Updated 29 April
Yesterday, 15 April, the Environment Committee debated two separate challenges to the same MRL measure:
Commission Regulation amending Annexes II, III and IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for aclonifen, acrinathrin, Bacillus pumilus QST 2808, chlorantraniliprole, ethirimol, lufenuron, penthiopyrad, picloram and Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134 in or on certain products
One challenge was by submitted by Jutta Paulus, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Christel Schaldemose, Mick Wallace, and the other by Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA))
The Committee backed both challenges:
Jutta Paulus et al 48 for and 32 against.
Michèle Rivasi 40 for, 37 against, and 3 abstentions.
Voting Results link.
As is common, the challenge was backed by the the S&D, Greens, the GUE, and chunks of Renew, and elements from the EPP, NI, and ID. Opposition came from the ECR, EPP, and the rump of Renew and ID.
The debate and vote deserve a closer look.
Firstly, this is one of the rare cases when MEPs backed a challenge by a single group, in this case the NI.
Second, if you read the debate, transcript, see below, it was a proxy debate on the farm to fork strategy.
Third, there is an obvious preference by many MEPs for substances that are banned or not used in Europe, not to be used in imports.
Finally, the challenges are as ever targeted at a particular substances and are not generic.
The file will now go to the plenary.
As RPS measures, if backed by the full EP, the measure is blocked.
If you missed the exchange you can watch it again below:
Vote in Plenary
27 April 2021
Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3), and (4)(c): Maximum residue levels for certain substances, including lufenuron
For 441, Against 242, Abstentions 15
| Objection pursuant to Rule 112(2) and (3), and (4)(c): Maximum residue levels for certain substances, including flonicamid |
For 366, Against 305, Abstentions 27