permitted in or on food com-  that were banned for use in the EU  of the European Parliament (MEPs), a  tries of the WTO. They have the right to
 The  complete  set of the  WTO  for all EU member States at the WTO  modities and animal feeds. MRLs are   a few years ago. The Members of The  political body, are completely inconsis-  restrict international trade for the pro-
 Agreement runs to over 30,000 pages  meetings.  based on Good  Agricultural  Practice   Parliament Committee on  Environ-  tent with the binding provisions of the  tection of human, plant, or animal health
 consisting of about 30 agreements.  (GAP) data  and foods derived from   ment,  Public  Health  and Food Safety  WTO SPS Agreement.  against trade – related risks only when
 About WTO SPS Agreement  commodities that comply with the   rejected  the proposal to amend the   such measures are consistent with the
 The  WTO  members  are  expected   The Agreement on the Application  respective MRLs are intended to be   MRL beyond 0.01 ppm giving the   The  WTO  SPS Agreement  allows  relevant principles of the WTO in general
 to operate a non-discriminatory tra-  of Sanitary and Phytosanitary  Mea-  toxicologically acceptable.  following reasons:  member countries to introduce sanitary  and the SPS Agreement in particular.
 ding system mindful of the WTO rules  sures  (the “SPS  Agreement”) entered   or phytosanitary measures  including
 that spells out their rights and obliga-  into force along with the establishment   The  principal international source   1.  The proposed amendments to the  pesticide MRLs only if they meet the  The underlying principle of the European
 tions.  The principle of  non-discrimi-  of the WTO on 1st January 1995. The  of MRLs is the Codex  Alimentarius.   MRLs  for  these  fi ve  banned  pesti-  following conditions:  Parliament Resolution is not based on
 nation is very important under the WTO.  SPS Agreement  concerns the  applica-  MRLs are set by the Codex Committee   cides do not ensure a high level of   They  are taken  only to the extent  risk assessment

 This principle stipulates that the WTO  tion of food safety, and animal & plant  on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), based   consumer protection in the EU.  necessary to protect human, animal   Each WTO Member must base their
 Members shall not discriminate: (i)  health regulations provides  a  frame-  on recommendations made by the FAO/  2.  The proposed amendments to the   or plant life or health and are based  phytosanitary measures (including pesti-
 between “like” products from different  work of rules to guide the WTO Mem-  WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Resi-  MRLs promote a double standard   on scientifi c evidence and not main-  cide MRLs) on scientifi c evidence and
 trading partners – giving them equally  ber States in the development, adoption  dues (JMPR).  by allowing  imports of food pro-  tained  without  suffi cient  scientifi c  risk-assessment, which are substantive
 “most favoured nation” or MFN status;  and enforcement of sanitary (human or   ducts treated with pesticides banned   evidence (Article 2.2);  requirements  under the SPS  Agree-
 and (ii) between its own and like  animal life or health) and phytosanitary  MRLs setting in the EU  in the EU.     They do not arbitrarily or unjusti-  ment.  “Theoretical uncertainty is not
 foreign products, giving them “national  (plant  life  or health)  measures which   Pesticides and their residues are regu-  3.  The proposed amendments to the   fi ably  discriminate between Mem-  the  kind of  risk to  be assessed under
 treatment”.  All “like products” are,  may affect trade. The right to adopt the  lated in the EU under the Regulations   MRLs would put the EU farmers at   bers where identical or similar con-  Article 5.1” of the SPS Agreement as held
 by  defi nition,  directly  competitive  or  SPS measures is accompanied by obli-  (EC) No 396/2005 and No 1107/2009.   a competitive  disadvantage when   ditions prevail, including between  by the Appellate Body (AB) Report in
 substitutable products. For example,  gations aimed at minimising  negative  Under these regulations, when a pesti-  compared to the non-EU famers.  their own territory and that of other  the EC-Hormone case, para 186. It fur-
 cotton imported from another country  impacts of the SPS measures on inter-  cide is not authorised for use in the EU   4.  The proposed amendments to the   members and are not applied in a  ther states in para 187 “It is essential
 is a “like product” to the one produced  national trade. The basic obligations are  following either a ban or a withdrawal   MRLs are not compatible with the   manner which would constitute a  to bear in mind that the risk that is to
 domestically and should receive the  that the SPS measures must:  from the EU market, the MRL for that   aim and content of EU’s internal   disguised restriction on international  be evaluated in a risk assessment under
 same  treatment as  the one  produced   substance on imported products is fi xed   Regulations (EC) No. 396/2005 and   trade (Article 2.3);  Article 5.1 is not only risk ascertainable
 locally.     Be applied only to the extent neces-  at an uniform default level of 0.01 ppm   (EC) No. 178/2002, as well as with   They are based on an assessment as  in a science laboratory operating under

 sary to protect human, animal or  (0.01 mg/kg,). This MRL is as good as   Regulation  (EC) No. 1107/2009,   appropriate to the circumstances, of  strictly controlled conditions, but also
 When a measure taken by any WTO   plant life or health and not be more  zero tolerance. This means that the pesti-  including  points 3.6.2, 3.6.4 and   the risks to human life or health, etc.,  the risk in human societies  as they
 Member discriminates between and   trade restrictive than necessary;  cide cannot be used in third countries in   3.6.5 of its Annex II;  arising from the presence of contami-  actually exist …. There must be a rational
 among the “like” traded products,   Be  based  on  scientifi c  principles  production of food or feed destined for   nants in food, beverage or feedstuffs  relationship between the measure and

 either  in favour of domestic  over the   and  not  maintained  without  suffi -  export to the EU.  The EP resolutions can be accessed   (Article 5.1 read with Annex A).  the risk assessed.” None of these fac-
 imported products or favour some foreign   cient scientifi c evidence; and  from:  tors are true for the EU’s hazard-based
 products over others, the  WTO rules   Not constitute arbitrary or unjusti-  Pertinently, 0.01 ppm is equal to 1 gm      https://www.europarl.europa.eu/  Ignoring all  these obligations  and  import tolerance of 0.01 ppm.

 on trade can be invoked.  The  WTO   fiable treatment  or  a disguised  of  a  pesticide residue for  every 100   doceo/document/B-10-2024-0020_  fundamental requirements, the EP
 rules on technical regulations disallow   restriction on international trade.  tonnes of food or feed commodity! At   EN.html  directed imposing a uniform MRL of 0.01   Risk assessment consistent with

 174  Chemical Weekly  October 1, 2024  Chemical Weekly  October 1, 2024                               175


                                      Contents    Index to Advertisers    Index to Products Advertised
   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180