On Wednesday the EU Commission outlined criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in plant protection products (PPPs) and biocides. Endocrine disruptors are substances - some chemical, some of which occur in nature - that affect hormone systems in humans and animals, and have the potential to damage reproductive functions and cause cancer.

The processes and impacts of endocrine disruption are only now becoming better understood, leading to widespread concern about the impacts certain chemicals in use today could have. Recent debates about the safety of glyphosate - the world’s most widely used herbicide - have revolved around whether it is carcinogenic or has endocrine disrupting properties; persistent concerns about the product have seen repeated EU Council votes postponed and EU Commission proposals rejected by the EU’s regulators, as policy makers are torn over how to act on the evidence available.

On Wednesday, the EU Commission unveiled its proposals - which have been delayed by two and a half years - to the Council and the European Parliament. The Commission recommends adopting a “science-based approach” to identifying endocrine disruptors and endorsing the WHO definition of the substances. The EU executive said the 'hazard-based' approach of Pesticides Regulation should be maintained, meaning that substances are banned on the basis of hazard without taking account of exposure. However, it opens the door for possible derogations by changing the requirements for information related to exposure and risk.

Farm groups, including the NFU have rejected the health concerns surrounding glyphosate and other PPPs, and urged the EU to adopt a “science-based” approach; the NFU is concerned by the deadlock over glyphosate reauthorisation in Europe, which the union says has set a dangerous precedent for the 41 active ingredients up for renewal between now and this time next year. However, civil society groups and environmentalists have said legislators should err on the side of caution, applying the precautionary principle, which places the burden of proof on manufacturers or their advocates to assure that their product or chosen course of action doesn’t cause harm, rather than on civil society groups to prove that they do, before action is taken.

On announcing the Commission’s package, EU President Jean-Claude Juncker said, ”Endocrine disruptors can have serious health and environmental impacts and even if many substances containing them are already banned as a result of existing legislation on pesticides and biocides, we have to remain vigilant. The Commission is committed to ensuring the highest level of protection of both human health and the environment, which is why we are today putting forward strict criteria for endocrine disrupters – based on science – making the EU regulatory system the first worldwide to define such scientific criteria in legislation."

Commission officials said the proposals aim to minimise exposure to endocrine disruptors and to bring in legal certainty on the issue. As part of the package announced today, the Commission is asking its health watchdog, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to begin looking at whether approved individual substances that could be endocrine disruptors can be identified as such according to the new criteria.

Before it comes into force, the new legislative package needs approval from EU member states’ representatives in the Council and the EU Parliament.

This may prove to be a challenge, as the Greens-EFA group in the European Parliament reacted strongly to the release, calling the Commission’s proposals “Shameful”. The group’s environment and health spokesperson Bas Eickhout said of the overdue proposals, "It is shameful that the European Commission is continuing to go out of its way to defend the line of the agro-chemical industry, instead of prioritising public health.”

Eeckhout continued, “Not only has the Commission proposed a very restrictive definition of what constitutes an endocrine disruptor, it has also proposed wider exemptions for them. In doing so, it both breaks with established practices of classification of similar chemicals and goes beyond its legal mandate. Instead of learning the lessons of the European court ruling against it, the Commission has compounded the damage of delaying action on chemical substances that interfere with the endocrine system by proposing inappropriate measures for dealing with them.

According to the Greens, the Commission’s package diverges from standard classifications for comparable substances in that the new package would require proof that evidence of harm in animals is also definitely applicable to humans; for substances that are toxic to reproduction, animal evidence is currently presumed to be relevant for humans, unless there is information to the contrary.

Greens-EFA’s Bas Eeckhout said, “Defining clear and comprehensive criteria on what constitutes an endocrine disruptor is a crucial step for properly regulating these chemicals and, ultimately, reducing exposure to them. The only guiding priority under EU law should be to address the major public health problems caused by these chemicals. However, the Commission is continuing to put the bottom line of a few agro-chemical companies ahead of public health. We will now have to build the necessary majorities in the Parliament to veto this shameful proposal.”