The situation persist that producers partition the EU market by registering different formulation in different Member States therefore isolating high price, sophisticated, and rather large markets from more opened, less controllable and usually rather small markets.

These differences in formulation, of course, take no notice of a) soil types, b) climatic zones (i.e. total temperature or rainfall cycles) or c) agricultural practices but follow a political division of the EU market.

Following this line of argument and indeed this state of affair, the case that a herbicide used near Lille (France) should be less appropriate for the Belgian market than for the farmer near Marseille or Toulouse or in the Martinique for that matter? (Martinique: French overseas territory where, by law, the same registration as in the Metropole is applicable)

Whereas there exist the principal of mutual recognition,

Whereas there exist the obligation for Member States to inform other Member States of there decisions to withdraw registrations or impose technical rules,

Whereas agricultural produce containing plant protection product residues cross border more freely than the plant protection product themselves,

It is the case that, and even for products listed on annex I, multinational enterprises request and Member States register, amend or withdraw registrations to the effect that product differentiation effectively partition the EU market for commercial reasons to the benefit of such enterprises and with no relation whatsoever to:

-biological effect with due regard to differences which may exist in conditions relating to agriculture, plant health and environment, and in particular climatic conditions, relevant to the use of the product,

-considerations concerning the protection of human and animal health and of the environment.

Should there be ONE instance where such difference in the formulation per Member State be the result of one of the above two sets of considerations, proven by sound scientific evaluation, we would be very interested to know !!!

To the contrary examples of registrations of formulations at Member States level that lead to barriers to trade are plentiful.

 

Press release 26th October 2000

The association AUDACE denounces a sophism and asks its authors to justify themselves

The assertions according to which differences in plant protection product formulations would be justified taking into consideration climatic, agronomic and/or, in general, health or environmental conditions specific to each EU Member State amounts to a pure sophism skilfully fostered by the manufacturers.

Certain competent authorities, administrative and judicial, national and European however appear not to be convinced yet of this reality and while agreeing that one same formulation must be authorised on the whole territory of a State where, however, there exist extremely different climates and soils, they deny the right for that formulation to be used systematically on the territories of other Member States.

In order to close this controversy, could the manufacturers and/or competent authorities quote only one product among the thousands of specialities authorised in Europe for which the need for different formulations between the States would be scientifically proven ?

The absence of response to this request should put an end to a long and unbearable polemic bringing benefit only to the marketing aims of transnational corporations.

 

L'association AUDACE dénonce un sophisme et en demande raison à ses auteurs

Les affirmations selon lesquelles des différences dans les formulations des produits phytosanitaires seraient justifiées au regard de conditions climatiques, agronomiques et/ou, en général, de santé ou d'environnement spécifiques à chaque pays membre de l'EU relèvent d'un pur sophisme savamment entretenu par les fabricants.

Certaines autorités compétentes administratives et judiciaires, nationales et européennes paraissent cependant n'être pas encore convaincues de cette réalité et tout en convenant qu'une même formulation doit être autorisée sur la totalité des territoires d'un même état où existent pourtant des climats et des sols extrêmement différents, elles lui dénient le droit d'être utilisée systématiquement sur les territoires des autres États membres.

Afin de clore cette controverse, les fabricants et/ou ces autorités compétentes pourraient-ils citer un seul produit parmi les milliers de spécialités autorisées en Europe dont la nécessité de formulations différentes entre les États serait scientifiquement démontrée ?

L'absence de réponse à cette demande devrait mettre fin à une longue et insupportable polémique portant intérêt uniquement aux fins marketing des firmes.

 

 

 

 

(.) an unparalleled intellectual muddle using formula for formulation and vice versa.