Paraquat herbicides are banned in around 70 countries, including the UK and EU. But they remain legal in Australia, the US and many low- and middle-income countries – many of which rely on imports of the chemicals from countries in which their use has been banned for decades.
While Syngenta – which originally developed paraquat – closed its UK paraquat factory earlier this year, there are still multiple exporters across the EU. Environmental lobbyists and groups representing Parkinson’s disease patients – to which paraquat exposure has been linked – have applied pressure to EU lawmakers to end exports of agrochemicals that are banned in EU countries. EU leaders had committed to introduce new legislation around banned pesticide exports by 2023, but no action has yet been taken. A recent analysis in the Guardian suggests that this indicates regulations are tipped in favour of agrochemical producers.
The discrepancy highlights different regulatory approaches to risk. Whereas the EU is somewhat precautionary and has given more weight to associations with Parkinson’s, Australia and the US lean more towards requiring proof that a chemical causes definite harm before introducing a ban. Such direct causal links can be difficult to prove when related to chronic, low-level exposure. Indiviual nations can decide the level of risk they are prepared to accept, but many of those without well-equipped regulators will follow the lead of developed nations.
Manufacturers maintain that their products are safe when used correctly, often providing detailed guidelines and education around how to manage exposure risks. Australia’s regulator has lowered permitted application rates, increased protective equipment requirements and phased out riskier backpack spraying to reduce exposure and mitigate the risk from paraquat. These restrictions are similar to those put in place when the US reapproved another controversial herbicide, dicamba, which is sprayed over genetically resistant crops to remove competing weeds, but can damage non-resistant crops in neighbouring fields if it drifts on the wind.
These restrictions may be effective in wealthy countries such as Australia and the US, where contractors can afford to upgrade their machinery and implement exposure controls. But in low- and middle-income countries, where the majority of use is by smallholder farmers, such measures would be difficult to introduce, and impossible to enforce. There is growing evidence that agrochemical exposure is having various detrimental effects on users, who feel they have no choice but to accept these risks or lose their livelihoods – for example causing sleep problems for spraying contractors in India. While there may be less risky alternatives available in these countries, they tend to be more expensive, making them inaccessible to those likely to be most vulnerable to exposure.
Lobby groups in Europe argue, therefore, that the EU has a responsibility to take the lead and implement export bans to help prevent products that EU regulators have acknowledged are unsafe from harming users in jurisdictions with weaker regulatory controls. While this would not completely solve the issue – there are producers elsewhere that could potentially continue supplying countries that currently import from the EU – it could provide an opportunity to reassess practices in importing countries and move towards safer alternatives.
No comments yet