Summary
Press reports in Kenya have highlighted the continued export by EU companies of pesticide products banned for use in the EU. This gives rise to pesticide residues which lead to Kenyan products being prevented from entering the EU market. This is seen as incoherent, with calls being made for the EU to halt the production and export of pesticides which are no longer approved for use in the EU on hazardous to health ground. Currently commercial considerations play a significant role in whether re-approval is sought for specific products. Re-approvals for products which are out-of-patent are not generally sought, particularly when newer patented products are being placed on the market. Thus the absence of re-approvals does not necessarily point to a risk to human health. Clearly better dialogue processes are needed to resolve this incoherency, with, where appropriate for the protection of human health, this being extended to addressing the problems at source by banning production and export of pesticides harmful to human health.
Press reports have highlighted how many of the interceptions of Kenyan products exported to the EU are based on violations of EU maximum pesticide residue level market requirements. The irony in this situation is that ‘most of the chemicals that have made Kenyan flowers, vegetables and fruits poisonous to the extent of being turned back at the borders of any European country are manufactured in Europe’ (1). A new report commissioned by the Route to Food Initiative (RTFI) – a non-governmental organization, found that while ‘more than 100 pest control products that are sold in Kenya contain harmful chemicals and have been banned in Europe….a majority of the products manufactured using harmful chemicals or active ingredients are produced by European firms’. While the companies are no longer allowed to sell these products on the EU market they can freely export them for use in 3rd countries (1).
The EU itself was thus found to be the largest source of pesticide products containing substances banned for use in the EU, where residues were found in Kenyan exports to the EU. The analysis found that of the products giving rise to banned levels of pesticide residues, 75 were produced by EU firms, 55 by Chinese firms and 16 by Indian firms. It is thus the use of EU produced pesticide products which largely give rise to interceptions of Kenyan products at the EU’s borders based on violations of minimum pesticide residue levels (1).
The RTFI is pushing for the withdrawal of these toxic products from the Kenyan market, with it being held ‘at least 32 per cent of the active ingredients in the Kenyan market pose a serious potential impact on human and environmental health and are withdrawn from the European market (1). It is maintained this situation ‘warrants a serious discussion about existing European, Kenyan and international legislation, standards, guidelines, and their gaps’ (1).
The report highlighted the policy inconsistency of having EU laws ‘which ban the use of certain active ingredients in pesticides sold in the EU’ but permits their continued manufacture for sale abroad and then uses EU regulatory standards to prevent the import of products containing residues of the toxic products which are manufactured in the EU and exported for use by third country producers.
Meanwhile within Europe pesticide campaigners are calling for far stricter checks for cocktails of pesticide residues and not just single pesticides (2). The EFSA however takes the view the ‘consumer risk from the exposure of pesticides in combination is below the threshold that would justify regulatory action’, although the analysis did acknowledge ‘the risk of cumulative exposure was higher for toddlers and other children’.
The Pesticide Action Network was however critical of the EFSA findings with the science policy officer Angeliki Lysimachou arguing the conclusion was based on ‘probability and assumptions, not on actual facts, while it is actual people who are exposed to the risk and it is toddlers and children where the probability of exposure is higher’. It was also pointed out that the ‘toxicity data used for the analysis was drawn mostly from scientific studies carried out by or on behalf of industry’ (3).
| Comment and Analysis
The issue of the use and regulation of pesticides is being hotly debated within Europe and internationally. An important area of policy coherence however clearly arises where the EU allows the continued production and export of pesticides which are banned in the EU. This policy incoherence needs to be discussed and addressed, taking into account the commercial realities behind the EU approval process. In this context it should be noted compiling re-approval dossiers can be expensive and time consuming, lengthy nature of the process. The hard reality is that individual companies may have little interest in seeking re-approval for products which are or will shortly be out of patent, particularly where alternative products which enjoy patent protection have been developed and are being placed on the market. By failing to re-submit for re-approval the older out-of-patent product the company effectively reduces competition for its new product. In this context pesticide products can fail to gain re-approval not because they are unsafe and dangerous to human health but simply because the cost of seeking re-approval is no longer commercially justified at the level of the company concerned. This issue is further complicated by the ongoing debate in Europe on the long term environmental impact of intensive pesticide use and the need to move away from the current pesticide dependency. Here again major commercial interests are at stake. What is clear is that better dialogue processes are needed to ensure human health is protected against harmful pesticide residues, with this issue being addressed at source by banning their production where residue levels or the application of these pesticides poses threats to human health. There is however also a need for a parallel dialogue on the re-approval of the use of long standing products which have not been submitted for re-approval on commercial grounds rather than health grounds. The conduct of these parallel processes of intensified dialogue would appear to be necessary to resolve the current apparent incoherence between EU pesticide residue controls and the continued production and export of pesticides which are banned from use in the EU. However this dialogue also needs to be seen in the context of the policy pressures in the EU to move beyond the use of pesticides as the foundation of European agriculture (4). |
Sources:
(1) freshplaza.com, ‘Kenyan growers pay the price for using Europe’s toxic agrochemicals’, 27 August 2019
https://www.freshplaza.com/article/9137382/kenyan-growers-pay-the-price-for-using-europe-s-toxic-agrochemicals
(2) foodnavigator.com, ‘Brussels Bulletin: Campaigner calls for regulatory action on European pesticides’, 12 July
https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2019/07/12/Brussels-Bulletin-Campaigner-calls-for-regulatory-action-on-European-pesticides
(3) ENDSEurope, ‘Initial EU probe suggests no need for regulatory action on pesticide ‘cocktail’ effects’, 17 September 2019
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ac83f7fd1-08df-451c-a44f-b34b94d61035
(4) Friends of the Earth, ‘Campaign launches to ban pesticides and transform agriculture in Europe’, 31 July 2019
http://www.foeeurope.org/europe-campaign-ban-pesticides-transform-agriculture-europe-310119