EU proposes draconian restrictions on common crop protection
products
By Graeme Peters
New Zealand farmers and growers rely on sending food and fibre to highvalue markets offshore.
Access to these markets is a hard-won privilege which New Zealand can
never take for granted.
Vigilance is necessary because politicians and their eager-to-please officials
in food-importing countries leave no stone unturned to find ways to block or
hinder already tightly restricted and regulated food imports.
Often these trade barriers are more to do with kowtowing to the clout of
subsidised farmers, lobby groups that talk in sound bites, and pork barrel
politicians, than any legitimate and scientific reasons.
Europe is a constant source of trade friction and roadblock trickery.
Crop protection products are one target, where arguments swirl around
perceived risks of tiny and hotly contested residues of agrichemicals applied
some months back to keep food pest and disease free.
Despite long-running angst, it was a shock to receive an unnerving report a
couple of weeks ago. Disturbingly, it said proposed European Union (EU)
curbs on common crop protection products could disrupt more than NZ$600
million of New Zealand exports to Europe.
First, let’s be clear that no one wants to use pesticides on food crops – they
cost money and most people prefer a round of golf over spraying. But they are
essential for protecting crops from pests and diseases. Without them yields
would halve, meaning less income for agriculture. Many importing countries
insist that crops are treated to minimise risks of importing pests.
The substances targeted by the EU include those which it says have
‘endocrine disrupting’ properties, though the European Commission (EC) is
still developing criteria to identify these properties.
The proposal will slash acceptable pesticide residues in food to far below
levels internationally agreed as safe.
The EU proposes that the tolerance for imported food products will be 0.01
mg/kg (or 10 parts per billion), equivalent to less than two tablespoons of a
substance in an Olympic sized swimming pool containing 2.5 million litres of
water.
The proposal could affect up to 70 active substances (see table).
So, what are ‘endocrine disruptors’?
Endocrine disrupter is a term used to describe a natural or synthetic chemical
that affects the functioning of the endocrine system. There is no official and
internationally-agreed definition.
The endocrine system is a set of glands, hormones and receptor cells which
helps control the development, growth, reproduction and behaviour of animals
and humans.
An endocrine active substance is a chemical that produces a temporary,
adaptive response in the endocrine system with no long-term adverse effects.
Examples of endocrine active substances include natural hormones from
animals and humans, natural substances such as plant constituents, and
synthetic hormone drugs developed to obtain a specific hormonal action (eg
the female birth control pill).
Many compounds, natural and man-made, such as sunlight, sugar and soy,
are endocrine disruptors.
Crop Life International, the industry association for the plant science industry,
commissioned an independent report on the potential effects of the EU’s
actions on global trade.
According to the report, approximately €65 billion of EU imports of raw and
semi-processed agricultural products from countries worldwide could be
adversely affected by the EU regulation 1107/2009.
The EU’s move toward hazard-based cut offs is not a rational, science-based
approach and is contrary to the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the
World Trade Organisation, to which the EU and New Zealand are signatories.
The EC is assessing the hazards of endocrine disruptors rather than the risk.
Assessing hazards means looking at the possibility that something may
happen, rather than the likelihood of it happening. The repercussions are very
different. Hazards can be identified nearly everywhere. The level of risk
varies and is a more scientific means of assessment.
Chemicals in pesticides potentially having an effect on the endocrine system
depends on the concentration of the compound, the level and duration of
exposure to the compound, and the potency of the chemical. It’s not just a
case of saying if it’s present, it will have an effect.
The EC made a similar politically-motivated decision when it decided to
suspend the use of neonicotinoids.
The prospect of free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
means there is a greater need for more harmony in the regulation of crop
protection technologies. The ability of all nations to communicate with the EU
about the importance of science-based risk assessments for pesticide
regulations is vital.
It’s essential that countries such as New Zealand pressure Europe to review
its proposals to impose the 10 part per billion residue limit. .
The EU needs to carry out risk assessments in a realistic way and use a
science- and evidence-based definition of criteria for endocrine disruptors.
Otherwise the trade in safe and high quality food will get even tougher.
Europe’s Hit List
Fungicides
Bitertanol, Fluquinconazole, Penconazole, Cyproconazole, Flusilazole,
Propiconazole, Difenoconazole, Fuberidazole, Tetraconazole,
Epoxiconazole, Maneb, Thiram, Fenbuconazole,
Metconazole,Triademenol, Folpet, Metiram, Triticonazole, Bupirimate,
Carbendazim, Cymoxanil, Fluazinam, Fosetyl aluminium, Hymexazol,
Iprodione, Mancozeb, Mandipropamid, Myclobutanil, Prochloraz,
Prothioconazole, Silthiofam, Tebuconazole, Thiophanate-methyl,
Thiram.
Herbicides
2,4-D, Chlorpropham, Dimethenamid-P, Ethofumesate, Fluazifop-pbutyl, Glufosinate-ammonium, Ioxynil, Lenacil, Linuron, Metribuzin,
Pinoxaden, Propyzamide, S-metolachlor, Tepraloxydim,
Terbuthylazine, Amitrole, Fluometuron, Tralkoxydim, Carbetamide,
Molinate, Chlorotoluron, Picloram.
Insecticides
Abamectin, Beta-cyfluthrin, Chlorpyrifos, Clothianidin, Lambdacyhalothrin, Spinosad, Spiromesifen, Spirotetremat, Thiacloprid,
Bifenthrin, Deltamethrin, Dimethoate.
Source: UK Food and Environment Research Agency; UK Health and Safety Directorate.

Graeme Peters is the chief executive of Agcarm, the industry
association for companies which make and sell crop protection
products.