The REFIT evaluation is a big disappointment. Commission claims that the pesticide Regulation has been effective to fulfil its goals “to a large extend”. However, no evidence is provided to assess whether the purpose of the Regulation to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment has been fulfilled. The claim is unsubstantiated [see point 1, ‘Pesticide policy- effective?’].
Moreover, the major problems of pesticide decision-taking process are not addressed. For example, the lack of testing for a range of health problems, the conflicts of interests with industry that designs its own guidelines, the failure to look at and incorporate independent literature in the assessment [see point 2, ‘Main problems - NOT considered’].
A large part of the REFIT report is dedicated to topics that aim to reduce the costs for industry. Elements like zonal authorisation, mutual recognition and minor uses constitute a big part of the report. These topics receive disproportionate attention compared to the real problems of the pesticide authorisation procedure [see below, point 3, ‘Cost reduction - for the industry’]. Evidently, Commission’s ‘traditional love’ for the industry is by far, not over yet.