Study reveals weaknesses in the approval of pesticides

Pesticides are tested by the Swiss authorities for their health and environmental risks before they can be used in Switzerland. The aim of the approval is to regulate the use of pesticides in such a way that the environment and health are not endangered. A Study of the research institute Interface commissioned by the environmental associations BirdLife Switzerland, Greenpeace Switzerland, Pro Natura and WWF Switzerland points out deficiencies in the Swiss approval procedure.

The study compares the Swiss approval process with similar approval procedures (the approval of biocides) and the procedure in Germany and New Zealand. Based on the study, the environmental associations identify five relevant weaknesses:

1. Lack of transparency: The justifications for the rejection or approval of a pesticide are not publicly available.
2. Dual role of the Federal Office for Agriculture (FOAG): The FOAG is both the contact point for applicants (i.e. pesticide companies) and the deciding authority. The administrative approval procedure and the final decision should (as in the case of biocides or in pesticide approval in Germany) be carried out or made by independent bodies.
3. Too weak role of the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) in the process: The FOEN has hardly any authority to deny approval or restrict approval of pesticides.
4. The limited access to data from the EU area: Many findings from the EU are adopted, but Swiss authorities have only limited access to basic data available to the European authorities.
5. No cost-covering fees: Applicant pesticide companies pay only a vanishingly small share of the costs incurred by the general public for registration.

In June, the federal administration launched the consultation on the Action Plan for Risk Reduction and Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products. "The consultation draft lacks proposals for improving the Swiss approval system. However, in order to reduce pesticide risks for humans and the environment, measures are also needed here," emphasizes Daniela Hoffman, agricultural expert at WWF Switzerland.

Associations demand more transparency

Except in the case of spectacular individual examples, such as the bee-endangering neonicotinoids or the probably carcinogenic glyphosate, the approval of pesticides takes place in the "quiet closet". These examples make it clear that the high complexity of the procedure and the restrictive information policy of the federal government cause mistrust and can contribute to uncertainty among the population.

With the study, the environmental associations want to create greater transparency and point out weaknesses in the system. The environmental associations call on the federal government to eliminate the aforementioned weaknesses in the authorization in order to adequately protect the environment and the health of the population from the harmful effects of pesticide use in Switzerland in the future.

Examples from the past show that the testing of chemicals has always had serious loopholes. For example, while the officially approved DDT was considered safe decades ago, we now know the fatal consequences of its widespread use back then. To prevent such missteps in the future, we need a thoroughly safe approval process.