Nearly 122,000 tonnes of pesticides banned in the EU were exported by companies in the bloc in 2024, up 50% from 2018, a new investigation has revealed. The European Commission, which committed to end this in 2020, is coming under increasing pressure to stop the practice.
The investigation by Public Eye, a Swiss global justice group, and Unearthed, Greenpeace UK’s journalism project, analysed export notifications obtained under freedom of information laws from regulatory authorities. Companies must list any exports of banned products under ‘prior informed consent’ rules.
In 2024, 75 banned pesticides were notified for export from the EU, compared with 41 in 2018, mainly because many more pesticides have been banned since 2018. The largest volumes were of 1,3-dichloropropene, a fumigant and nematicide, banned in the EU in 2007; the weedkiller glufosinate, whose approval expired in 2018; and mancozeb, a fungicide that was not reapproved in 2021.
These exports were sent to 93 countries last year, 75% of them classed as low- and middle-income countries, where regulations are weaker and the risk from their use is likely to be higher. However, the US was the largest importer followed by Brazil. BASF was the largest exporter (33,000 tonnes) followed by Teleos Ag Solutions, Agria, Corteva Agriscience and Syngenta.
Public Eye says that Brussels is backtracking on its commitment to stop manufacturing and exporting of dangerous pesticides because of pressure from the agrichemical lobby. Commission president Ursula von der Leyen had promised to act in 2020 and committed to produce a legislative proposal by 2023, but no action has been taken.
‘The commission shares the concerns regarding exports to third countries of EU-banned pesticides and is committed to addressing this important issue,’ an EU spokesperson insists. ‘[It] is exploring the options to ensure that the most hazardous chemicals banned in the EU cannot be produced for export, including by amending relevant legislation if and as needed. The commission launched a public consultation and study in 2023. An evaluation of the possible options to implement this initiative is ongoing.’
Industry opposes unilateral trade ban
Industry has signalled its opposition to export bans. ‘We know that for many the idea that plant protection products that are not (or no longer) registered in the EU can still be used safely in the right context is difficult to imagine,’ a BASF spokesperson says. ‘At first glance, people may perceive this as a double-standard and see the ban of exports as a solution.’ But BASF remains convinced its products are safe and says there are several reasons why they are approved in other markets. For example, different climates and diseases require different solutions, and the EU uses a stricter approval system than others.
Instead of a unilateral trade ban, BASF argues that countries should decide for themselves which products they need locally. It also believes an export ban would further weaken Europe as an industrial location and cause production to relocate to non-EU countries. ‘Furthermore, an export ban does not increase the security of farmers in the countries of the global south. On the contrary, the lack of carefully tested crop protection products in these countries can lead to unsafe harvests and negative impacts on farmers’ incomes and livelihoods.’
Syngenta and the trade association CropLife were also approached for comment but no response was received by publication time.
However, scientists familiar with the effects of pesticides on people and the environment disagree and urge the commission to stop these exports immediately. ‘Companies argue that these countries need these pesticides for their agriculture,’ says Michael Eddleston, a clinical toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh. ‘But there are plenty of other products farmers can use. Only 5–10% of all pesticides fall into this category. This is purely about profitmaking. Paraquat, for example, which is made by Syngenta, is very cheap to produce. But we could save thousands of lives by taking even one of these pesticides out of action.’
‘Any export of these chemicals is a concern,’ agrees Keith Tyrell, head of global strategy at the Centre for Suicide Prevention at the University of Edinburgh. ‘If they have been banned in the EU, then they should be banned everywhere. They present a hazard in any country and probably more so in some of the importing countries where regulatory and policing capacities are much more limited.’
Europe’s regulatory system for pesticide use is amongst the most rigorous in the world, says Dave Goulson, a biologist at the University of Sussex. ‘Yet, with astonishing hypocrisy, we show no regard for preventing harm to humans or the environment elsewhere in the world, exporting chemicals deemed too dangerous to use ourselves. This is grossly irresponsible profiteering on the part of the companies that manufacture pesticides in Europe. If we truly cared about human well-being and global biodiversity, we would ban this practice immediately.’
Ethically, the behaviour of these exporters is unacceptable, Fabrice Martin-Laurent, an agroecologist at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment, says. ‘However, one cannot blame them if current regulations allow it and these products are known to protect crops.’
He suggests imposing taxes on the exporters, levied per tonne of active ingredient, and using the revenues generated to help low- and middle-income countries improve their pesticides regulation and use.
No comments yet