Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'Documents regarding endocrine disruptors DG TRADE'.






Ref. Ares(2015)2559996 - 18/06/2015
Ref. Ares(2017)676538 - 07/02/2017
[Art. 4.1(b)] /24631 
2 February 2015 
[Art. 4.1(b)]
Euros Jones
DG Trade 
Director Regulatory Affairs
European Commission 
Telephone : [Art. 4.1(b)]
200 Rue de la Loi 
Email :
B-1049 Brussels 
Dear [Art. 4.1(b)]
Delays in the evaluation of applications for import tolerances in the EU 
We are writing to you to highlight a recent development in the setting of pesticide residue import 
tolerances which has the potential to unnecessarily impact on trade. While this issue has been 
discussed with DG SANTE, we are now raising the issue specifically with DG Trade and we 
would ask that this issue be further reviewed within the Commission.  
DG SANTE have indicated that “…import tolerance requests should not be evaluated […] until evidence 
has been provided that the respective use is authorised in the exporting country and that the MRL 
proposed as an import tolerance is not higher than the one established in the country of origin.
”1 
As the EU process of setting import tolerances currently takes an average of 26 months, the 
proposed way forward will potentially impact trade with the concerned products being affected for 
two seasons. In turn this leads to a number of practical and legal concerns. From a legal point of 
view, the refusal of EFSA to evaluate IT applications does not appear to be in line with Regulation 
396/2005, in particular Article 11.1 which states that “The Authority shall give its reasoned opinion as 
provided for in Article 10 as soon as possible and at the latest within three months from the date of receipt 
of the application.”
 
It should also be highlighted that Maximum Residue Levels are required before such an use can 
be authorized in the EU. This is therefore completely the opposite to the suggested process for 
import tolerances which would require an authorization before an MRL (IT) could be set. 
As an industry, it is our aim to ensure that European MRLs are in place where possible, providing 
the required trading standards to ensure an equal system for EU and third country farmers. 
However, import tolerances are sometimes necessary where a product use is not required within 
the EU. For such situations, we would ask that a system is put in place which is equivalent to the 
system for European uses and that is compatible with relevant international trade rules. For 
instance, the SPS agreement requires to use scientific justifications for measures impeding trade 
and Members to consider the use of a relevant international standard as the basis for allowing 
import access until they have made a final safety determination. 
We would welcome the opportunity to further discus this issue with you. 
Yours sincerely 
[Art. 4.1(b)]
Euros Jones 
Director Regulatory Affairs 
Cc: 
[Art. 4.1(b)]
DG SANCO 
DG Trade 
1 Ref. Ares(2014)3859526 - 19/11/2014