Inside U.S. Trade - 07/25/2014
EU Lays Out 'Endocrine Disruptor' Criteria Options, Setting Stage For Fight
Posted: July 24, 2014
After
months of delay, the European Commission late last month revealed the
options it is weighing for how to define a class of substances known as
"endocrine disruptors" that affect human hormones, initiating another
round in a fight over an issue that U.S. pesticides and chemicals makers
warn has major ramifications for transatlantic trade.
Depending
on how EU regulators craft the definition, the term "endocrine
disruptor" could sweep in dozens of products and subject them to
marketing bans or other restrictions under European laws.
CropLife
America, which represents pesticides makers, has warned that a broad
definition could cause massive trade disruptions for major U.S. exports
of agricultural goods because it would capture the insecticidal products
with which crops like tree nuts, fruits, soybeans and peanuts are
treated (Inside U.S. Trade, Nov. 15, 2013).
The
commission is also considering proposing amendments to EU legislation
known as the Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR) that would
alter the consequences of a pesticide product being classified as an
endocrine disruptor, although any such changes are unlikely in the near
term (see related story).
The
EU revealed the criteria options it is weighing in a June 17 "roadmap"
on how it could move forward in regulating endocrine disruptors. The
roadmap offers a preview of a questionnaire the commission is expected
to issue in September seeking public comment on the best approach.
Under
the PPPR and a separate law known as the Biocidal Products Regulation,
which governs products like herbicides and fungicides also used on
crops, the European Commission was supposed to issue criteria for what
constitutes an "endocrine disruptor" by the end of 2013.
But
after facing a huge industry outcry, the commission decided to hold off
and initiate a public consultation period, in addition to conducting
its own assessment of the impact of each possible option.
Since
the PPPR's entry into force, the European Commission has relied upon
"interim criteria" that identify substances as endocrine disruptors if
they have a negative impact on reproductive capabilities. Scientific
experts on both sides of the debate say that this approach is blunt and
inaccurate because it focuses on adverse symptoms that may or may not be
mediated through the endocrine system, and ignores the possibility that
they are caused by other maladies.
The
new roadmap lays out four options for how to define criteria going
forward: leaving in place the current interim criteria; adopting a
definition established by the World Health Organization's International
Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS); using an expanded adaptation of the
WHO/IPCS definition; or conversely tweaking the WHO/IPCS definition in
such a way that would further narrow the scope of affected products.
Generally
speaking, the WHO/IPCS definition would only categorize a substance as
an "endocrine disruptor" if there is concrete evidence that it produces
an endocrine-mediated adverse effect. Non-governmental groups critical
of the pesticides industry argue that this approach is not sufficiently
precautionary, especially given continuing disagreement within the
scientific community about how endocrine disruptors affect humans.
Angeliki Lysimachou, an expert on endocrine disruptors for Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe, said in an interview with Inside U.S. Trade that
she would prefer the expanded WHO/IPCS definition foreseen in the
roadmap, which would create additional "categories" of endocrine
disruptors.
Under
this approach, substances with proven adverse effects along with
"suspected" endocrine disruptors and "endocrine active" substances would
all be captured, imposing restrictions on a broader range of products.
The roadmap document, however, indicates that the commission foresees
implementing differing degrees of restrictive measures depending on
which category a substance falls into.
How the criteria are set will have broader ramifications beyond the pesticides industry. Other
pieces of EU legislation governing biocides, cosmetics and industrial
chemicals, for example, also place restrictions on substances identified
as endocrine disruptors. The PPPR and the Biocidal Product Regulation
uniquely required the commission to set criteria for what constitutes an
endocrine disruptor, but the commission has said it will apply any
criteria horizontally across all different pieces of relevant
legislation.
This
has especially alarmed the cosmetics industry because of a ban on
animal testing it has faced since 2013 under the EU Cosmetics
Regulation. Instead, cosmetics firms have to rely on "in vitro" tests --
essentially done on a collection of cells in a petri dish -- to test
for potentially harmful effects.
But
according to industry experts, determining whether something is an
endocrine disruptor requires an analysis of how a substance interacts
with a complete endocrine system and therefore cannot be assessed
through in vitro testing.
The
industry fears a definition that captures substances that do not have
demonstrated adverse effects could potentially rope in a range of
ingredients currently in use based on existing data, but without any way
to prove that they do not have adverse effects. This would stigmatize
those products and chill innovation of new ingredient, they argue.
In
a February 2014 public submission to the European Commission on the
issue, the industry group Cosmetics Europe called for the commission to
adopt the WHO/IPCS definition and not broaden it to include other
sub-categories. The commission roadmap also warns that because of the
ban animal testing for cosmetics ingredients, an expanded WHO/IPCS
definition could mean substances would be permanently listed as
"endocrine active."
The
Cosmetics Regulation, however, does not spell out specific restrictions
related to endocrine disurptors, as the PPPR does. Instead, it states
that when "[EU] or internationally agreed criteria for identifying
substances with endocrine-disrupting properties are available, or at the
latest on 11 January 2015, the Commission shall review this Regulation
with regard to substances with endocrine-disrupting properties."
Inside U.S. Trade - 07/25/2014, Vol. 32, No. 30
No comments:
Post a Comment