92003E1320

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1320/03

by Richard Balfe (PPE-DE), John Bowis (PPE-DE),Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 April 2003)

Subject: Clarification of the status of fenthion with regard to safety and Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC

In answer to Written Question E-3811/02(1), Commissioner Byrne on behalf of the Commission states that the Scientific Committee on Plants determined in December 2002 that new toxicological information on fenthion had not altered

the Committee's previous opinion regarding the mutagenic properties of fenthion, that the chemical is unlikely to pose a risk of delayed neurotoxicity in humans, but that despite a change of the application method and the provision of new studies, risks to birds from the proposed use of fenthion are very uncertain and that therefore the concerns raised in the Committee's previous opinion remain unresolved.

What change in the application method is the Commission referring to? Is the aerial spraying of fenthion legal under Community law and what methods of application are consistent with the indications that fenthion is unlikely to pose a risk of delayed neurotoxicity in humans?

Can the Commission confirm that as things stand fenthion has not been included on the Community's list of accepted active substances in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC(2) of 15 July 1991 and, if so, does the Commission have discretion on whether to include it on the list so long as there are doubts about the risks to birds or other forms of wildlife?

Regarding the precautionary principle, the Commission states that a plant protection product can only be authorised provided it is demonstrated, in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, that its residues and its use, consequent on application consistent with good plant protection practice, does not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

Given that, by the Commission's own admission, the risks to birds from the proposed use of fenthion are uncertain, why has the Commission not invoked the precautionary principle in this instance?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 148.

(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2003)

In the Commission's answer to Written Question E-3811/02 by Mr Tannock, it was concluded that the Commission will follow the procedures established in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(1). It further indicated that after all consultations had been finalised, the Commission would forward a proposal for a decision on fenthion to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health as soon as possible and most likely at its meeting in April 2003.

The change in application method that the Commission mentioned in that earlier reply refers to use as a spray bait application. Such an application method implies that only a part of about one third of the trees are treated from the ground. With regard to delayed neurotoxicity (neuropathy) in humans, scientific evidence did not confirm the former assumption that fenthion could give rise to this effect.

On 14 and 15 April 2003, the Commission discussed with the Member States a draft proposal for the non-inclusion of fenthion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. A further discussion is planned in the Committee at its next meeting in June 2003.

The Commission maintains the opinion that legislation on plant protection products takes into account the precautionary principle as a product can only be authorized provided it is demonstrated, in the light of current scientific and technical knowledge, that it does not have any harmful effects on human or animal health or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

(1) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992.