Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
| DOI | 10.1126/science.abj9226 |
| EU Court to rule on banned pesticide use | |
| Yaffa Epstein; Guillaume Chapron; François Verheggen | |
| 2021-07-16 | |
| 发表期刊 | Science
 |
| 出版年 | 2021 |
| 英文摘要 | In 2013, after evidence demonstrated the adverse effects of neonicotinoids on bees ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2]), the European Commission limited the use of clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid outside of permanent greenhouses. After an evaluation, these bans were strengthened in 2018 ([ 3 ][3]). In May, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the legality of these bans ([ 4 ][4]). However, this decision does not address a loophole used by many EU member states to continue to permit the use of neonicotinoids.
EU member states have relied on a provision in the EU pesticide regulation that allows the short-term authorization of pesticides in “emergency situations” where “such a measure appears necessary because of a danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means” ([ 5 ][5]). The regulation does not further define what constitutes an emergency. Given this lack of explicit constraints, several member states allow the “emergency authorization” of banned neonicotinoids for major crops, particularly sugar beets, on a recurring basis ([ 6 ][6]).
The Court of Justice of the EU will soon interpret what constitutes an emergency in a case that could substantially affect both agricultural practices and the conservation of pollinating insects in Europe ([ 7 ][7]). Important questions in this case include whether the use of pesticide-coated seeds in outdoor crops can be considered an emergency measure (in light of the fact that the use of such seeds implies that the prospective danger is not unexpected); whether foreseeable, common, or cyclical threats to plants, such as annual pest occurrence, can constitute an emergency; and the extent to which costs can be considered in determining whether an alternate means of pest control is “reasonable.” It is almost by definition difficult to define “emergency,” given that the word implies an element of the unknown, but in this legal context, it must be construed restrictively.
Allowing emergency derogation when the harm to be prevented is regular and foreseeable, and alternative means of preventing the harm are available ([ 8 ][8]), undermines both the ban and the intent of the pesticide regulation. Instead, it is incumbent on Member States to require and support alternative methods of pest control.
1. [↵][9]1. P. R. Whitehorn et al
., Science 336, 351 (2012).
[OpenUrl][10][Abstract/FREE Full Text][11]
2. [↵][12]1. M. Henry et al
., Science 336, 348 (2012).
[OpenUrl][13][Abstract/FREE Full Text][14]
3. [↵][15]European Food Safety Authority, “Neonicotinoids: risks to bees confirmed” (2018); [www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/180228][16].
4. [↵][17] Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer AG v. European Commission (Case C-499/18 P, 2021).
5. [↵][18]“Consolidated text: Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market” (2021); Article 53; |
| 领域 | 气候变化 ; 资源环境 |
| URL | 查看原文 |
| 引用统计 | |
| 文献类型 | 期刊论文 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/334330 |
| 专题 | 气候变化 资源环境科学 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Yaffa Epstein,Guillaume Chapron,François Verheggen. EU Court to rule on banned pesticide use[J]. Science,2021. |
| APA | Yaffa Epstein,Guillaume Chapron,&François Verheggen.(2021).EU Court to rule on banned pesticide use.Science. |
| MLA | Yaffa Epstein,et al."EU Court to rule on banned pesticide use".Science (2021). |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
修改评论