Emergency authorizations of plant protection products should not become the norm, with their frequent use as a symptom of systemic policy issues, MEP Alexander Bernhuber (EPP).
Speaking at CropLife Europe’s 5th anniversary conference in Brusselsthe Austrian MEP said the EU risks leaving farmers without viable solutions on the ground if it allows plant protection products to disappear before alternatives are available.
“We lose substances all the time and this happens mainly from the reauthorization and withdrawal of substances. This means that if you do not facilitate conventional products along with biocontrols, we may end up not having enough substances for our farmers,” said Copa-Cogeca policy advisor Tamás Racskó.
Missed deadlines threaten EU firms
Bernhuber said the EU needs a fast authorization process for biocontrols to help bring new products to market to ensure farmers still have solutions they can rely on in their fields.
Patrick Kabouw, head of regulator at Belgian startup Aphea.Bio, said that in the case of their microbial plant protection solution, the legal deadline for a decision was exceeded by 840%.
“For us, this is not a bureaucratic hurdle, this is a fundamental threat to our survival as we are running out of money,” Kabouw said.
Domenico Deserio, a policy officer at the European Commission’s public health directorate (DG Sante), said one of the main challenges for regulators is to strike the “right balance between predictability and flexibility”. Businesses need consistency along the regulatory path, he said, but explained that regulators also need a framework that is future-proof and open enough to deal with technologies that were not envisioned a few years ago.
Deserio added that renewal programs “are really hindering market access to substances in general,” adding that removing them could allow authorities to reallocate their efforts elsewhere.
‘Enforce deadlines’
Addressing concerns that the Commission’s proposal for mutual recognition of plant protection products could lead to member states automatically rejecting applications if no decision is made within 120 days, Deserio said this was one of the “hot topics” in the ongoing negotiations.
“There is no intention that the proposal that causes all mutual recognitions to be rejected within 120 days. So this is really in question now,” Deserio said, noting that the intention is to apply the deadlines already provided by the regulation (Regulation (EU) 1107/2009).
Concerns about authorizations were also raised at the GMO conference debate, where speakers said Europe’s approval system should better reflect decades of scientific experience.
Corteva Agriscience’s EMEA head of government and industry affairs, Teresa Babuscio, pointed to older requirements that are still routinely carried out, including 90-day feed studies and 28-day protein studies, although, she argued, international bodies have suggested that such tests may not always be needed to establish safety.
Echoing comments from other panellists, Babuscio said that on paper, Europe probably has “the most beautiful legislation in the world”, but statutory deadlines are not being met.
“If we stick to what is written in black and white in the regulations, we would have a much more functional system,” said Babuscio.
Simplification with EU digital labeling rules
Innovation was a key trend throughout the conference, which also featured live demonstrations of AgriGuidea digital labeling platform created by CropLife Europe. AgriGuide aims to provide farmers with easy access to digital plant protection product labels, electronic record keeping and reduced complexity in farming practices to keep up with evolving regulations.
Max Schulman, a Finnish farmer and chairman of Cope-Cogeca’s plant protection working group, said the labels attached to pesticide packages have become increasingly long and complex. As Jan. 1, 2030, the deadline for all crop protection products to carry a digital label approaches, Schulman said digital tools like AgriGuide allow farmers to access essential information about these products through smartphones or tablets.
While several speakers representing farmers said they embrace innovation and new tools, Alina Cretu, executive director of the Romanian Professional Farmers and Processors Forum (APPR), said new technologies raise questions about data ownership. Farmers often hand over the data for free, she said, while third parties can build business models around it.
‘Crystal clear rules’
Peter Hloben, who heads a project team at the European Agricultural Machinery Industry (CEMA), highlighted how the Common European Agricultural Data Space (CEADS) project, which was launched as part of the European Data Strategy, should eliminate such fears within the next five years. He said this space will create a legal environment with “crystal clear rules” for data governance.
While speakers representing farmers broadly welcomed the related policy direction and vision of the Agriculture and Food Commission, Racskó said growers are ultimately less concerned with institutional mechanics than whether workable solutions reach them in time.
Smaller farms in particular often lack the time, knowledge and capacity to follow EU negotiations closely, he said. Bernhuber echoed similar sentiments, saying the EU should focus above all on making life easier for farmers.
“We have to ask ourselves: What do they need and how can we provide it to them? They don’t care about all the details and authorization processes. They have a problem and they need a solution,” Bernhuber said, “and I think at some points we’re too slow.”
(BM)
