Regulation of carbofuran and its use to poison wildlife in the European Union and the rest of Europe - Carbofuran and Wildlife Poisoning: Global Perspectives and Forensic Approaches - page 132

5 Regulation of carbofuran and
its use to poison wildlife in
the European Union and the
rest of Europe
5.1 Introduction
The European Union (EU) was offi cially established with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty,
which came into force 1 November 1993 (http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/economic_and_
monetary_affairs/institutional_and_economic_framework/treaties_maastricht_en.htm). The EU
currently comprises 27 Member States. Iceland, Croatia, Turkey and Macedonia are presently
considered 'Candidate' countries, whereas Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia
and Kosovo are considered 'Potential Candidate' countries (http://europa.eu/about-eu/member-
countries/index_en.htm and see Figure 5.1).
Carbofuran was authorised individually by many, but not all, countries within the EU/Europe (see
Table 5.1). On 13 June 2007, the Commission of European Communities (CEC) issued Directive
2007/416/EC 'concerning the non-inclusion of carbofuran in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/
EEC and the withdrawal of authorizations for plant protection products containing that substance'
(http://eur-ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2007/l_156/l_15620070616en00300031.pdf;
CEC 2007). At this time, the effects on both human health and the environment were assessed
according to the provisions outlined in EC Regulations 451/2000 and 703/2001, both essentially
concerned with establishing a list of active substances to be assessed for inclusion (or exclusion)
in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. A risk assessment report on the 'active substance carbofuran'
(i.e., active ingredient) was peer-reviewed by the relevant Member States and the European Food
Safety Authority (EFSA) within its Working Group Evaluation and their conclusions were presented
to the Commission on 28 July 2006. Provision (5) of the 2007 Directive stated that:
During the evaluation of this active substance, a number of concerns have been
identifi ed. The risk assessment for ground water contamination could not be con-
cluded, in particular because the data supplied by the notifi er within the legal dead-
lines did not provide suffi cient information about a number of metabolites which