Dear Mr. Url,
On March 8, 2023 we wrote a letter to you asking to take into account indirect effects of pesticides. On May2, 2023 we received your reply that to our feeling fails to address our concerns and arguments. Read the EFSA reply.
Our letter was about indirect effects of pesticides on the environment and we presented a range of research data showing examples of what is missing in EFSA’s approach. In your answer, you do not answer the scientific evidence we shared with you. Instead, you promote SPGs, specific protection goals, which were first promoted by the pesticide industry and then by the EFSA. As acknowledged by the JRC during the meeting from the Commission on SPGs in 2019, this approach does not take all indirect effects into account. While we wrote to you to engage into a scientific discussion, we feel that your answer does not cover the points we have raised, which is, in our view, not acceptable, from the EU scientific agency responsible for pesticides.