W-Moszczynski PS 12-23
SALE OF PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES: WHO REALLY BENEFITS?
The sale of pesticides and herbicides brings huge profits. These chemical substances are produced based on proprietary formulas. Their manufacturing process takes place in costly chemical synthesis facilities. Storage processes and related production logistics in this industry are under strict supervision by environmental protection authorities. Consequently, there are many high barriers to entry for new producers in this lucrative sector. Only large international chemical corporations can afford to enter the ranks of pesticide manufacturers. These producers protect their interests by creating powerful lobby groups, influencing European lawmakers to ease and tailor regulations to their needs while limiting changes that promote responsibility and safety. History has shown that responsible governments eventually prevail over monopolies, trusts, and powerful interest groups, as we’ve seen with the tobacco and automotive industries. This suggests that harmful chemical exports outside the EU will eventually be regulated, with 2026 mentioned as a target. However, influential lobbies for exporting harmful chemicals are unlikely to give in easily.
CURRENT LEGAL STATUS
As noted, the European Union prohibits the sale and use of harmful plant protection products within its borders but allows their production within the EU for export to other countries. This is akin to a country that completely bans the sale and use of amphetamines but permits pharmaceutical companies to produce and legally export these drugs abroad, knowing full well the effects of their use. The EU’s intentions here appear insincere. The analogy to Latin American drug cartels is fully justified. Is the Europe that prides itself on egalitarianism, respect for other nations, and environmental protection so desperate for money that it ignores the evident harm done to citizens of poorer, often developing countries?
Are the interests of massive chemical corporations protected by EU law at the cost of the continent’s reputation? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that, although the European Commission has imposed some restrictions on pesticide exports, these restrictions were prompted not by its own intentions but by court rulings in various EU countries. There has been no genuine will for change.
EUROPEAN CHEMICAL AGENCY (ECHA) REGISTRY
Chemical producers wishing to export harmful pesticides outside the EU must register with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The agency’s registry has become the most informative source on banned substance exports outside the EU. Non-governmental organizations like Public Eye, Greenpeace, and Unearthed publicize this controversial issue. While the EU boasts the world’s strictest regulations on pesticides, herbicides, and other harmful substances, it remains indifferent to the health and safety of people in other parts of the world. Most exports of these harmful substances go to poor, undeveloped countries. In the top ten recipients of banned agricultural chemicals, we find countries like Brazil, Morocco, South Africa, and neighboring Ukraine.
WHY IS THE EXPORT OF HARMFUL PESTICIDES DISADVANTAGEOUS TO EU RESIDENTS?
Globalization and the free market have shrunk the world. Often called a global village, it’s become a single, shared market where control is only possible to a limited extent. The issue of selling harmful chemicals outside the EU has two main aspects:
THREAT TO LOCAL ECOSYSTEMS
The first aspect involves moral consent to harm or even kill farmers and their families in poor, distant countries. This includes taking responsibility for the destruction of local ecosystems, irreversible contamination of groundwater, the extinction of endangered local species, and general environmental degradation. It’s impossible to estimate the environmental destruction in various countries due to the use of toxic pesticides and herbicides.
According to OECD estimates, around 200,000 people die annually worldwide, particularly in poorer countries, from using harmful chemicals in food production. Tragically, the plight of Third World inhabitants doesn’t seem to be reason enough for EU officials to change export laws. Their priority appears to be the second reason: the health risks for Europeans.
IMPORT OF HARMFUL SUBSTANCES WITH IMPORTED CROPS AND PROCESSED RAW MATERIALS
Another reason to restrict the export of harmful pesticides is the frequent contamination of imported food products. Grains, meat, vegetables, and fruits from outside the EU are often tainted with harmful chemicals. These substances can have long-term effects, gradually deteriorating health, leading to cancer or irreversible brain damage. It’s impossible to gauge the full extent of damage caused by toxic pesticides in countries of food production. Although the EU limits food imports from poorer countries, sporadic checks are conducted, and sanitary restrictions are respected. However, the scale of food, raw materials, and fruit imported from outside the EU is impressive, with these products widely available in European stores.
A recent Polish example highlights the risks. Last year, the Polish government made an emergency purchase of Ukrainian grain, despite knowing that Ukraine ranks in the top ten countries importing harmful pesticides and herbicides from the EU. The previous Polish administration turned a blind eye to these imports, often controlled by companies with political protection, and continued to purchase and sell grain, sometimes even if it was only suitable for industrial use.
WHAT HARMFUL PESTICIDES ARE MOST COMMONLY EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE EU?
According to data from Public Eye, about 70% of all 85 countries buying harmful pesticides from Europe are poor and have underdeveloped agriculture. Most EU exports of banned substances include three severely restricted pesticides: paraquat (a substitute for the popular herbicide Roundup produced by Bayer), dichloropropene, and cyanamide.
Paraquat is deadly even to workers using high-quality, expensive personal protective equipment. In 2021, doctors in an Indian district went on a hunger strike to protest local paraquat use, reporting that 170 farmers had died in the previous three years. In Vietnam, the Ministry of Health estimated that around 1,000 farmers died yearly due to paraquat exposure, prompting the government to ban its sale and use in 2017.
INTERNATIONAL CALLS FOR ACTION
The EU’s export of lethal herbicides and pesticides has been widely condemned at forums like the UN, OECD, and WHO. Numerous health care and anti-poverty conferences have criticized this issue, calling out Europe’s double standards.
The EU, a group of wealthy, well-informed countries, knowingly sends harmful chemicals to nations lacking strong government oversight to control the use of these dangerous substances. The result is that untrained farmers use these lethal pesticides, gradually succumbing to cancer, immune system failure, or dementia. Local natural environments face irreversible contamination and destruction, with many endangered species on the brink of extinction. Activists and NGOs trying to combat this practice are silenced by corrupt officials, bribed journalists, and legal threats.
In the next part, I will describe how the chemical lobby influences the relaxation of export laws and outline the direction of legislative changes related to the trade of harmful and prohibited pesticides and herbicides. I will also explain legal loopholes that allow chemical corporations to export these lethal substances legally.