Revision of the TGD-EQS - Update Stéphanie Schaan DG ENV unit C1 SCG meeting 17-18 May 2017

Reminder of context and question Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards under review, following recommendations from dedicated drafting group and presentation to the WG Chemicals. Should we use toxicologically-based standards or food standards (i.e. Maximum Levels) to protect human health against contaminants in seafood ? Mention several objectives of protection including HH - > open question

Arguments In favour of Maximum Levels (MLs): consistency between the food legislation and the WFD, easier to communicate to the general public. In favour of toxicologically-based standards : several Member States do not see Maximum Levels as protective enough in the context of the WFD. Different methodologies for assessment under WFD/food legislation - > different conclusions, even when using the same standards and the same monitoring data. Use of MLs even more difficult to communicate to the general public ? Mention MLs based on 95 percentile of monitoring data combined with consumption advice.

Updated position of MS following last SCG meeting Maximum Levels preferentially : 3 MSs Only Maximum Levels : 2 MSs Tox-based standards preferentially : 6 MSs and our expert contacts from the ECHA.

Update on latest discussions Further information from DG SANTE, following proposals from MSs to harmonise the approach under the food and water legislation : - reviewing food standards : difficult to depart from international rules (protectionism). - setting target values : aspirational values. Not favoured by DG SANTE (fear of high rates of food wastage – destruction of industry). - setting action levels : Trigger proactive investigation / action (e.g. for dioxins in food). Approximately equal to 60% of maximum level. May need to be investigated to bring closer the WFD and the food legislation. Mention DG Santé's presentation at WG Chemicals end of March and following discussions during the meeting. Mention target values were considered but not taken forward for dioxins.

Next steps Final opinion of the SCHEER on the scientific aspects of the question in early autumn. Discussions at the WG Chemicals meeting in March confirmed the need for a proper communication strategy towards citizens : -> explaining the differences that might arise between the assessment of risk to human health under the WFD and that under the food legislation. Mention that communication strategy is useful to tackle issues that may arise under the current framework, and to assess feasibility of communicating under possible new framework using TBS.

Requests in anticipation of next steps Liaise with WG Chemicals members to make sure, if not yet ascertained, that the national positions expressed on this question to the Commission in the water context have been agreed with colleagues in charge of the food legislation at national level, especially (but not only) if the standards selected are not the same. Liaise with WG Chemicals members to inform the Commission (if not done already) of their interest to participate in designing a communication strategy towards the general public. Mention request to WG Chemicals to provide examples if already existing of difficulties in communicating on the implementation of biota standards.

Thank you for your attention