By Marcos A Orellana and Olivier De Schutter
A number of hazardous pesticides which are banned in the EU are freely manufactured and exported to other countries with weaker regulations, putting human health and the environment at risk. The EU also allows the import of produce grown with these banned pesticides, exposing European consumers to cocktails of dangerous residues and creating unfair competition for European farmers.
The End Toxic Pesticide Trade Coalition – a broad coalition of NGOs and trade unions – has launched a Joint Statement co-signed by 600 organisations worldwide, as well as an open letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
Below is an op-ed by UN Special Rapporteurs Marcos A Orellana and Olivier De Schutter.
Every year, tens of thousands of tons of highly hazardous pesticides that are banned in the European Union are nevertheless manufactured for export. These odious double standards are a form of exploitation in the fields of the Global South. While workers and their families suffer, pesticide manufacturers profit.
In 2020, the European Commission released a chemical strategy that pledged to put an end to this abhorrent practice. Yet, it has yet to propose legislation to make good on its promise.
Recognition that the human body is the same for each member of the human family, regardless of residence or skin color, should lead to effective bans on the export of prohibited pesticides.
The moral imperative for a ban on the export of banned pesticides is clear. The export from Europe of banned pesticides inflicts serious harm on individuals and communities in developing countries. Exposure to hazardous pesticides causes cancers, infertility, diabetes, neurological diseases like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and disorders of the endocrine and immune systems, among other harms. It affects adults, but also newborns, causing birth defects and congenital malformations, as well as neuro-developmental disabilities including reduced intelligence quotient.
People have a right to health and a right to live in dignity. The European practice of exporting banned pesticides is a blatant violation of these fundamental rights.
Certain industry actors have at times argued that if only workers used personal protective equipment, then banned pesticides could be used safely. This ignores that such equipment is most often not available or accessible, especially to workers living in poverty, and that high temperatures in the fields often make protective gear impossible to use. This argument also puts the burden of the weakest link of the agricultural value chain. And it misses the ecosystem impacts, especially on pollinators and loss of biodiversity.
Certain governments have argued that each country is sovereign to decide what to import. This argument overlooks the lack of capacities of most developing countries to manage the information necessary to make such determinations. It also neglects the human rights obligations of States regarding the foreseeable consequences of their conduct in other countries. Moreover, this argument ignores that in states with weak governance, sovereignty is often captured by and at the service of corporate interests, including because of corruption, to the detriment of human rights and food production for the local population.
Certain actors have also argued that a European ban on the export of banned pesticides would simply displace production elsewhere, depriving European industry from income without solving the problem. This argument is morally untenable. If accepted, it would justify doing away with labor protections, social security, the abolition of slavery and many other hard-fought human rights protections.
Spilling Europe’s Dirty Secrets: Uncorking the Toxic Trade in Banned Pesticides
Real leadership requires confronting the short-term economic costs of doing the right thing. Costs in the short term are a bet on the long term: a ban on prohibited pesticides would stimulate innovation for safe alternatives, leading to the economic advantages of new markets for first movers.
A human rights-based approach supports determined action to put an end to the double standards. Yet, while the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of every child to live in a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, children suffer heavily from exposures to hazardous pesticides given their stage of neurological development. This includes aerial and other spraying of highly hazardous pesticides over or around schools, further undermining educational opportunities.
The International Labour Organization has also recognized a healthy environment as a fundamental right and principle at work. However, the Pesticide Atlas of the Heinrich Böll Foundation has estimated that every year tens of thousands of workers die and 350 million workers fall ill. The harm is thus widespread, systematic, and severe, and it even affects future generations.
All countries should cooperate to ban the export of banned pesticides and uphold the right to a toxic free environment. But change requires vision and moral conviction.
Some European countries such as Belgium and France are taking the lead in banning this abhorrent practice. European institutions should also show leadership at the regional level and act to ban the export of banned pesticides.
Marcos A Orellana is UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights
Olivier De Schutter is UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
More on pesticides
Spilling Europe’s Dirty Secrets: Uncorking the Toxic Trade in Banned Pesticides
Germany | To Reduce Pesticides, Start with Nutrient Management
Op-Ed – The Solution to Free Half of European Arable Land from Pesticides
Confidential Legal Advice on CAP Fast Track Uncovered – Critique of a Meek Opinion
EU Must Make Pesticide Reduction a Reality – 125 organisations
Commission to scrap EU pesticide reduction plan amid presSURe from farmers
More from Brussels
Fund the Future of Food & Farming: A United Call from Across Europe
Mercosur Is Set To Sail – With Sore Points for Sustainability, Will The Deal Sink Or Swim?
Pruning the EU’s Farming Policy: Have CAP’s Green Shoots Survived the Shears?
Scapegoating Green NGOs – The dangerous distraction of a corporate agenda
Shortsighted Vision: Unpacking EU’s new agrifood policy plans
