Plastic packaging and pesticides:in Europe the industrial lobby wins

Black day for the environment yesterday in Strasbourg, where the less ambitious line on the reduction of plastic packaging was passed and the cut in pesticides by 2030 was rejected.In the first case, although the general objectives of reducing plastic waste have been confirmed by the EU chamber, the prohibition of use for some packaging defined as "non-essential".To Italy's great satisfaction, a series of exemptions on reuse obligations for specific industrial sectors.However, no negotiating position was found for the issue of cutting pesticides by 2030.In fact, the report by the Green MEP, Sarah Wiener, on the European Commission's proposal focusing on the sustainable use of pesticides, which would have represented Parliament's mandate in negotiations with the Member States, was rejected.

With 426 yes, 125 no and 74 abstentions, the European Parliament adopted the negotiating mandate on the regulation on packaging and packaging waste resizing in a very significant way the proposal originally created by the European Commission, as well as the report passed on the topic to the environment commission.The heart of the initial indications of the EU institutions moved around a series of specific guidelines, among which the reuse of containers with minimum objectives for companies, the ban on packaging “not essential”, the design of all packaging by 2030 to guarantee 100% recycling and mandatory percentages of recycled content that producers are asked to include in new packaging.The object of Italy's criticism was in particular the rule concerning the compulsory objectives of companies on reuse, with respect to which a exception where the member country reaches 85% of separate collection for recycling in the two-year period 2026-27.Furthermore, with the vote of the European Parliament, the ban on the use of certain "non-essential" types of packaging has officially been lifted, such as disposable packaging for hotel shower products and shrink wrap for luggage at airports.Also no to the ban on the marketing of disposable plastic wrappers used for fruit and vegetables, such as bags used for pack the salad.A wide range of exemptions were then granted on the obligations to reuse packaging for the sale of wine and sparkling wine.

There is also nothing to be done for the report by Green MEP Sarah Wiener on the Commission's proposal regarding thesustainable use of pesticides, rejected with 299 against and 121 abstentions (207 in favour).The rule aimed for a 50% reduction in the use of chemical plant protection products and 65% of “more dangerous products” compared to what was the average use between 2013 and 2017 (while the Commission had proposed a 50% reduction for both compared to the 2015-2017 phase).Parliament confirmed - as per the proposal of the EU executive - the no to the use of chemical pesticides in "sensitive areas”, excluding, however, those authorized for organic farming and biological control.After rejecting it, the European Parliament also rejected the request to send Wiener's text back to the environment committee.In theory, following an intervention by the Council, MEPs would have a second chance of voting, but there doesn't seem to be enough time to reach a possible green light in the chamber before the end of the legislature.It would therefore be the Parliament that will be formed after the elections that will deal with it.

Once again, Europe has missed an important opportunity to trace with facts a serious path in favor of the so-called ecological transition.In recent days, moreover, another extremely eloquent indicator has emerged from this point of view:the Commission's decision renew the use of glyphosate – herbicide classified a few years ago by the WHO International Agency for Cancer Research as potentially carcinogenic – for another 10 years, the objective of a group of European chemical multinationals, who had strongly pushed for this solution.Meanwhile, in the United States, sentences are multiplying that indirectly confirm the dangerousness of the substance.The latest, in order of time, is that inflicted to the colossus Bayer (which acquired Monsanto), which will be called upon to compensate with over 1.5 billion dollars some farmers who have sued it claiming to have cancer patients due to exposure to a glyphosate product.

[by Stefano Baudino]