On July 8, 2016 the non-profit environmental law organization ClientEarth published a legal opinion on the criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) which were proposed by the European Commission (EC) on June 15, 2016 (FPF reported). ClientEarth had commissioned the legal opinion to experts from the University of Applied Sciences Darmstadt, Germany, “to analyze the requirements for the scientific criteria and to apply these to the Commission’s proposals.” Further, the experts assessed the four options for criteria setting as outlined in the EC’s EDC roadmap (FPF reported).
The legal opinion finds that “the proposed criteria are illegal because they limit the identification of endocrine disruptors to those that are known to cause adverse effects, excluding those presumed to cause adverse effects.” Both the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR, (EU) No 528/2012) and the Plant Protection Product Regulation (PPPR, (EC) No 1107/2009) “provide that no endocrine disrupting chemical that is known or presumed to cause adverse effects in humans or to the environment can be approved,” ClientEarth explains. Thus, the EC proposes a change in the approval mechanism for EDCs and seeks “to modify essential elements of the regulations” which exceeds its delegated powers. Also, the legal opinion finds that “the Commission would only avoid exceeding its mandated powers by following option 3” of the EDC roadmap. The EC’s current proposal follows a modified version of option 2. ClientEarth concludes that “the draft proposals of 15 June 2016 should not be implemented because they are not compliant with the existing laws.”
ClientEarth (July 8, 2016). “How will the EU identify EDCs and ban or approve their use? Summary of analysis.”
Client Earth (July 2016). “How will the EU identify EDCs and ban or approve their use?” (pdf)