In the modern world, many countries have banded together to handle the majority of their worries, including as terrorism, crimes against humanity, drug misuse, climate change, health, transportation, and others. Yet, in order for these regional governments to interact effectively, several requirements and regulations must be devised, as well as a form of agreement signed by all of the countries involved. This means that if one of the member countries violates any of the agreed-upon rules and regulations, it is subject to punitive actions such as being forced to pay large penalties, incarceration, and restitution. and even being eliminated from the union. Consecutively, there are also provisions that stipulate the procedure that a member country should follow in case it intended to exit from the union. In this regard, the European Union is one of the regional collaboration that is composed on numerous member countries in Europe. The EU contains provisions on issues such as trade, climate change, pesticides, security, and others, and the core aim is to facilitate smooth procedure of addressing issues that concern the member countries. In connection to this, the EU amended the regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 which concerns the pacing of the plant protection products on the market. This paper pays high attention to the analysis of the analysis of the origin and the current state of this regulation, factors that may influence options for retaining , abolishing, or somehow modifying current EU regulatory requirements, and concrete recommendations to the minister concerning whether to retain, abolish or modify this regulation.
Origin and current state of the current state of EU requirements concerning regulation No. 1107/2009 of the European Parliament
The origin of this regulation can be traced back in 1991, when the European Union embraced a regulation that aimed at enhancing plant protection. This is in accordance to the Council Directive of 91/414/EEC of 15th July 1991, which stipulates a number of rules that govern plant protection products as well as the active substances that are contained in the plant products. Since then, a number of amendments have been made on this regulation, based on emerging issues that concerns pesticides and the impacts that these chemicals are having to the plant products that are being presented in the market. Moreover, following the progress report that was presented by the commission concerning the 1991 directive, the European Parliament under the resolution of 30th May, 2002, and 12th December, 2001 conclusions of the council, the European Commission was asked to review directive 91/414/EEC. After the review, a number of aspects that needed to be addressed were identified (European Commission, 2014, 2-3). The new act was also aimed at repealing the Council Directive 79/117/EEC of 21st December 1978, which prohibited the placing on the market as well as the use of plant protection products which contained active substances.
Objectives and rationale for the Regulation No. 1107/2009
Consecutively, these two Council Directives (79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC) were also repealed and revised in the regulation No 1107/2009. This regulation aimed at establishing rules and regulations for the authorization, placing on the market, use and control of the plant protection products in order ensure a high level of protection of both human and environmental health, as well as improving the functioning of the internal market and agricultural production through the harmonization of the established rules. Consecutively, the enactment of this regulation paid particular attention to the protection of the vulnerable groups of population, including infants, expectant mothers and children.
The implementation of this regulation greatly helped in controlling the application of pesticides on the agricultural products. Initially, most organizations that were processing pesticides could embrace any chemical that would help in protecting plant products without taking into consideration the health impacts of the chemical to human beings, animals and more importantly, to the environment (European Plant Protection Products, 2017). The plant protection products tend to have one or more active substances, which when ingested into the human system through eating plant products that are rich in them increases the risks of developing non-communicable diseases such as cancer and diabetes.
The most beneficiary of this regulation is the common citizen in the member countries, especially due to the fact that most of the agricultural products are sold to the member countries. The member countries cost share the expenses that are incurred after this regulation is implemented. Consecutively, heavy fines are also applied to the member country that fails to enforce this law. In overall, the cost that each member country incurs after enforcing this regulation is less than the associated benefits.
Options of retaining, abolishing, or somehow modifying the current EU regulatory requirements
Abolishing this regulation would take the EU to the back days and the factors which had influenced the enactment of this regulation can be exercised in totality. When this happens, the health of the common citizen, the future generations, animals and the environment would be highly jeopardized. In the present world, the competition for limited resources have increased more than ever before, making the world to appear like a jungle, where only the individuals who have the necessary competitive skills can survive and develop. For this reason, most individuals can embrace any means possible in order to benefit or succeed in life. Abolishing this regulation would give such individuals a green light of introducing plant protection products which are threats to human, animal and environment health. Precisely, chemicals that enhance the ripening of agricultural products would be greatly introduced to the public by cartels, and in the long run, the repercussions will be devastating (Government of The Republic Of Slovenia, 2015, 3-7). Consecutively, abolishing this policy would mean that preparations or substances that are added to a plant protection product in order to reduce or eliminate phytotoxic effect of the plant protection product on certain plants (Safeners) would be offered to the members of the public.
Moreover, retaining the regulation will enhance public safety and sustainability since plant products that will be offered in the markets will be free from excessive product protection products. This means that the cases of allergic reactions that are being reported each new day after consuming some food products will minimize. In addition, cases of cancer and diabetes among the young population will be minimized to a large extent, especially due to the fact that safeners, co-formulants, synergists, and pesticide formulations has been among the risk factors for the development of these diseases (Merenyi, 2013, 3-9). Consecutively, the U.K. trade and competitiveness will not only be composed of naturally produced agricultural products, but also be fair. Precisely, none of the sellers in this market will be enjoy super revenues due to his or her products ripening faster, being chemically induced and others. Moreover, retaining this regulation would sensitize most individuals to be more innovative and develop alternative methods to chemical pesticides for pest management and plant protection (Montanari, Jezsó & Donati, 2015, 23). For example, the alternative measures that the members can focus on are not limited to the physical, mechanical, and biological methods of pest control.
Subsequently, modifying this regulation would be enhancing its applicability and enforcement among the member countries. Precisely, a regulation can be embraced an implemented but without strategizing the effective measures of ensuring that the regulation is enforced to the letter by the member countries, very minimal (if any)positive and targeted outcomes can be realized. In this connection, it is a thumps up for the European Union to come up with this regulation, but the room for improvement is never filled. Establishing measures of ensuring adherence of the member countries to this regulation would enable the EU to achieve the desired objectives in ensuring public safety and sustainability, fair trade and competitiveness, and enhancing trade with international trading partners.
Concrete Recommendations to the Minister
There are a number of measures that the minister of the European Union can embrace in order to enforce that this regulation is implemented to the letter by the member countries. First, the commission should embrace harmonized methods of determining or establishing the nature and quantity of safeners, active substances, co-formulants, and active substances that may be present if a product protection product. Precisely, the commission needs to establish the limit at which a product protection product should be ruled as effective to be used by agricultural producers and which limits should not be allowed in the market (Government of The Republic Of Slovenia, 2015, 5)). This would mark as the platforms that the member countries should be keen on in establishing whether a new plant protection product should be used by farmers or not. I addition to this, there is a need for the commission to establish protocols for control and rules for adjuvants, regulations concerning labeling pr plant protection products as well as the inclusion of the ingredients used, their effectiveness and side effects.
Consecutively, the commission needs to establish measures of ensuring that advertisements on plant protection products do not mislead users or the public (Jacobs et al., 2007, 31-39). This is due to the fact that most commercial manufacturers of the plant protection products are driven by the motivations of making super profits, and due to the fear of their products being rejected by the EU, they may advertise features and effectiveness of their product based on the stipulations of the commission, but the actual product contains active substances.
In addition, the commission should establish provisions for the inspection and control of the regulation in regard to the use and marketing of the plant protection products in order to ensure that a correct, harmonized and safe implementation of all the requirements that have been established in this regulation accomplish a higher level of protection of both animal and human health and the environment. Precisely, since each of the member country would establish its measures that are in line with this regulation, it is necessary for the commission to conduct follow-up in order to ensure that each member country does not only establish the regulations, but also adhere to them. In addition, the commission needs to ensure that the member countries raise awareness to the users of the plant protection products and the public concerning the regulations and ways of reporting fake advertisements on pesticides (Europol, 2012, 6-12).
References
European Commission, (2014). Proposal for a Council Decision On the Position to be Adopted, on Behalf of the European Union, In The EEA Joint Committee Concerning An agreement To Annex II Of The EEA Agreement.
European Plant Protection Products, (2017). New EU Plant Protection Products Legislation. Retrieved from, https://www.eppo.int/PPPRODUCTS/information/new_eu_regulations.htm
Europol, (2012). Awareness Conference on Fake and Illicit Pesticides. Retrieved from, https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/Knowledge-building-events/1392909557_pesticides_report_en.pdf
Government of The Republic Of Slovenia, (2015). Regulation Implementing the Regulations (EC) and (EU) Concerning Placing Plant Protection Products On The Market.
Jacobs, F. G., Arnull, A., Eeckhout, P., & Tridimas, T. (2007). Continuity and change in EU law: essays in honour of Sir Francis Jacobs. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Merenyi S., (2013). Plant Protected Products: Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.
Montanari, F., Jezsó, V., & Donati, C. (2015). Risk regulation in non-animal food imports: the European Union approach. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1968646.
