Toxic trade

Rising pesticide levels on British farms and food post-Brexit

Professor Emily Lydgate’s collaboration with the Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN) and Sustain caused a stir in Parliament and the media. Their Toxic Trade reports highlighted the risks that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with agricultural powerhouses like the USA and Australia could pose to UK public health and the environment.  

Does our supermarket fruit and veg now contain sky high pesticides?

As an EU member, the UK had some of the strictest regulations on pesticides in the world. Maximum residue levels (MRLs) set limits on the different “active substances” used on agricultural products entering a country. The EU’s strict approach has been repeatedly criticised by agricultural exporting countries as an unnecessary and unscientific trade barrier. With the UK embarking on trade negotiations with many of these countries, there was a risk that the UK would agree to weaken its standards. I partnered with PAN and Sustain, an alliance of food and agriculture policy and practice advocacy groups, to write these reports outlining our concerns. We were unclear how the UK might approach its post-Brexit regulatory freedoms to approve new active substances for pesticides and set permitted MRLs - which previously had to match those in the EU.

To some extent, our concerns about lowering of standards are being borne out. Recent research by PAN revealed that safety limits on 49 different active substances were relaxed between 2022-24.

Limits on brussels sprouts, broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower and some other products are now permitted to have as many as 1,500 times the amount of pesticide residues as in the EU.”Professor Emily Lydgate

The UK has also relaxed some MRLs on pesticides which are banned for use in the UK but in use in countries exporting to us. These include thiamethoxam which has been linked to adverse effects on developmental, reproductive and liver health in some animal studies, now raised by 500 times as much as the EU limit for products such as rice. The MRL for the banned carcinogen bifenthrin, which is used on avocados, has been multiplied by 50. 

How has this happened?

When deciding whether to approve new “active substances” for pesticides or change MRLs, the UK Health and Safety Executive does a risk assessment to see if it’s safe to do so. Different countries have different ways of assessing what level of risk is acceptable. Post-Brexit, the UK on paper maintained the EU’s precautionary “hazard-based” approach which tends to lead to more restrictive results than international standards on pesticides.

In the world of international trade, the EU’s precautionary approach to risk assessment is very unpopular. It’s not clear that the UK changed its standards in response to specific trade partners’ requests – what we do know for sure is that its risk assessments are less precautionary in some cases. The UK has also failed to match some of the new restrictions on pesticides that the EU has introduced after Brexit.

Who has the UK signed Free Trade Agreements with and what do these agreements mean for pesticides on our food?

While an FTA with the USA didn’t happen, the UK did sign one with Australia and acceded to the Comprehensive Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) which opened our markets to countries with much lower pesticide standards. The UK may not have wholly abandoned the high standards or precautionary approach inherited from the EU, however many UK food products now contain more pesticide residues than before.

Our reports tried to explain how, exactly, FTAs that the UK negotiated might lead to increased pressure on UK government to lower its pesticide standards. Effectively what this comes down to is some of the language that they contain – that departs from what the EU agrees in its trade agreements – that encourages countries to base their risk assessments on scientific evidence, which effectively means rejection of a precautionary approach. They also provide more channels for trade partners to raise concerns about UK food standards including on pesticides. The CPTPP is a good example of an FTA with this type of language. The UK might not be required to change its standards as a condition of signing an FTA, but negotiations and implementation of FTAs can increase diplomatic pressure to do so. Also, because of these FTAs, the UK has removed tariffs on agri-food in new FTAs. This increases imports of some products which are being produced with pesticides banned domestically. This cheaper food puts more competitive pressure on UK farmers.

Did anyone listen to the warnings of the Toxic Trade reports?

The attention the reports received took us by surprise. Before we published our research, the media was full of stories about chlorinated chicken, hormone-fed beef and insect body parts. Pesticides did not appear to be on the radar.

I’d like to think our efforts at least created public awareness and debate. We gained wide media coverage from Channel 4 Dispatches’ Dirty Secrets of American Food: Coming to a Supermarket Near You? to The Daily Mail. We had multiple meetings with civil servants at the Departments for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Business and Trade, and the reports were cited in Parliamentary debate in the House of Commons and Lords. Two of the Parliament Committee Chairs also hosted an event about our reports.

Our work also helped to inform a proposed Amendment 16 to the Trade (CPTPP) Act, to ensure testing would be robust enough to prevent imports containing banned substances.

Ultimately, we did our best to create a large groundswell among the public, the media, and parliamentarians around the risks that post-Brexit trade posed for UK pesticide standards, the implications of this for public and environmental health, and how to guard against these risks.

Where do the government and farmers go from here?

Although many want to use more pesticides, most UK agribusinesses also favour alignment with their largest export market. UK agriculture today is profoundly different to many of our competitors outside of Europe. US and Australian agriculture, for example, is based on big agribusinesses managing vast landholdings – the UK’s little hedgerow fields appear very quaint in comparison. Cheap and efficient methods of chemical pest control are used on an industrial scale there that UK farmers struggle to compete against. It’s too easy to tell farmers to not spray pesticides if they cannot afford other methods of pest control.

Nick Thomas-Symonds, EU Relations Minister, has voiced support for an “ambitious" SPS [Sanitary and Phytosanitary] Agreement with the EU. An SPS Agreement, sometimes known as a Veterinary Agreement, would effectively align the UK with EU rules around animal and plant health. Ultimately, alignment with the EU is a powerful way to maintain both the high pesticide standards and access to export markets for UK agriculture. We will have to wait and see what path the current government takes.

Photo credits EvgeniiasArt.