Compromise apparently agreed by EU for anticoagulant rodenticides

LinkedIn +

The key vote by the European Parliament ENVI Committee regarding the future of all anticoagulant rodenticides was held on 22 June.

As readers will be aware – see previous report – the meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI Committee) which was originally scheduled for 2 June 2010 was put back to 22 June. This was due mainly to the number (exceeding 500) of amendments put forward. If approved as originally presented, it would effectively have removed anticoagulant rodenticides from the European market place.

The proposed legislation will replace existing rules from 1998. It aims to better harmonise the rules on approving and using biocides, while complementing the latest pesticides and REACH chemical legislation. The report by European Parliament rapporteur Christa Klass (EPP, DE) was adopted by the Environment Committee with 47 votes in favour, five against and six abstentions.

The concerted lobbying campaign undertaken by all sectors of the pest control industry around Europe must be congratulated on the success of their efforts.

In the official press release – click here to view – it states:

“Substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction are already banned. MEPs want the new legislation to tighten up the rules on endocrine disruptors (interfering with hormones) or persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances and persistent organic pollutants.

However, MEPs also clarified that it should be possible to allow a substance at national level if, due to the absence of effective alternatives, banning it would pose a serious danger to health or the environment. Anticoagulants commonly used in rat poisons, for example, would be allowed by this provision. The authorisation of these substances would be subject to risk mitigation measures and a substitution plan, whereby efforts would be made to find alternatives.”

At first sight this could be seen as something of a compromise. However, as ever, the ‘devil is in the detail’. Quite what the practical effects will be have yet to be unravelled.

Watch out for further details brought to you by Pest publications once they become clearer.

Share this story:

About Author