Where refusal or withdrawal of an authorisation of a plant protection product in favour of an alternative plant protection product or a non-chemical control or prevention method is considered, referred to as ‘substitution’, the alternative must, in the light of scientific and technical knowledge, show significantly lower risk to health or the environment. An assessment of the alternative shall be performed to demonstrate whether it can be used with similar effect on the target organism and without significant economic and practical disadvantages to the user or not.
Further conditions for refusal or withdrawal of an authorisation are as follows:
substitution shall be applied only where other methods or the chemical diversity of the active substances is sufficient to minimise the occurrence of resistance in the target organism;
substitution shall be applied only to plant protection products where their use presents a significantly higher level of risk to human health or the environment; and
substitution shall be applied only after allowing for the possibility, where necessary, of acquiring experience from use in practice, where not already available.
A significant difference in risk shall be identified on a case-by-case basis by the competent authorities. The properties of the active substance and plant protection product, and the possibility of exposure of different population subgroups (professional or non-professional users, bystanders, workers, residents, specific vulnerable groups or consumers) directly or indirectly through food, feed, drinking water or the environment shall be taken into account. Other factors such as the stringency of imposed restrictions on use and prescribed personal protective equipment shall also be considered.
For the environment, if relevant, a factor of at least 10 for the toxicity/exposure ratio (TER) of different plant protection products is considered a significant difference in risk.
Significant practical or economic disadvantage to the user is defined as a major quantifiable impairment of working practices or business activity leading to inability to maintain sufficient control of the target organism. Such a major impairment might be, for example, where no technical facilities for the use of the alternative are available or economically feasible.
Where a comparative assessment indicates that restrictions on and/or prohibitions of use of a plant protection product could cause such disadvantage, then this shall be taken into account in the decision-making process. This situation shall be substantiated.
The comparative assessment shall take authorised minor uses into account.