Document stages in plenary
Document selected : B8-0556/2018

Texts tabled :

B8-0556/2018

Debates :

Votes :

PV 11/12/2018 - 5.12

Texts adopted :


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
PDF 314kWORD 82k
4.12.2018
PE631.557v01-00
 
B8-0556/2018

pursuant to Rule 106(2), (3) and (4)(c) of the Rules of Procedure


on the draft Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid in certain products (D58389/03 – 2018/2902(RPS))


Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
Members responsible: Sylvie Goddyn, Michèle Rivasi, Frédérique Ries, Guillaume Balas, Younous Omarjee
AMENDMENTS

European Parliament resolution on the draft Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid in certain products (D58389/03 – 2018/2902(RPS))  
B8‑0556/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides(1),

–  having regard to the draft Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for acetamiprid in certain products (D058389/03),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC, and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof (2),

–  having regard to the focused assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of certain existing MRLs of concern for acetamiprid and modification of the existing MRLs for table olives, olives for oil production, barley and oats, published on 16 May 2018(3),

–  having regard to the opinion delivered on 19 September 2018 by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

–  having regard to Article 5a(3)(b) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(4),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

–  having regard to Rule 106(2), (3) and (4)(c) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas acetamiprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide that targets a range of insects, including pollinators;

B.  whereas neonicotinoids, including acetamiprid, are ‘systemic’ insecticides, which means that they are sprayed onto plants, which then absorb the chemicals and distribute them throughout the plant, in the tissue, pollen and nectar; whereas insects are killed by acetamiprid and other systemic insecticides in two different ways: when they come into contact with the pesticide, for example when they are sprayed with it, and when they ingest plant which has been exposed to the pesticide;

C.  whereas neonicotinoids are known to be extremely toxic to honey bees owing to systemic translocation, which led the Commission to prohibit three of them;

D.  whereas on 21 September 2017, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion on the toxicity of neonicotinoids;

E.  whereas on 28 February 2018 EFSA published risk assessment updates for three neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – confirming that most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides pose a risk to wild bees and honeybees;

F.  whereas acetamiprid is one of five neonicotinoids banned by France, along with thiacloprid and the three neonicotinoids that are banned in the Union as a whole;

G.  whereas acetamiprid is metabolised in the human body and produces a derivative that can accumulate (N-desmethyl-acetamiprid), and its presence is linked to symptoms of intoxication(5);

H.  whereas several recent studies suggest that acetamiprid has an endocrine-disrupting effect(6), (7), an impact on neurodevelopment(8), (9), and neurotoxicity(10), genotoxicity(11) and immunotoxicity(12) effects;

I.  whereas Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) sets out the precautionary principle as one of the fundamental principles of the Union;

J.  whereas Article 168(1) TFEU states that ‘a high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities’;

K.  whereas Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council aims to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides in the Union by reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment and by promoting the use of integrated pest management (IPM) and alternative approaches or techniques, such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides;

L.  whereas although the Commission has recognised the existence of serious problems(13) as regards the democratic legitimacy of the decision-making process in relation to pesticides and their use, it continues to propose the authorisation of neonicotinoids;

M.  whereas the Commission’s proposal to increase the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for acetamiprid risks giving rise to a new case of non-respect for the precautionary principle, in view of the persistent doubts about the effects of acetamiprid on public health and the environment;

N.  whereas EFSA’s comments on the request to raise the MRLs for acetamiprid for table olives and olives intended for oil production demonstrate that no environmental impact assessment, not least on pollinators, was carried out;

O.  whereas EFSA’s conclusions in its opinion of 16 May 2018 are formulated on the basis of theoretical considerations, particularly as regards the estimation of the maximum daily intake; whereas the theoretical nature of some aspects of EFSA’s analysis raises doubts about its ability to rely on empirical facts and, as a consequence, to represent reality in its results;

P.  whereas EFSA concludes that there is an ‘unlikely’ risk to public health from an increase in the MRLs of acetamiprid; whereas, however, this verdict involves a degree of probability and therefore leaves some doubt as to the effective safety of the new MRL values;

Q.  whereas in its opinion of 16 May 2018, EFSA recommends trebling MRLs for table olives and olives for oil production, as stated in the summary table in Annex I hereto, but does not provide proper evidence showing that doing so would not entail a risk for the environment, in particular for pollinators;

R.  whereas acetamiprid has been used on a mass scale to contain the Xyllela fastidiosa crisis that has affected southern Europe since 2013, by targeting the vector spreading the bacterium and not the bacterium itself; whereas while there is no known cure for the trees affected, there are alternatives to combat the spread of the olive-killing Xylella fastidiosa bacterium, such as the use of hyperspectral and thermal camera devices to detect the disease before symptoms become visible(14), the quarantining of trees, and the removal of diseased trees;

1.  Opposes adoption of the draft Commission regulation;

2.  Considers that the draft Commission regulation exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005;  

3.  Considers that the draft Commission regulation is not compatible with the aim and content of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005;

4.  Notes that the existing EU MRL of acetamiprid for table olives and olives intended for oil production will increase from 0.9 to 3 mg/kg;

5.  Suggests that the EU MRL of acetamiprid for table olives and olives intended for oil production should instead be reduced to 0.5 mg/kg, as stated in the table in Annex II;

6.  Stresses that raising the MRL to 3 mg/kg would mean spraying at least four times more acetamiprid on trees and olives;

7.  Considers that the decision to register acetamiprid cannot be justified, as there is insufficient evidence to suggest that unacceptable risks to animals, food safety and pollinators will be prevented;

8.  Considers that the increase in toxicity to pollinators is the result of a cocktail effect(15) from the use of multiple pesticides and insecticides, including acetamiprid;

9.  Notes that the use of acetamiprid to target insects as a pesticide could affect pollinators(16);

10.  Considers that the draft Commission regulation provides for a possible future increase in acetamiprid levels in table olives and olives for oil production;

11  Considers that EFSA’s opinion did not take into account the risk to human health and bees; calls on the Member States and EFSA to exercise greater vigilance towards the health of the public and pollinators when evaluating applications for MRLs;

12.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw the draft Commission regulation;

13.  Calls on the Commission to submit a new act on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which respects the precautionary principle;

14.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

ANNEX I

 

Focussed review of the existing maximum residue levels for acetamiprid, EFSA Journal

 

B.4.

Proposed MRLs

 

Code Number (a)

 

Commodity

 

Existing

EU MRL (mg/kg)

Outcome of the assessment

MRL

(mg/kg)

Comment

Enforcement residue definition : acetamiprid

1300010

Apples

0.8

0.4

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

1300020

Pears

0.8

0.4

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

140030

Peaches

0.8

0.2

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

242020

Head cabbages

0.7

0.4

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

243010

Chinese cabbages

1.5

-

Fall-back MRL could not be proposed (c)

243020

Kales

1.5

-

Fall-back MRL could not be proposed (c)

251020

Lettuces

3

1.5

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

251030

Escaroles/Broad-leaved endives

1.5

0.4

Tentative fall-back MRL is Proposed (d)

252010

Spinaches

5

0.6

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

252020

Purslanes

3

0.6

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

252030

Chards/beet leaves

3

0.6

Fall-back MRL is proposed (b)

270030

Celeries

1.5

-

Fall-back MRL could not be proposed (e)

161030

Table olives

0.9

3

New intended EU uses are sufficiently supported by data and no risk for consumers has been identified

402010

Olives for oil production

0.9

3

500010

Barley grains

0.01*

0.05

 

500050

Oat grains

0.01*

0.05

 

-

Other products of plant origin

See Regulation 2017/626

See Regulation 2017/626

Existing MRLs can be maintained (f)

Enforcement residue definition: sum of acetamiprid and N-desmethyl acetamiprid, expressed as acetamiprid

-

Other products of animal origin

See Regulation 2017/626

See Regulation 2017/626

Existing MRLs can be maintained (g)

MRL: Maximum residue level

* indicates that the MRL is set at the limit of quantification

a)  Commodity code number, as listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

b)  The existing EU MRL was identified as a potential MRL of concern. Data supporting a fall-back MRL were submitted by MSs and no risk to consumers is identified for this fall-back MRL.

c)  The existing EU MRL was identified as a potential MRL of concern. No uses are currently authorised in the EU that could be considered to derive a fall-back MRL. EFSA proposes to lower the MRL to the appropriate limit of quantification (LOQ) and to withdraw the relevant authorisations within the EU.

d)  The existing EU MRL was identified as a potential MRL of concern. Data supporting a fall-back MRL were submitted by MSs and no risk to consumers is identified for this fall-back MRL. Nevertheless the derived fall-back MRL should be confirmed by the submission of additional data.

e)  The existing EU MRL was identified as a potential MRL of concern. Residue data supporting the fall-back good agricultural practices (GAPs) were not available and a fall-back MRL cannot be derived. EFSA proposes to lower the MRL to the appropriate LOQ and to withdraw the relevant authorisations within the EU.

f)  The existing EU MRL was not identified as a potential MRL of concern.

g)  The existing EU MRL was not identified as a potential MRL of concern. Moreover the withdrawal of the most critical existing uses on kale and apples and the intended uses on barley and oats are not expected to have an impact on the MRLs calculated for livestock.

 

 

 

 

ANNEX II

 

 

New proposed MRLs:

 

Code number

Commodity

Existing EU MRL (mg/Kg)

New proposed MRL (mg/Kg)

Comment

161030

Table olives

0.9

0.5

Fall-back MRL is proposed

402010

Olives for oil production

0.9

0.5

Fall-back MRL is proposed

 

 

(1)

OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71.

(2)

OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1.

(3)

DOI:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5262, EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5262.

(4)

OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.

(5)

Marfo, J. T., Fujioka, K., Ikenaka, Y., Nakayama, S. M. M., Mizukawa, H., Aoyama, Y., et al., ‘Relationship between Urinary N-Desmethyl-Acetamiprid and Typical Symptoms including Neurological Findings: A Prevalence Case-Control Study’, PLOS ONE 10(11): e0142172, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142172

(6)

Teramaya, H., et al., ‘Effect of acetamiprid on the immature murine testes’, 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30103633

(7)

Kong, D., et al., ‘Acetamiprid inhibits testosterone synthesis by affecting the mitochondrial function and cytoplasmic adenosine triphosphate production in rat Leydig cells’, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28395332

(8)

Kagawa, N. and Nagao, T., ‘Neurodevelopmental toxicity in the mouse neocortex following prenatal exposure to acetamiprid’, 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30047162

(9)

Terayama, H., et al., ‘Acetamiprid Accumulates in Different Amounts in Murine Brain Regions’, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5086676/

(10)

Çamlıca, Y., et al., ‘Toxic effect of acetamiprid on Rana ridibunda sciatic nerve (electrophysiological and histopathological potential)’, 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29536770

(11)

Şenyildiz, M., et al., ‘Investigation of the genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of widely used neonicotinoid insecticides in HepG2 and SH-SY5Y cells’, 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29591886

(12)

Marzouki, S., et al., ‘Specific immune responses in mice following subchronic exposure to acetamiprid, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28843496

(13)

On 27 April 2018, Member States’ representatives in a Standing Committee backed a Commission proposal to further restrict the use of the three neonicotinoids imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, a scientific review of which (https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/180228) concluded that their outdoor use harms bees. The protection of bees is an important issue for the Commission since it concerns biodiversity, food production and the environment. On the initiative of President Juncker, for whom this is a priority, the College of Commissioners discussed the issue on 29 March 2017. The restrictions agreed surpassed the measures that had been in place since 2013. All outdoor use of the three substances was banned and the neonicotinoids in question were permitted only in permanent greenhouses where no contact with bees is expected. The Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis, welcomed the vote, stressing that ‘the Commission had proposed these measures months ago, on the basis of the scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority. Bee health remains of paramount importance for me since it concerns biodiversity, food production and the environment’.

(14)

‘Previsual symptoms of Xylella fastidiosa infection revealed in spectral plant-trait alterations’, in Nature Plants, Vol. 4, pp. 432-439, 25 June 2018, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0189-7

(15)

Traynor, K. S., Pettis, J. S., Tarpy, D. R., Mullin, C. A., Frazier, J. L., Frazier, M., van Engeldsorp, D., ‘In-hive Pesticide Exposome: Assessing risks to migratory honey bees from in-hive pesticide contamination in the Eastern United States’, in Scientific Reports 6, 15 September 2016, http://www.nature.com/articles/srep33207

(16)

El Hassani, A. K., Dacher, M., Gary, V., Lambin, M., Gauthier, M., Armengaud, C., ‘Effets sublétaux de l’Acétamipride et du Thiamethoxam sur le comportement de l’abeille (Apis mellifera)’, 23 May 2014, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255636607_Effets_subletaux_de_l%27Acetamipride_et_du_Thiamethoxam_sur_le_comportement_de_l%27abeille_Apis_mellifera

Last updated: 6 December 2018Legal notice