On 18 September 2024, the European Parliament vetoed, by a very large majority, the European Commission’s decision to authorise the presence of residues of five pesticides banned by the EU in certain food and feed products imported from non-EU countries.
1) Pesticides banned in the EU, the decision of the European Commission
The European Commission, in its decision submitted to the scrutiny of the Strasbourg Assembly, had planned to introduce a tolerance on the presence of residues of three pesticides banned in the EU on a series of food and feed products arriving from non-EU countries.
In some cases, the maximum residue levels (MRL) are very high, to the point of wanting to accept, for example, extra-EU limes with residues of thiophanate-methyl up to 6 mg/kg. That is a value 600 times higher than the contamination threshold permitted on substances banned in the EU (0,01 mg/kg).
2) The five pesticides
The decision of the European Commission concerned five pesticides, or rather PPPs (plant-protection products):
– benomyl. ‘Toxicological studies in laboratory mammals indicate that benomyl causes liver toxicity, reproductive effects, and chromosomal abnormalities. More recently, due to its downstream metabolites that act as aldehyde dehydrogenase inhibitors, benomyl has been implicated in neurotoxic pathways.’; (3)
– carbendazim, banned in the EU since November 2014 due to its classification as a mutagenic and toxic for reproduction (category 1B), i.e. capable of causing genetic defects and damaging fertility/the unborn child. It is also highly toxic to aquatic life, with serious risks for ecosystems;
– thiophanate methyl, banned in October 2020. It is metabolized to carbendazim and is in turn classified as a suspected mutagen and suspected carcinogen (category 2). In addition to being an endocrine disruptor, capable of causing long-term health effects. Particularly dangerous for pregnant women and young children;
– spirodiclofen, which is also classified as a carcinogen (category 1B). This active substance is also no longer authorised in the European Union, although the Codex Alimentarius has identified MRLs and Member States have already applied tolerances to the import of products containing them. The MRL proposals developed by EFSA (2021) ‘However, they require further consideration by risk managers’;(4)
– cyproconazole, banned in the EU in May 2021, is classified as toxic for reproduction (category 1B) as well as harmful to aquatic environments.
3) Double standard, what are the critical issues?
The introduction and/or maintenance of ‘double standard‘ for the conformity of products made in the EU and those imported from non-EU countries presents some non-negligible critical issues:
– European consumer health. Although the safety assessment criteria for pesticides by EFSA are obsolete and the renewal of their authorisations often lacks the necessary re-assessment of risks, the EU maintains a ‘decent‘ level of consumer health protection, compared to other markets (e.g. USA, Brazil, Argentina) where the use of agrotoxics is variously unregulated.
– unfair competition between farmers working in the EU and agriculture in third countries.’The farmers’ protests that took place in the first half of 2024 had among their main demands a fair and equal treatment for products imported from third countries, which should follow the same standards as products manufactured in the Union.’, is in fact noted in the first recital of the two resolutions of the European Parliament (3,4);
– health risks for farmers and agricultural workers in non-EU countries. The tolerances proposed by the European Commission effectively entail the approval of the use of these toxic pesticides in all non-EU countries that provide one of the main markets in the international context. This is in contrast with the EU’s declared commitment to human rights and environmental protection at a global level.
4) Provisional conclusions
‘The veto of the Parliament European forces the Commission to ban residues of these five banned pesticides. This is a victory for consumer safety, for fair competition for EU farmers and for the health of workers around the world. We thank MEPs for their firmness and call on the European Commission to review its decision‘ (Salomé Roynel, Pesticides Action Network – PAN Europe, Policy Officer).
Dario Dongo
Footnotes
(1) Dario Dongo. Glyphosate and neurotoxicity, doubts and questions from a toxicologist. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(2) Marta Strinati. Not just glyphosate. 33% of pesticides used in the EU are without risk assessment. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(3) MA Pearson, GW Miller, in Encyclopedia of Toxicology, Four Volume (Elsevier, 2014). ISBN 978-0-12-386455-0
(4) EFSA (2021). Review of the existing maximum residual levels for spirodiclofen according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6908
(5) Resolution on the draft Commission regulation amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for cyproconazole and spirodiclofen in or on certain products. 18.9.2024 https://tinyurl.com/mrxx7xcd
(6) Resolution on the draft Commission regulation amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benomyl, carbendazim and thiophanate‐methyl in or on certain products. 18.9.2024 https://tinyurl.com/ysrbb99f
(7) PAN Europe. European Parliament blocks residues of hazardous pesticides in imported food. Press release, 18.9.24 https://tinyurl.com/y8ubc2f3
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
