On 30 June 2026, Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi, on behalf of the European Commission, rejected a call from MEP Tomasz Buczek (PfE) to establish binding procedural standards for the classification of borderline plant protection products within the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF). The Commission argued that existing legal definitions under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 are sufficient and that the current informal working document and committee discussions are adequate to ensure harmonised application, without the need for a formal procedural framework.
The answer was given in response to Buczek's written question of 15 April 2026, which had raised concerns about the lack of clear rules on evidentiary standards, transparency, and stakeholder participation in the classification process. Buczek cited the reclassification of SILTAC in January 2024 as an example of significant market effects arising from decisions taken without minimum procedural safeguards comparable to formal administrative procedures.
In his reply, Várhelyi emphasised that the working document on the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is not intended to create new legal criteria but to support coherent application in technically complex or borderline situations. He noted that decisions on product authorisation remain with national competent authorities, which follow clearly established legal requirements. The Commission will continue to update the working document and publish minutes of SCoPAFF discussions to ensure transparency.
The Commission's stance signals a preference for maintaining the current flexible, informal approach over introducing binding rules, which could impose additional administrative burdens on Member States and the Commission. This decision impacts EU producers of plant protection products, who may face continued uncertainty in borderline cases, and national authorities, which retain discretion in interpreting the scope. Consumer and environmental groups may see the lack of formal procedural safeguards as a missed opportunity for greater accountability, while the Commission itself avoids a potentially lengthy legislative process.
No immediate institutional follow-up is expected, as the Commission considers the current framework adequate. However, the issue may resurface if future borderline cases generate market disruptions or legal challenges.