Written evidence submitted by the Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK)(TFA0016)

House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Inquiry into UK trade policy: food and agriculture

July 2023

Introduction

1.        PAN UK is the only UK charity focused on tackling the problems caused by pesticides and promoting safe and sustainable alternatives in agriculture, urban areas, homes and gardens.

2.        PAN UK has been looking at the potential impact of UK Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) on the pesticide standards of the UK and its trading partners in a joint project with the NGO Sustain and international trade law expert Dr Emily Lydgate from Sussex University. For more information, visit: https://www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade/

3.        This document sets out PAN UK’s written evidence to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Inquiry into “UK trade policy: food and agriculture”. Specifically, it answers questions 7, 8, 9 and 11 in the Inquiry’s Call for Evidence.

How pesticide standards and international trade intersect

4.        While far from perfect, UK pesticide standards are some of the strongest in the world in terms of protecting human health and the environment. In the context of trade, this means two key things:

• UK safety limits (Maximum Residue Levels – MRLs) for the amount of pesticides allowed to appear in food tend to be more stringent/lower than in the majority of other countries outside the EU.
• The UK is more likely to ban a pesticide due to concerns over the harms it causes.

These factors restrict imports in two key ways:

• Food containing residues that exceed the UK’s MRLs are not be allowed to enter the country.
• When a pesticide is banned for use in the UK, it is theoretically not allowed to appear in food above the so-called level of detection (set at 0.01 milligrams per kilogram).

As a result, agribusiness in trading partner countries potentially have much to gain from weakening the UK’s approach to a) setting MRLs and b) which pesticides the UK approves for use domestically. This is particularly true for countries that are major agricultural exporters.

Overview of concerns

Concerns related to consumer health

5.        Amount of pesticides in food could increase – Trading partners tend to allow larger amounts of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) to appear in food than the UK. As just one of many examples, the MRL for malathion in both Indian apples and grapes is 200 times that of the UK (4 mg per kg in India vs. 0.02 mg per kg in the UK).

6.        Type of pesticides in food could become more toxic – Many pesticides banned from appearing in food in the UK are permitted in food produced in trading partner countries. For example, CPTPP member countries Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand and Vietnam allow food to contain dimethoate which is banned in the UK due to the potential risk its poses to consumer health through long-term exposure via diet.

7.        UK border controls unlikely to be able to prevent contaminated food from entering the country – Despite some potential trading partners’ ongoing problems with high pesticide residues, very few products are flagged as requiring automatic testing in the UK. In addition, the UK pesticide residue testing regime has not experienced a major rise in investment nor staff capacity since EU exit, despite the significant additional border control challenges it has brought. As a result, it is unlikely that the UK has the infrastructure and resources required to adequately test imported produce for pesticide residues.

Concerns related to environmental protections and biodiversity loss

8.        UK likely to be pressured to approve or reapprove harmful pesticides – Because once a pesticide is banned for use in the UK it is theoretically not allowed to appear in food imports, the UK is likely to come under pressure from trading partners to approve new pesticides, or even to reapprove those previously banned for environmental (or health) reasons.

In terms of assessing which pesticides to approve, the UK operates a ‘hazard-based’ system based on the view that some pesticides are intrinsically dangerous and should therefore be banned both from use and from appearing in food as a residue. In contrast, all other non-EU countries follow the so-called ‘risk-based’ approach’ which is based on the belief that almost every risk can be mitigated through measures such as PPE and guidance around where and how pesticides can be used. As a result of this fundamental difference, potential trading partners tend to allow the use of more HHPs than the UK as shown by the table below:

9.        UK diets will increasingly drive environmental destruction in countries where our food is grown – Increasing the imports of produce grown using HHPs that the UK has banned is likely to result in the UK effectively exporting environmental harms associated with its consumption patterns.  The concept of “offshoring” such harms is well recognised in (for example) UK climate policy: the UK government includes carbon emissions generated outside the UK associated with UK consumption in its estimate of its carbon footprint. A closer look at pesticides which pose a major threat to the environment and/or wildlife reveal the extent of this threat:

         Approval status of active substances that are highly toxic to bees and other pollinators (KEY:  = not approved; = approved)

         Approval status of active substances that contaminate water and/or impact on aquatic life (KEY:  = not approved; = approved)

10.    UK contribution to global biodiversity loss will be invisible – The international trading system, with its emphasis on MRLs, is only set up to protect consumer health from pesticide-related harms. The environmental impacts associated to growing food for export remain almost entirely invisible within the supply chain.

Concerns around UK agriculture

11.    UK farmers undermined by food imports produced using pesticides banned in UK – Agribusiness in trading partner countries growing crops that can be produced in the UK (such as wheat, onions, apples and sugar) are able to operate more cheaply using harmful pesticides that are banned in the UK, giving them a competitive advantage over UK producers. As the table below shows, in some cases the UK even allows residues of banned pesticides to appear in food imports (known as ‘import tolerances’).

         Examples of Maximum Residue Levels on imported produce for pesticide banned for use in the UK

12.    Trade and Agriculture Commission has highlighted pesticide double standard as a key problem – The TAC warned the UK Government that “The [UK-Australia] FTA is likely to lead to increased imports of products that have been produced at lower cost by using pesticides in Australia that would not be permitted in the UK”. For FTAs with major agricultural exporting countries, this competitive advantage is likely to cause much greater problems for UK farmers.

13.    Moves to weaken UK domestic pesticide standards won’t solve the problem – If the UK Government agrees to weaken domestic standards in order to facilitate imports, thereby encouraging British farmers to start using currently banned pesticides, then UK exports will struggle to meet EU standards. Given that the EU remains the UK’s primary agricultural export destination, accounting for roughly 60%, this is likely to have a negative impact on the UK farming sector.

14.    Risks undermining recent progress on making UK farming more sustainable – Any pressure to lower UK pesticide standards via FTAs risks damaging recent UK Government commitments to minimise the impacts of pesticides. In addition, if UK farmers are forced to compete with imports produced more cheaply to lower standards they are less likely to sign up to England’s Environmental Land Management Scheme (or similar schemes in the other three nations).

Additional concerns related to FTAs mentioned in the Inquiry’s Call for Evidence

Concerns related to the UK-Australia FTA

15.    There are a range of differences between the way the UK and Australia have chosen to govern pesticides. For example, the Australian system has no set time period for reviewing the approval of either active substances or pesticide products, meaning that they can remain in use indefinitely once authorised. In the UK, both active substance and products can only be granted a maximum of 15 year’s license before having to go through a risk assessment process to be reapproved. Substances of concern often receive less time.

16.    The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) chapter of the UK-Australia FTA contains a number of red flags. Firstly, "ensuring that...respective SPS measures are based on scientific principles". Endorsing science-based regulation appears to be politically neutral, but the concept is often used by governments and industry to attack use of the precautionary principle. This text threatens to limit the UK’s ability to bring in new regulations and could allow Australia to challenge future UK protections as ‘non-scientific’ and demand that the UK Government provides ‘definitive’ evidence of harms, an often-unattainable goal.

17.    Secondly, the SPS chapter’s focus on "equivalence" implies that the UK recognises that Australia’s pesticide standards offer an equal level of protection to those of the UK. However, the figures on numbers of approvals on MRLs show that there is clear difference between the level of protection afforded to human health by the UK regime and that of Australia.

18.    Thirdly, the repeated mention of “international standards” in the UK-Australia FTA text. International standards for pesticides come from Codex. Maximum Residue Levels set by Codex tend to be less stringent than those set by UK.

Concerns related to membership of CPTPP

19.    There are 119 pesticides allowed for use in one or more CPTPP member country that have been banned in the UK for health or environmental reasons, 67 of which (56%) are HHPs.

20.    The CPTPP Agreement reduces its members’ scope to regulate in their own individual ways. This has the potential to challenge UK efforts to uphold pesticide regulation at current levels of protection for health and environment. Requirements under the CPTPP include:

A)     Increased pressure to reduce trade barriers

         CPTPP introduces new avenues for member countries to request the removal of UK pesticide regulations which obstruct exports.

         Parties are encouraged to acknowledge that their regulations are equivalent.

         Each country is required, upon request, to explain the objective and rationale of their regulations (Article 7.8(2).

         Members are obliged to allow other Parties or ‘interested persons’ a chance to comment on their risk assessment processes (Article 7.9(4), thereby exposing UK regulators to direct pressure from foreign lobbyists.

B)     Lessened scope to regulate

         The CPTPP Agreement pushes for all member countries to adopt international standards which tend to be weaker than their UK equivalents.

         If a CPTPP member country wants to go beyond international standards to introduce measures which are more protective then, according to the CPTPP Agreement, it must be ‘based on documented and objective scientific evidence that is rationally related to the measure.’ This undermines the precautionary principle (which theoretically underpins all current UK decision-making on pesticides) thereby reducing the UK’s ability to both set stringent MRLs and ban a pesticide which is suspected to be causing harm.

21.    Whilst there is a very limited opportunity to modify the text of the CPTPP Agreement, there is scope for the UK to pursue side letters to safeguard its domestic pesticide standards. Because side letters are bilateral, achieving a ‘modification’ to the CPTPP agreement would require a successful negotiation with each CPTPP country individually. Alternatively, the UK could limit its side letter negotiation to those countries which currently pose the greatest threat to UK standards (currently Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Chile and Peru). In the side letter, the UK can affirm that, in conformity with UK law, it will incorporate the precautionary principle into its regulatory processes, including the assessment of authorisation for new active substances for pesticides and MRLs.

Concerns related to the UK-India FTA

22.    Indian agricultural exports frequently contain illegally-high levels of pesticide residues – Indian exporters regularly face problems with shipments of food being rejected by importing countries. While the list of Indian produce being rejected includes mangos, chillies and spices, the most problematic crop has been basmati rice. In 2021, 200 tonnes of Indian basmati rice were rejected every month due to pesticide residues that exceeded the national limits of a wide list of countries including Egypt, Lebanon and Yemen. Despite these ongoing problems, the UK flags just four Indian products for automatic testing (curry leaves, okra, peppers and sesame seed).

23.    Many Indian food exports already enter the UK tariff-free – While the UK does apply tariffs to some Indian agri-food imports, much of its produce (including rice, wheat and tea) already comes into the UK tariff-free. As a result, Indian negotiators are likely to focus on removing non-tariff (or regulatory) barriers which would almost certainly include pressure on the UK to facilitate Indian exports by allowing larger amounts of more toxic pesticides in food.

24.    India has a long history of attempting to weaken pesticide standards – The Indian Government has long pushed for the EU to weaken its pesticide standards. India also has a track record of obstructing international efforts on pesticides and has chosen to repeatedly obstruct global attempts to regulate HHPs.

25.    India unlikely to agree to an FTA which doesn’t increase access to UK food market – It is unlikely that Indian negotiators would agree to eliminate tariffs on UK agri-food exports to India without securing significant benefits in terms of trading arrangements for their own agri-food exports in return.

How to use trade policy to drive positive outcomes

26.    Strong pesticide standards in importing countries drive positive change on the ground where food exports are grown. By maintaining stringent MRLs and continuing to ban HHPs that harm human health and/or the environment, the UK can use its trade policy to support sustainable forms of agriculture and help tackle the global nature crisis.

27.    We have seen how EU pesticide standards have had exactly that effect on a number of countries. For example, Vietnam increased its pesticide use on rice in order to facilitate a growth in exports. However, Vietnamese rice exports have, in some cases, contained such high levels of pesticide residues that some countries have refused particular shipments or even threatened to ban Vietnamese rice imports altogether. Driven by this potential loss in trade, Vietnam has now started to tackle its overuse of pesticides. It has banned a number of HHPs and introduced training in key rice growing areas to help farmers reduce their pesticide use. By adopting stringent MRLs, the EU market has encouraged the Vietnamese Government and other domestic stakeholders to implement pesticide reduction strategies which, while aimed at facilitating trade, are also benefitting the health of both people and the environment within Vietnam itself.

28.    The UK is a Party of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which, in December 2022, adopted target 7 committing to “reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half” by 2030. Ensuring that the UK’s trade policy drives a reduction in pesticide use globally will be absolutely key to meeting this target.

Key recommendations

• Do not allow any weakening of UK pesticide standards via FTAs. This should include:

      Ensuring that no currently banned pesticides are allowed for use in the UK

      Ensuring that food containing detectable residues of currently banned substances cannot be imported into the UK

      Ensuring that Maximum Residue Levels are maintained or strengthened.

• Prevent UK farmers from being disadvantaged by cheap food imports produced to weaker pesticide standards in trading partner countries. In particular, address the potential competitive threat to UK farmers by not allowing food imports grown using pesticides banned for use domestically.
• Undertake and publish detailed assessments on the likely impacts of each FTA on pesticide use in both countries and the associated impacts on public health and the environment.
• The UK should not liberalise (phase out Tariff Rate Quotas) for products that have a proven track record of violating Maximum Residue Level legal requirements or driving pesticide-related harms to human health or the environment.
• Reject clauses in FTAs which:

      Undermine the precautionary principle by creating additional obligations to justify taking a more stringent approach to protecting human health and the environment from pesticides.

      Encourage ‘equivalence’ – Member countries are often encouraged to acknowledge that their regulations are ‘equivalent’ and therefore achieve the same level of protection. However, every government inevitably considers its own regulation to be ‘safe’ and can pressure the UK Government to conclude the same.

      Introduce new avenues through which trading partners can request removal of UK pesticide regulations.

• The UK should ensure that its borders are adequately resourced to ensure that products with illegal levels of pesticide residue aren’t circulating in the UK.
• Ensure that FTAs do not hamper the ability of the devolved nations to introduce stricter measures to protect human health and the environment from pesticides.
• Resist all attempts to push the UK to revert to weak Codex Alimentarius standards on pesticide residues.

July 2023