An independent legal opinion commissioned by the Veblen Institute, PAN Europe and foodwatch concludes that the EU practice of allowing residues of banned pesticides in imported food is highly questionable from an EU law perspective.

European consumers are exposed, through their food, to residues of hazardous pesticides banned on our market. Residues of at least 88 pesticide substances not approved in the EU are still allowed in imported products. Of these substances, 13% are classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic to reproduction (CMR) or as endocrine disruptors. Six PFAS pesticides, known as ‘forever chemicals’, are also included among these substances (1).

Currently, when a pesticide is banned in the EU, its residue limits are not automatically lowered. Instead, the Commission sets import tolerances for pesticides used in third countries, or adopts residue limits set at international level by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

In abriefing note, the three organisations outline the key points of the legal opinion and put forward proposals to address this shortcoming.

The findings confirm that, under the current EU legal provisions, the Commission not only has the power, but also the obligation to stop allowing these residues.

• For pesticides banned on public health grounds, the practice of authorising residues of EU-banned pesticides is illegal. Import tolerances cannot apply to substances not authorised in the EU on public health grounds. Allowing such residues is contrary to the MRL Regulation, which requires the automatic deletion of MRLs following the revocation of an active substance in the EU. The EC’s practice also breaches fundamental EU principles (the principle of regulatory equivalence and the principle of non-discrimination, which protects EU farmers from unfair competition from third-country producers).

• The situation is more complex for pesticides banned on environmental grounds, as the MRL Regulation was originally designed to protect consumers. However, the Commission’s recent measures regarding neonicotinoids show that change is possible within the current framework. A revision of the MRL Regulation to include environmental protection would strengthen future action. Furthermore, this regulation should also cover crops intended for animal feed, energy production and ornamental purposes.

The ‘omnibus’ simplification package on food and feed safety proposes measures to address this situation. However, the proposal currently on the table is insufficient and largely symbolic. Under this proposal, the vast majority of banned pesticides would continue to enter the EU via food imports. It covers only a limited subset, representing around 22% of EU-banned substances (2). Furthermore, the omnibus significantly weakens the general legal framework governing pesticides and their residues. It is therefore unacceptable as it stands.

To address this long-standing shortcoming, the Omnibus Regulation must introduce a clear and binding obligation on the Commission to automatically ban residues of any pesticide not approved in the EU, regardless of the reason for the ban and for all food products. Any less stringent measure would perpetuate a system that knowingly allows harmful substances to end up on Europeans’ plates and undermines the EU’s own standards.

Notes
(1) List based on banned and restricted active substances included in the Prior Consent Inform (PIC) Regulation
(2) The Omnibus proposal covers active substances that are Carcinogenic, Mutagenic and Toxic for reproduction (CMR) Categories 1A/1B, Endocrine Disruptors for humans or non-target organism, Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP), Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT), or very Persistent and very Bioaccumulative (vPvB). We calculated, on the basis of available data, that 20 of the 88 substances meet these criteria. While official lists exist for CMR substances and endocrine disruptors, no equivalent official list of PBT/vPvB substances has been established at EU level. This figure should therefore be treated as an estimate.