html5-img
1 / 9

Current vs. future

Current vs. future. Current system Products are risk assessed, looking at all the risks . Products authorised only if these risks are considered acceptable. A sensible system that has worked well for many years! Commission Proposal:

wallace
Télécharger la présentation

Current vs. future

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Current vs. future • Current system Products are risk assessed, looking at all the risks. Products authorised only if these risks are considered acceptable. • A sensible system that has worked well for many years! • Commission Proposal: Substances will be banned when they have particular properties – even if the associated risk is very low!! • European Parliament Plenary Vote: More extreme position –meaning the loss of many safe products!!

  2. What impact...? • Many active substances already lost since the early ‘90’s • And the impact of losing two thirds of what is left??? 1000 800 Number 600 Existing Compounds 400 200 New Compounds 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Year Source: European Commission

  3. What impact...? • Insecticides –% substances that would be lost if: • Parliament proposal – would be a ban on: • All pyrethroids, • All organophosphates • All carbamates • Most neonicitinoides

  4. What impact...? • Fungicides – % substances that would be lost if: • Parliament proposal – would be a ban on: • All triazoles • All dithiocarbamates • A number of Strobulorins

  5. What impact...? • Herbicides – % substances that would be lost if: • Parliament proposal – would be a ban on: • All dinitroanalines • All pyridines • And ‘FOPs’ would be at risk

  6. Cut offs proposed – More detail! • Commission Proposal: Substances will be banned when they have particular properties • Endocrine disruptors • CMR-1/2 - Substances that may have carcinogenic (C), mutagenic (M) or reprotoxic(R) characteristics • Note: Alcohol is an endocrine disruptor, as well as being a C, an M and an R • POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) – trigger criteria set out for Persistency, Bio-accumulation and potential for long-range transport • PBT – trigger criteria for Persistency, Bio-accumulation and Toxicity • vPvB - trigger criteria for very Persistent and very Bio-accumulative • European Parliament Plenary Vote: More extreme position – meaning the loss of many safe products!! • Trigger only 1 of the 4 POPs criteria (Persistent Organic Pollutants) – see above • This criteria alone would mean the loss of over half of our substances • Developmental Neurotoxic • immunotoxicity, • bee toxicity... • The Parliament criteria would have the biggest impact on insecticides!

  7. More detailed information Results of survey – each criteria 210 substances evaluated: • 3% (poss.7%) trigger CMR 1&2 (‘R’ up to 6%) • 15% (poss.20%) trigger neurotoxicity (developmental?) • <1% trigger immunotoxicity • 55% (poss.70%) trigger 1 out of 4 POP criteria (‘T’ approx 50%); • <1% trigger all 4 criteria (Comm proposal) • <1% trigger PBT & vPvB • 3% (poss.20%) trigger endocrine disruption (human & env.) • 15% (poss.20%) trigger toxicity to bees criteria (HQ>50)

  8. Endocrine disruptors(DHI report for EU Commission, May 2007)

  9. Endocrine disruptors

More Related