Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. serves small, medium, and large pesticide product registrants and other stakeholders in the agricultural and biocidal sectors, in virtually every aspect of pesticide law, policy, science, and regulation.

By Timothy D. Backstrom and Kelly N. Garson

On December 6, 2019, the European Union (EU) announced that it will no longer permit sales of chlorpyrifos after January 31, 2020.  The Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee) voted in favor of two draft Implementing Regulations that denied the renewal of approvals for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl.  The European Commission is expected to formally adopt the regulations in January 2020.  At that time, Member States will need to withdraw authorizations for products containing chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl as active substances and may implement a grace period, at a maximum of three months, for final storage, disposal, and use of the substances.

The ban in the EU follows increased concerns over the human health effects of the substances.  On August 2, 2019, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a report concluding that no safe exposure level could be determined for chlorpyrifos and that based upon available data, the approval criteria under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for human health were not met.  EFSA also published an updated statement reiterating the same conclusion for chlorpyrifos-methyl on November 26, 2019.  EFSA’s primary health concerns were potential developmental neurotoxicity based on the available animal data and epidemiological evidence, and unresolved concerns regarding potential genotoxicity.  EFSA also concluded that toxicological reference values could not be established for either of these effects, thereby precluding a valid risk assessment for consumers, workers, or bystanders.

Prior to the PAFF Committee meeting, eight EU states had already banned or never approved the use of chlorpyrifos.  Canada proposed a ban of chlorpyrifos on May 31, 2019.  (More information on this proposal is available in our blog post).

Within the United States, state governments have taken steps to regulate chlorpyrifos.  On June 13, 2018, Hawaii passed an act that banned the use of pesticides containing chlorpyrifos as an active ingredient beginning January 1, 2019.

Several recent actions in California culminated in a ban on chlorpyrifos.  First, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) decided that chlorpyrifos should be designated as a Toxic Air Contaminant.  This action was based primarily on a point of departure derived from new animal studies that report neurodevelopmental effects well below the level that inhibits cholinesterase.  On August 14, 2019, DPR issued cancellation notices for chlorpyrifos products based primarily on the same new animal data.  DPR subsequently announced on October 9, 2019, an agreement with pesticide manufacturers to end the sale of chlorpyrifos by February 6, 2020.  Growers will not be able to possess or use chlorpyrifos products in the state after December 31, 2020.

In New York State (NYS), recent efforts to ban the substance through legislation were unsuccessful.  On December 10, 2019, NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo vetoed a bill passed by the NYS Legislature (A.2477/S.5343) to phase out chlorpyrifos from use by December 1, 2021.  Governor Cuomo stated that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation is responsible for taking regulatory action on the issue, but recommended that the agency implement its own phased-in ban of chlorpyrifos.

On the federal level, chlorpyrifos products remain registered and have been since 1965.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken measures to restrict the use of chlorpyrifos within households and on particular crops, but some non-governmental organizations (NGO) have long advocated that chlorpyrifos should be banned in its entirety.  On September 12, 2007, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition requesting that EPA revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos.  EPA’s failure to respond fully to this petition was the subject of several decisions in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court ultimately issued a writ of mandamus requiring that EPA take final action concerning the petition.

At one point, EPA proposed to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos.  This action was based in part on a controversial determination that EPA should reinstate the default safety factor for tolerance assessments under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) for all organophosphate (OP) pesticides.  This determination was based on developmental neurotoxicity associated with chlorpyrifos exposure in certain epidemiology studies.  After further deliberation and a change of administrations, EPA issued an order denying the 2007 petition in its entirety on March 29, 2017, based in part on a conclusion stating that further evaluation was needed to properly assess potential neurodevelopmental effects of chlorpyrifos.  EPA later issued a final order that denied all objections to the March 2017 petition denial order.  A number of NGOs (including the original petitioners) and several states have challenged this decision, filing petitions on August 8 and August 9, 2019, respectively for judicial review of EPA’s final order retaining tolerances and registrations for chlorpyrifos.  EPA has stated that it intends to complete its evaluation of the epidemiology studies for chlorpyrifos, as well as the new animal data relied on by California, in the context of the pending registration review of chlorpyrifos under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 3(g).  A final registration review decision concerning chlorpyrifos is due by October 1, 2022, although EPA has stated that it intends to accelerate that process.  More information on the petitions and chlorpyrifos is available on our blog.

Commentary

At this juncture, the long-term impact of the gradual accumulation of adverse decisions on chlorpyrifos from EFSA and various other governmental agencies is uncertain.  Most user groups in the United States continue to describe chlorpyrifos as an essential agricultural tool.  Some commodities treated with chlorpyrifos are destined for export markets where chlorpyrifos has been banned, however, and the impacts of this change will need to be monitored closely.

EPA’s interpretation of the epidemiology studies for chlorpyrifos remains controversial in the scientific community.  Indeed, although the EFSA conclusion is predicated in part on these epidemiology studies that are the basis of the controversial EPA interpretation, the wording of the EFSA report indicates that there were some dissenters.  Moreover, the extension of EPA’s FQPA determination for chlorpyrifos to other organophosphate (OP) pesticides has never been satisfactorily explained.

The NGOs and states that have challenged EPA’s final order refusing to revoke the tolerances and cancel the registrations for chlorpyrifos will argue that the final order cannot be reconciled with EPA’s prior scientific determinations.  Even if EPA can successfully rebut those arguments, there is also a possibility that EPA’s own review of the new animal chlorpyrifos studies may obviate that controversy.  On balance, the remaining manufacturers and registrations for chlorpyrifos are likely to confront a variety of challenges in the coming months.


 

By Lisa R. Burchi

On March 7, 2019, in the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU), the Eighth Chamber of the General Court issued two judgments in cases regarding access of confidential information related to glyphosate.  One of these decisions (Tweedale v. EFSA, Case T-716/14) related to a 2014 request for two toxicity studies that were “key studies” in the determination of glyphosate’s acceptable daily intake (ADI).  The second decision (Hautala et al. v. EFSA, Case T-329/17) related to a request from Members of the European Parliament for access to parts (i.e., “material, experimental conditions and methods” and “results and discussions”) of 12 unpublished carcinogenicity studies, described as the “‘most crucial’ studies for the peer review and [EFSA’s] conclusion that glyphosate is unlikely to pose carcinogenic hazard to humans.”  Partial access to those studies (i.e., raw data and findings aggregated in tables and figures) had been granted in an earlier 2016 decision.

A prior November 21, 2018, case related to glyphosate (Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe v. European Commission, Case T-545/11 RENV) and the General Court/Fourth Chamber’s judgment to prevent applicants from receiving access to information on the degree of purity of the active substance glyphosate, as well as the identity and quantities of impurities is discussed here.  In contrast to the Stichting decision, where access was denied, the court in the March 7, 2019, decisions annulled prior decisions dated October 16, 2017 and March 14, 2017, that refused access to the requested information.

Discussion

Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents) provides that access to documents should be refused where disclosure would undermine, in part, commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property, unless “there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.” 

Article 6(1) of Regulation No. 1367/2006 (regarding the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies) provides that, with regard to Regulation No. 1049/2001 Article 4(2), “an overriding public interest in disclosure shall be deemed to exist where the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.”  Recital 15 of Regulation No. 1367/2006 also provides: “The grounds for refusal as regards access to environmental information should be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and whether the information requested relates to emissions in the environment.”

Taken together, the court stated: “that means that an EU institution, hearing a request for access to a document, cannot justify its refusal to divulge it on the basis of the exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person for the purposes of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001, where the information contained in that document constitutes information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006.”

The General Court/Fourth Chamber thus addressed whether the information contained in the applicants’ requests constituted information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation 1367/2006. 

In the March 7, 2019, decisions, the General Court/Fourth Chamber held that EFSA cannot argue that the requested studies do not concern actual emissions or the effects of actual emissions because “an active substance contained in plant protection products, such as glyphosate, in the course of normal use, is intended to be discharged into the environment by virtue of its function, and its foreseeable emissions cannot, therefore, be regarded as purely hypothetical.”  The court further held: “It is apparent from that case-law that the concept of information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 is not limited to information which makes it possible to assess the emissions as such, but also covers information relating to the effects of those emissions.”   The Court further stated that the “concept of information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006 must be interpreted as covering not only information on emissions as such, namely information concerning the nature, composition, quantity, date and place of those emissions, but also data concerning the medium to long-term consequences of those emissions on the environment.”

The court also found that EFSA’s “argument that the conditions in which the requested studies were carried out are not linked to emissions is irrelevant. What matters is not the conditions in which the requested studies were carried out, but their purpose.”  In these cases, the purpose to define a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from which the ADI was calculated, or to determine the carcinogenic effects of exposing humans to glyphosate, “must be regarded as constituting information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment; for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation No. 1367/2006.”

In sum, the court in Tweedale concluded:

  • It follows from the foregoing that the exception relating to the protection of commercial interests, provided for in Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001, cannot be relied upon in order to object to the disclosure of the requested studies which are regarded as information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1367/2006.

The court in Hautala further stated that “an overriding public interest in disclosing the studies is deemed to exist, and EFSA could not refuse to disclose them on the ground that that would have an adverse effect on the protection of the commercial interests of the owners of the requested studies for the purposes of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001.”

Commentary

These decisions support transparency but also may add confusion regarding any limitations placed on the scope of what is to be considered “information on emissions into the environment.”  The prior 2018 Stichting decision refused access to information on the degree of purity of the active substance glyphosate, as well as the identity and quantities of impurities, finding that such information is excluded from the concept of “information relating to emissions into the environment:”

  • Since the use, the conditions of use and the composition of a plant protection product authorised by a Member State on its territory may be very different from those of products evaluated at EU level during the approval of the active substance, it must be held that the information in the document at issue does not relate to emissions whose release into the environment is foreseeable and has, at the very most, a link to emissions into the environment.

These decisions may expand the scope of information that relates to emissions into the environment, including, for example, “data concerning the medium to long-term consequences of those emissions on the environment.”  For information that is determined to constitute information that “relates to emissions into the environment,” the decisions appear to create a presumption for disclosure that cannot be countered based on the exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a particular natural or legal person.

Companies should continue to monitor these decisions closely, as guidance continues to evolve regarding the scope of disclosure.

More information on glyphosate issues is available on our blog.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On November 21, 2018, in Court of Justice of the European Union (EU), the Fourth Chamber of the General Court (General Court/Fourth Chamber) issued a judgment in the appeal case T-545/11 RENV that denied all three pleas on appeal and prevented applicants Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (Applicants) from receiving certain documents containing confidential information relating to the first authorization of the placing of glyphosate on the market as an active substance, specifically the complete list of all tests submitted by the operators seeking the inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I to Directive 91/414.

The judgment provides a detailed history of the case, beginning in 2010, when Applicants requested access to the documents in question.  In this initial case, the Secretary General of the Commission agreed with the Federal Republic of Germany’s decision to refuse access to the documents (contested decision) on the basis that disclosure in Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 would undermine protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person.  In upholding Germany’s decision, the Secretary General found that there was “no evidence of an overriding public interest in disclosure” within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001, and also that the information “did not relate to emissions into the environment” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Regulation No. 1367/2006 concerning public disclosure of information on the environmental effects of glyphosate.  As such, “protection of the interests of the manufacturers of that substance had to prevail.” 

The Applicants brought an action for annulment of the contested decision to the Registry of the General Court.  After one of the documents at issue (a draft assessment report issued by Germany prior to the initial inclusion of glyphosate in Annex I to Directive 91/414) was produced to the court (but still not released to the Applicants), the General Court ruled to annul the contested decision.  The Commission appealed this annulment, stating that the General Court erred in its interpretation of the term “information [which] relates to emissions into the environment.”  The Court of Justice was persuaded by this argument, set aside the initial judgment, and referred the case back to the General Court.  The case was then assigned to the Fourth Chamber.  The dispute was limited to the part of the document at issue that “contains information on the degree of purity of the active substance, the ‘identity’ and quantities of all the impurities present in the technical material, the analytical profile of the batches, and the exact composition of the product developed.”

The Applicants put forward three pleas in law in support of their action.  The pleas, and the basis for the General Court/Fourth Chamber’s rejections of those pleas, are as follows:

  1. Failure to Take Account of the Scope of Article 4(5) of Regulation No. 1049/2001:  Article 4(5) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 provides that a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that State without its prior agreement.  Applicants submitted that Article 4(5) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 does not constitute a right of veto for a Member State and that the Commission may not rely on the Member State’s opinion regarding the application of an exception provided for by Article 4(2) of that Regulation.  The General Court/Fourth Chamber stated that “the argument put forward cannot succeed, since Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is not the basis on which the Commission refused access to that document.  Consequently, the first plea in law must be rejected.”  Instead, Article 4(2) was the basis for Germany’s decision, and the Commission verified that Germany’s reasons for that decision were “prima facie, well founded.”
  2. Overriding Public Interest In Disclosing Information Relating to Emissions Into the Environment:  Applicants maintained that the exception to the right of access designed to protect the commercial interests of a natural or legal person must be waived, because of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the information requested, which relates to emissions into the environment.  Specifically, Applicants argued that information related to the identity and quantity of impurities present in glyphosate and related test information must be disclosed so that it could be determined “which toxic elements are emitted into the environment and are liable to remain there for some time.”  With regard to the concept of “information relating to emissions into the environment,” the General Court/Fourth Chamber rejected arguments that the provision must be interpreted restrictively to mean only direct or indirect release of substances from installations.  The General Court/Fourth Chamber also found, however, that the concept cannot be interpreted in a way that would “deprive of any practical effect the possibility” that a Member State could refuse to disclose environmental information or “jeopardise the balance which the EU legislature intended to maintain between the objective of transparency and the protection of [commercial] interests.”  In rejecting the second plea, the General Court/Fourth Chamber states:
  • Since the use, the conditions of use and the composition of a plant protection product authorised by a Member State on its territory may be very different from those of products evaluated at EU level during the approval of the active substance, it must be held that the information in the document at issue does not relate to emissions whose release into the environment is foreseeable and has, at the very most, a link to emissions into the environment. Accordingly, such information is excluded from the concept of “information relating to emissions into the environment,” in accordance with paragraph 78 of the judgement on appeal.

  1. Alleged Infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 and Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention: Applicants argued that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 and Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention, on the ground that the Commission did not evaluate the actual risk of damage to the commercial interests invoked.  The General Court/Fourth Chamber stated that it must be held “that the Commission correctly weighed up the relevant interests, having set out precisely and specifically the way in which the commercial interests of producers of glyphosate or plant protection products containing it would be jeopardised by the disclosure of the document at issue.”

After rejecting all three pleas, the General Court/Fourth Chamber held that the action must be dismissed in its entirety, and ordered Applicants to pay the costs relating to the various proceedings.

Commentary

This case has been monitored closely because of the potential implications for companies that have submitted data or other information claimed as confidential that could be disclosed based on “overriding public interest.”  The American Chemistry Council (ACC), CropLife America, CropLife International (CLI), the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), the European Crop Care Association (ECCA), the Association européenne pour la protection des cultures (ECPA) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) all intervened in support of the form of the order sought by the Commission.  The decision, and, in particular, the limitations placed on the scope of what is to be considered “information on emissions into the environment” provides helpful guidance and ensures that the exceptions provided for disclosure do not swallow the general rules under which institutions must refuse access to documents.

More information on glyphosate issues is available on our blog.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, and Lisa R. Burchi

Beginning on January 23, 2018, the European Commission (EC) opened a consultation period on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) risk assessment process (scientific advice).  The EC states it is seeking feedback on its process both as  a “follow-up to the commitments made by the Commission in reply to the European Citizens’ Initiative on glyphosate,” and in response to “citizens [that] have put into question the risk assessment based on studies provided by the industry and this in particular where the industry seeks an authorisation, e.g. for  pesticides, GMOs etc.”

The General Food Law Regulation established EFSA, an independent scientific agency, to provide the risk assessment component of its risk analysis principle; the other two components are risk management and risk communication.  EFSA provides its scientific opinions “which form the basis for the measures taken by the [European Union (EU)] in the food chain.”  The EC states the General Food Law Regulation “is the cornerstone of the EU regulatory framework covering the entire food chain:  ‘from farm to fork.’”  The EC is requesting feedback to help it “look into how [the EC] can improve the current system and to address citizens’ expectations about independence and transparency of the EU risk assessment system.”   The EC is specifically requesting views and experiences on the following:

  • The transparency and independence of the EU risk assessment system with respect to the underlying industry studies and information on which EFSA's risk assessment/scientific advice is based;
  • Risk communication; and
  • The governance of EFSA, in particular the involvement of the EU Member States (MS) in the EU risk assessment system.

To contribute, interested parties must fill out the online questionnaire available here.  All stakeholders and EU as well as non-EU citizens are welcome to contribute to this consultation.  The consultation period will close on March 20, 2018

Commentary

This Consultation is of significant interest to stakeholders, particularly in balancing the potential need for increased transparency with the need to protect confidential business information, trade secret information, and proprietary expensive data investments.  Decisions made by EFSA also could have a global impact on data protection, as any decisions made by EFSA to increase transparency could affect whether certain data can continue to be protected under other regulatory programs. 

Outside of the transparency issues that are receiving much attention of late, it is important to note generally that views about risk assessment policies across governments tend to be driven by underlying political disagreements, with support or criticism somewhat predictable depending on how the resultant decisions are “for or against” the view of an interested constituency. 

The transparency issue here should be considered not only on its own merits, but also within the controversy that surrounded the EU assessment approach for glyphosate, an herbicide which is widely used in production of genetically modified crops.  As a stalking horse for the EU debate about biotechnology crops, the EU glyphosate assessment has, for example, become embroiled as part of the glyphosate carcinogenic classification of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).  See our blog item IARC Announces Cancer Classification for Glyphosate and Other Pesticides.  The IARC review concluded that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen,” contrary to most other assessments done by the U.S., Canada, and some EU Member States.  Comments on the general EU risk assessment process can be expected to be intertwined with the perspective that any commenter has on the glyphosate assessment, even though the request is for public comment on the assessment process generally, and not only specifically about glyphosate. 

More information on glyphosate is available on our blog under key word glyphosate.


 

By Zameer Qureshi

On November 23, 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued two landmark judgments in Case C-673/13 P (Commission v Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pan Europe) and Case C-442/14 (Bayer CropScience and Stichting De Bijenstichting v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden).

In Case C-673/13 P, the associations Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) submitted a request to the European Commission (EC) under Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 for access to a number of documents relating to the initial marketing authorization for glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides in the world for agricultural weeding and the maintenance of urban and industrial areas.  The EC granted access to the documents, with the exception of part of the draft assessment report prepared by Germany.  The EC justified its refusal by stating that the document in question contained confidential information on the intellectual property rights of the applicants for the glyphosate authorization.

The associations brought an action before the General Court of the European Union (EU) for annulment of the EC’s decision.  The General Court upheld that action in its judgment of October 8, 2013.  The General Court considered that certain segments of the document in question contained information relating to emissions into the environment.  Consequently, the EC was not entitled to invoke the confidentiality of commercial and industrial information, and “should have granted the associations access to those parts.”  The EC was not satisfied with the judgment and asked the ECJ to set it aside.

In Case C-442/14, Bijenstichting, a Dutch bee protection association, submitted a request to the Netherlands’ authority responsible for authorizing the marketing of plant protection products and biocidal products (i.e., College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden (CTB)) for disclosure of 84 documents concerning marketing authorizations issued by the authority.  Bayer, a company holding a large number of these authorizations, objected to the disclosure on the basis that it would “infringe copyright and adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information.”  CTB authorized disclosure of 35 of the 84 requested documents because they contained information on emissions into the environment, “even though such disclosure could have an adverse effect on the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information.”  Under Directive 2003/4/EC, commercial and industrial confidentiality may not be invoked to prevent disclosure of such information.

Bijenstichting and Bayer appealed CTB’s decision before the Netherlands courts, which referred several questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling regarding, among other things, whether the information requested by Bijenstichting falls within the concept of “information on emissions into the environment” -- with the consequence that it should be disclosed without Bayer being entitled to object on the grounds that such disclosure could adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information.

The ECJ’s judgments clarify what must be understood by “emissions into the environment” and “information on [or which relates to] emissions into the environment” within the meaning of the Regulation applicable in Case C-673/13 P and the Directive applicable in Case C-442/14.  In both judgments, the ECJ found that the concept of “emissions into the environment” includes the release into the environment of products or substances (e.g., plant protection products or biocides or active substances contained in those products) to the extent that the release is actual or foreseeable under “normal or realistic conditions of use of the product or substance.” 

The ECJ concluded, therefore, that this concept is indistinguishable from the concepts of “release” and “discharge” and cannot be restricted to emissions emanating from industrial installations.  The ECJ decided that the concept covers emissions resulting from spraying of a product into the air or its use on plants, in water, or in soil.  Such limitations, the ECJ opined, would be “at odds with the objective of the regulation and directive for disclosing environmental information as widely as possible.”  Additionally, the ECJ decided that Directive 2003/4/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 cover information on actual and foreseeable emissions from a product into the environment.  The ECJ concluded that “purely hypothetical emissions” are not covered by the laws.

The ECJ stated that the concept of “emissions into the environment” must be interpreted as covering not only information on emissions, but also information enabling the public to “check whether the assessment of actual or foreseeable emissions,” on the basis of which the Competent Authority authorized the product or substance in question, is correct. 

In Case C-673/13 P, the ECJ set aside the judgment of the General Court insofar as the General Court considered that it is sufficient that information relates “in a sufficiently direct manner” to emissions into the environment for it to be covered by Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.  The ECJ referred the case back to the General Court of the EU for determination of whether the information at issue relates to emissions into the environment, and, if necessary, for ruling on the parties’ arguments that were not examined in its judgment.  Case C-442/14 has also been referred back to the lower court.

The ECJ’s judgments clarify that public interest in “information on emissions into the environment” is important and oftentimes overrides commercial interests.  The ECJ’s rulings have potentially significant and widespread implications for companies seeking to protect trade secrets and other sensitive information.  The ECJ’s reasoning in its judgment can be applied to information submitted in relation to chemical products other than pesticides that are intended for uses that involve releases into the environment.  The ECJ’s judgments have been criticized for not addressing risks of substantial harm to pesticide industry innovators and their proprietary rights if studies are now deemed subject to the EU’s disclosure mandate -- data developers will need to consider this possibility and take measures to protect their sensitive information.


 

By Zameer Qureshi

The fourth Biocides Stakeholders’ Day took place on September 1, 2016, at the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) headquarters in Helsinki, Finland.  The event provided biocides stakeholders with information on the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) and the tools and support available.  The focus was on experiences from companies, ECHA, and the European Commission (EC).  ECHA stated “[t]he objective was to equip companies with information about their roles and obligations to meet the legal requirements for biocides.”

The program for the event included three plenary sessions.  Plenary Session 1, “Challenges and Opportunities,” was commenced by ECHA’s Executive Director, Geert Dancet.  Topics discussed in Plenary Session 1 included a “[r]egulatory update from the [EC],” “[a]ctivities in 2016,” and “Union [Authorization] in Practice.”  Plenary Session 2 focused on “IT Tools and Dossier Preparation,” and included discussions on IUCLID 6 and R4BP 3.  IUCLID 6 is used to collect, organize, and store data on active substances and biocidal products.  Dossiers generated through IUCLID 6 are submitted to ECHA and national authorities through R4BP 3, “the central hub through which all biocides applications are made.”  Plenary Session 3 on the “Enforcement of Biocidal Products” consisted of discussions on enforcement by the EC and Member States, and closed with a case study on “Enforcement from an Industry Perspective.”

The Plenary Sessions were followed by Questions and Answers, closing remarks from Jack De Bruun, ECHA’s Director of Risk Management, and an opportunity for attendees to meet the ECHA staff.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On March 16, 2016, the European Commission (EC) issued its final report on the sustainable use of biocides.  Article 18 of the European Union’s (EU) biocidal products regulation (BPR) directs the EC to issue a report on how the BPR contributes to the sustainable use of biocidal products, and on whether there is a need to introduce additional measures, in particular for professional users, to reduce the risks posed to human health, animal health, and the environment by biocidal products.  Sustainable use for biocidal products is defined in the report as “the objective of reducing the risks and impacts of the use of biocidal products on human health, animal health and the environment and of promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to biocidal products.”

Significantly, the EC’s report does not recommend the creation of further regulations, stating that the  “risks posed to human health, animal health and the environment by biocidal products … are already appropriately addressed by measures imposed through the conditions of approval of active substances or the authorisation of biocidal products.”  The EC also declined to extend the scope of the Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (Directive 2009/128/EC) to biocidal products, stating: “due to the very diverse nature of biocidal products and the variety of applications, it does not seem appropriate to simply extend the scope of the Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides to biocidal products.”

Instead, the EC states that the “first and main priority” of EU Member States and industry must be “the completion of the on-going assessment of all the active substances that were already on the market when the BPD entered into force and the authorisation of biocidal products containing these active substances … with a view to promoting the sustainable use of biocidal products.”  Further, Member States also should focus on the “need to invest additional resources on enforcement activities to ensure that no product is illegally placed on their market and that biocidal products are properly labelled.” 

The EC’s report concludes by listing the following actions that it intends to pursue, and invites Member States to collaborate with the EC to do the same:

  • Focus and strengthen efforts on the review programme of existing active substances to ensure it is completed at the latest by 2024;
  • Ensure that once active substances are approved, product authorisations are granted, amended, or cancelled within 3 years;
  • Invest additional resources on enforcement activities;
  • Benefit from the legislative tools available, in particular by closely following the developments of best available techniques reference documents (BREF) that can be relevant for biocidal products used in industrial processes;
  • Encourage communication and awareness raising campaigns to inform end users, through websites, in-store leaflets or videos, quick response codes on biocidal products, etc.;
  • Encourage the development and implementation of standards (e.g., under the European Committee for Standardization), that could contribute to the sustainable use of biocidal products; and
  • Welcome research initiatives on the sustainable use of biocides and alternatives to biocidal products.

 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

On September 2, 2015, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) issued an updated list of biocide suppliers as required under Article 95 of the Biocidal Product Regulation (BPR).  Although prior versions of the list were released previously, this list has current legal effect since Article 95 provides that, as of September 1, 2015, a biocidal product cannot be made available in European Union (EU) markets unless the active ingredient supplier or product supplier is listed for the particular product type (PT) (e.g., PT 5 (Drinking water), PT 19 (Repellents and attractants)) to which the biocide product belongs. 

The purpose of Article 95 in creating a list of persons placing active substances in the EU market is to ensure the equal treatment of persons placing active substances on the market and to avoid “free riders.”  Without the requirements in Article 95, a supplier of an active substance that has not supported the approval of that substance (either through the Review Programme of the biocide directive, or as a newcomer under the BPR) could still enter the market without compensating the entity that undertook the costs and effort to have the active substance listed. 

There will be continued updates and revisions made to the list as new suppliers seek inclusion.  In addition, ECHA states that it received 158 applications from suppliers seeking inclusion on the list, and has created a list of pending applications that ECHA is still processing.  ECHA notes:  “The list of pending Article 95(1) applications should not be confused with the list of relevant substances and suppliers (“Article 95 list”) and the presence of a company (per substance/PT/role) on the list of pending applications does not guarantee that the application will be successful and that the company will ultimately be included in the Article 95 list.”  Updates to the list also are expected for certain substances that were not within the scope of the Biocidal Products Directive (BPD) (e.g., some in situ generated active substances, substances benefiting from derogation for food and feed in Regulation 1451/2007), and for which different BPR notification and inclusion dates apply. 

Although enforcement efforts regarding the Article 95 list have not yet been tested, companies placing biocidal products in EU markets must carefully review the list to ensure that they and/or their suppliers are listed not only for the particular active ingredient and/or product at issue, but also for the product’s particular PT.

There is a one year period, until September 1, 2016, to sell existing stocks for biocide products where the suppliers are not included on the List. 


 

By Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R. Burchi

 

On June 3, 2015, the General Court of the European Court of Justice issued a ruling in Luxembourg Pamol (Cyprus) Ltd. and Luxembourg Industries Ltd. (Luxembourg) vs. European Commission regarding the publication of information by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in its peer reviewed draft assessment report of potassium phosphonate that Luxembourg claimed as confidential. 

 

The case was brought by Luxembourg after EFSA rejected Luxembourg’s claim that certain information be treated as confidential, and not included in the EFSA’s peer reviewed draft assessment report on potassium phosphonate.  The European Commission agreed with EFSA.  EFSA stated that under the Plant Protection Product Regulation No. 1107/2009 (and Article 14 of its predecessor Directive 91/414) and European Union (EU) Regulation No. 199/2011 setting forth procedures for reviewing certain active substances including EFSA’s peer review of draft assessment reports, confidential status cannot be extended to:  information on the composition of the substance at issue; the analysis method for that substance; the analysis methods for residues; the scientific information on the basis for the evaluation and risk assessments performed; and information already in the public domain.  After EFSA refused the confidentiality request, Luxembourg sought reconsideration by the European Commission, who found that the sanitization principles applied by EFSA “reflect a common understanding of EFSA and the Commission of the provisions of Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC.”

 

In its decision, the Court dismissed the lawsuit because Luxembourg brought the case against the European Commission when the appropriate party was EFSA.  The Court agreed with the Commission that the decision at issue was an act of and attributable to EFSA, stating that while the Commission “indicated to EFSA the legislation and principles applicable to the requests for confidentiality at issue, the fact remains that the Commission did not apply that legislation and those principles in order to determine those claims itself.”  The Court stated that Article 7(2) of Regulation No. 188/2011 grants EFSA to make confidentiality determinations “in its own right” and that Articles 12(1) and 60 of Regulation No. 1107/2009 show that EFSA is “competent to adopt a decision on a request for confidentiality.” 

 

While this decision does not provide certainty or guidance to industry regarding the type of information that can be claimed, and accepted, as confidential, it does add to a growing pool of cases addressing complex issues regarding the confidential treatment of information related to agrochemicals.  This includes, but is not limited to, the ongoing case following the European Court of Justice’s October 8, 2013, ruling that the European Commission erred by refusing access to documentation about the pesticide glyphosate.


 

By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, and Lisa R. Burchi

 

On May 22, 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a call for new scientific information relevant to the evaluation of the risk to bees in the European Union (EU) from the use of the three neonicotinoid pesticide active substances:  clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam (the substances).

 

The call for data complies with the decision taken by the European Commission in May 2013, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 485/2013, to put in place measures to restrict the use of the substances, which at the time included prohibiting use of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid as a seed or soil treatment and for pre-flowering applications on crops attractive to bees and for cereals other than winter cereals.  In May 2013, the Commission also stated that within two years it would initiate a review of any new scientific information. 

 

EFSA is urging national authorities, research institutions, industry, and other interested parties to submit all information on the effects, exposure, and risks of the three substances regarding bees -- honeybees, bumble bees, and solitary bees -- when used as seed treatments and granules.  This can include:

 

  • Literature data, including grey literature and any other data from research activities relevant to the risk assessment for bees for the uses of the three substances applied as seed treatments and granules.  Data that have been provided and identified as relevant by EFSA in its published systematic literature review report need not be submitted, however.
  • Study reports conducted specifically to assess the risk to bees from the three substances applied as seed treatments and granules, and not yet considered under the previous EFSA assessments (EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):  3066, 3067, 3068).
  • National evaluations and/or monitoring data relevant to the risk assessment for bees for the uses of the three substances applied as seed treatments and granules that are available at the Competent Authorities of Member States and not yet considered under the previous EFSA assessments, listed in the above bullet.
  • Data that EFSA stated were not relevant in its published systematic literature review report may be submitted only if accompanied with a scientific rationale supporting their relevance.

 

The notice states that all information should be submitted by September 30, 2015.  Any information submitted can be claimed as confidential by following procedures set forth in Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.  EFSA will review the material provided from this call for data and offer conclusions concerning an updated risk assessment following receipt of a follow-up mandate from the European Commission.

 

 


 
 1 2 >