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