During the late 90's many governments decided to initiate the re-evaluation process of the existing pesticides (i.e. already on the market). This process has had a key role in driving IPM adoption as a series of products were phased out. Growers started to look for alternatives to replace the lost tools and became aware that IPM can help achieve an efficient production.

Australia • Belgium • Canada • Denmark • Germany • Estonia • Ireland • Japan • Netherlands • New Zealand • Portugal • Slovenia • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

 

 

 

Canada

Health Canada’s  Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is responsible for pesticide regulation in Canada, including the re-evaluation of previously registered active ingredients and their associated products. Under authority of the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA), re-evaluation of all pesticides must be initiated to ensure that they continue to meet current scientific standards. The PMRA has various programs in place to address how the re-evaluation is conducted.

The Pest Control Products Act requires the PMRA to initiate re-evaluations for each registered pesticide on a 15 year cycle, based on the date of either its initial registration or the most recent major decision affecting the registration. The re-evaluation must be initiated no more than one year after 15 years have elapsed since the most recent major decision. The Act also requires that a scientifically based approach be applied in evaluating the health and environmental risks and in determining whether those risks are acceptable. This provides for the regular review of registered products and supports the ongoing incorporation of new methodologies, data and regulatory approaches into the evaluation and assessment of pesticides.

More information about the PMRA Regulatory Directive DIR2012-02, Re-evaluation Program Cyclical Re-evaluation find here.

 

Denmark

During the 80’s and 90’s all pesticides registered in Denmark were re-evaluated resulting in a number of active ingredients being either banned or severely restricted in their use, e.g. the phenoxy acids and many residual herbicides. Use restrictions most often were dose reductions or restrictions on the time of application (often autumn applications were no longer allowed). Besides protection of ground water persistence and potential impact on aqueous organisms (for both national Danish regulations were stricter than the EU regulations at that time) were the main reasons for banning or restricting the use but also a potential risk of endocrine disruptive effects resulted in removal of some fungicides from the Danish market.