Campaigners say the European Commission’s (EC) recent Vision for Agriculture and Food policy roadmap failed to deliver on promises to clamp down on imports of crops grown with banned pesticides. They say the omission is detrimental to the health and sustainability of the European food system. 

Released last week, the EC report outlining its commitments and goals contained weakened language regarding import controls and enforcement of pesticides banned by European agriculture legislation. Many of these pesticides continue to be used to produce crops in other regions that are nevertheless sold in the EU. 

Kristine De Schamphelaere, policy officer at Pesticide Action Network (PAN), a coalition of global NGOs campaigning for increased pesticide regulation, tells Food Ingredients First the points made in the report do not reflect scientific findings or advice.

“We hoped, given the enormous societal support to reduce pesticides and the overwhelming scientific evidence on their alarming impacts on biodiversity, environment, and health, that the EC would have included in the Vision much more ambition and concrete action to reduce pesticides,” she says. 

De Schamphelaere also says the report adopts a “pesticide-industry narrative” by claiming that there are not enough viable alternatives and that banning pesticides too abruptly could damage needed crop yields. This is not the case, PAN emphasizes, describing the idea as persistent but unfounded. 

“This, according to the Vision, can affect the ability to ensure food production, and therefore, the EC will first carefully assess if alternatives are available before banning a pesticide. These statements are problematic. Of course, any pesticide posing a serious health or environmental risk should be banned, according to the EU Pesticide Regulation,” De Schamphelaere adds. 

import controls

PAN also highlights the weakened commitment to stricter controls on food imports containing residues of EU-banned pesticides, and on the export of banned pesticides. 

“In a former leaked version, the EC took up much clearer language, making it clear they will deliver on their commitments. In the final version, the language weakened, stating that there will be an impact assessment regarding imports and residues of banned pesticides and that they ‘will assess’ the issue of the export of hazardous chemicals such as pesticides,” De Schamphelaere explains. 

“Regarding the unfair import practices, the Vision also speaks of the ‘most hazardous pesticides banned in the EU,’ while of course, all banned pesticides are harmful to human health and the environment and should not be allowed in food, not only those from the category ‘most hazardous.’”

This lack of control also creates an unfair competition for EU farmers who must compete with crops grown under cheaper and less sustainable ways and that allowing imports creates an uneven playing field. 

Lack of action 

A recent PAN Europe report shows that in 2022, 69 banned and hazardous pesticides were detected in food sold in the EU. Higher contamination rates found in imported items. A pesticide frequently found was carbendazim, a fungicide that is mutagenic and toxic to reproduction. Also banned neonicotinoids were frequently found, which are bee-killers and neurotoxic. 

“The EU still allows the production and export of pesticides banned in the EU. In 2022, approximately 130 000 tons of pesticides containing banned pesticides were exported from EU factories to outside the EU,” De Schamphelaere says. 

“Evidently, the EU should prohibit the presence of all banned pesticides in food. This means concretely that all the Maximum Residue levels (MRL) of banned pesticides should be lowered to the default limit of quantification.” 

“Around 65 pesticides are still banned in the EU, for which the MRL is still above the limit of quantification, so they are still legally allowed in imports. These include substances that are highly hazardous to human health. import tolerances and codex limits have remained in place in order to keep trade partners happy,” she explains. 

PAN says these practices are harmful to EU citizens, who consume toxic chemicals without realizing it. The organization also says it has proven that so-called “safe levels” are based on industry-promoted methodologies.

“They are harmful to the citizens in third countries, who are directly exposed to them, and they have disastrous impacts on biodiversity outside the EU. It is also unfair to farmers to maintain these absurd double standards: products banned here remain allowed in imported food,” says De Schamphelaere.