SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS – EUROPEAN UNION MAXIMUM RESIDUE LEVELS (MRLS),
EUROPEAN LEGISLATION ON ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS AND IMPORT TOLERANCES
FOR CERTAIN PESTICIDES TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL
OUTCOMES IN THIRD COUNTRIES

– STC NOS. 448, 382 AND 534

COMMUNICATION FROM COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, GUATEMALA AND PARAGUAY

The following communication, received on 11 November 2024, is being circulated at the request of the delegations of Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay.

Further to document _G/SPS/GEN/2212, and document _G/SPS/GEN/2238, the latter of which does not satisfactorily deal with the concerns raised in the former, the delegations of Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay submit the following comments and supplementary questions.

_______________

1.  Given that document _G/SPS/GEN/2238 does not include information on emergency authorizations, could the European Union clarify why an emergency authorization would be necessary for substances already approved for use and for which there is already an MRL

2.  The European Union has explained that, even in cases where EFSA concludes that an MRL based on an import tolerance is safe, the regulation prepared by the Commission to establish or modify the relevant MRL must be submitted, for vote and subsequent approval or rejection, to three separate political bodies: SCoPAFF, Council and Parliament, In this regard, we repeat our request to the European Union to explain:

a._    whether these political bodies can reject an import tolerance for reasons unrelated to food safety; and

b._    what, specifically, those reasons would be.

3.  If an import tolerance is duly supported by scientific data and is safe for consumers, how would failure to approve it be consistent with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement?

4.  In question 4 of document _G/SPS/GEN/2212, reference was made to an import tolerance request submitted by Brazil which was not endorsed by the SCoPAFF, nor by the Council, or by the Parliament. Given the failure to reply to this question, we repeat the request to the European Union to confirm in how many cases import tolerances were rejected for substances for which the proposed MLR was supported by scientific evidence and was safe for consumers.

5.  Since question 5 of document _G/SPS/GEN/2212 also remained unanswered, we repeat the request that the European Union update the number of emergency authorizations and import tolerances requested and rejected to date, as well as the average time for processing such requests.

6.  We also once again request the European Union to kindly indicate whether any import tolerance request has been made for MRLs set with environmental objectives.

7.  We reiterate question 7 of document _G/SPS/GEN/2212 on requests for import tolerances for neonicotinoids. If it is shown, with scientific evidence, that the use of such neonicotinoids does not adversely impact pollinators, can the import tolerance be rejected for other reasons not related to the risks for pollinators? How would this be consistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement?

8.  Given that the granting of emergency authorizations is the responsibility of member States, could the European Union member States provide detailed information on the number of emergency authorizations granted and subsequently renewed, as well as information on the procedure, cost and average processing time for these authorizations?

9.  We repeat our request to the European Union for information on the follow‑up with the Czech Republic on the emergency authorization granted by the latter for the outdoor use of thiamethoxam (an authorization inconsistent with Article 53 of Regulation 1107/2009, as interpreted by the Court of Justice). We also ask the European Union to report on how it intends to address cases similar to that of the Czech Republic in the future.

10.  According to the information contained in document _G/SPS/GEN/2139, the European Commission mandated EFSA to develop fit‑for‑purpose protocols for evaluating emergency authorizations, starting with a protocol for insecticides and acaricides by May 2025. We repeat our request that the European Union clarify the following:

a._    Will the criteria to be established in these protocols also apply to the evaluation of import tolerances?

b._    If these protocols are not currently in place, which parameters form the basis for Member States' opinions?

11.  On 18 November 2021, EFSA published a news item on its web page entitled "Neonicotinoids: EFSA assesses emergency uses on sugar beet in 2020/21", in which reference was made to a protocol published in 2017 for evaluating requests for use of an insecticide. In the light of this publication, we reiterate the following questions:

a._    Is it correct that an EFSA protocol for insecticides already exists, which was used for the sugar beet evaluation in 2021?

b._    Could the European Union indicate whether this protocol has been applied to import tolerance evaluations?

c._    Could the European Union also clarify its reply, given in document _G/SPS/GEN/2139, in which it refers to the development of fit‑for‑purpose protocols, starting with a protocol for insecticides and acaracides by May 2025?

__________