Export of EU-banned herbicides and pesticides outside the EU: How Europe legally pollutes other continents (Part 2)

W-MOSZCZYNSKI PS 1-24

Export of Herbicides and Pesticides Banned in the European Union Beyond Europe
How Europe Legally Poisons Other Continents (Part 2)

Chemical corporations that have been forced to comply with pesticide sales bans are seeking markets outside the European Union. They are finding them in Third World countries, where there is no administration capable of protecting the consumer market, the environment, or enforcing health protection standards during spraying. In these countries, the focus is mainly on reducing the short-term cost of agricultural production and addressing hunger in the short term.

Position of Chemical Corporations

European companies exporting banned pesticides and herbicides are fully aware of the negative impact of these products on human health and life, as well as on the degradation of local natural environments. In response to moral accusations from organizations defending human health and natural resources, pesticide manufacturers use four main arguments.

These arguments are inherently cynical and clearly do not reflect the actual situation. Despite their falsity, they are loudly used as a kind of rational voice of large, respectable entities against the emotional demands of small, vocal social organizations.

Argument One: The Pesticides Sold Are Safe
Manufacturers claim that their products are safe. Corporations declare their efforts to reduce the risks associated with using harmful pesticides. They point to their own research, conducted over many years, aimed at this goal. At the same time, chemical companies ignore numerous reports of high numbers of fatalities, widespread illnesses, and massive environmental damage caused by the hazardous substances they sell.

Argument Two: Respect for the Authorities of Individual Countries
Pesticide exporters respect the laws of the countries to which their products are directed. Manufacturers argue that each country has the sovereign right to decide which pesticides are best for its farmers. At the same time, they ignore the fact that Third World countries often lack a sufficiently developed government administration and institutions to control the flow of goods within their territories. These countries are often helpless in enforcing the use of protective measures necessary when using harmful substances. The costs of personal protective equipment (PPE) are often much higher than the cost of the spraying itself. Because chemicals do not have an immediate effect on farmers’ health, safety measures are rarely used in everyday work. Representatives of a German chemical corporation claim that local authorities receive „reliable and detailed information about the proposed plant protection products. Local authorities can then decide for themselves whether the substances should be allowed on the local market.” Manufacturers ironically emphasize respecting local laws and decisions of local governments, overlooking the well-organized and wealthy pesticide lobbying groups that aggressively corrupt politicians and journalists in these countries and finance lawsuits against social organizations protesting the destruction of local resources.

Argument Three: Pesticides Are Suitable for Countries Outside Europe
Pesticide producers argue that their products are not sold in Europe because they are better suited to countries outside Europe. In making this claim, they completely ignore the fact that these plant protection products were once widely used in Europe but are now strictly banned there.

Interestingly, manufacturers completely ignore the primary reason behind the export of these harmful substances outside the EU, which is economic. Aggressive pesticides and herbicides significantly reduce the labor required for cultivation. Where many farm workers were once needed to weed and manually remove pests, spraying now effectively removes weeds, fungi, or harmful insects from the field. As a result, food production becomes cheaper, making it easier to export to other countries. These plant protection products increase agricultural production volume by eliminating factors that cause crop loss. This is crucial for African countries struggling with hunger. In the short term, using harmful chemicals seems economically advantageous. Thus, the arguments of large chemical corporations serve as a sort of mantra, far from the truth but repeated enough to somewhat drown out the protests of non-governmental organizations.

Meanwhile, according to UN estimates, pesticide poisoning causes approximately 200,000 deaths annually in developing countries.

Argument Four: Others Could Capture Our Markets
Another argument commonly used by chemical corporations is that pesticides and herbicides are essential for the development of local agricultural economies. If plant protection products are not exported from Europe, Europe will suffer, while Third World countries will import harmful chemicals from other countries.

At the same time, corporations argue that maintaining a presence in these countries will, in the future, improve the overall situation in local agriculture and support the EU’s “green diplomacy” aimed at achieving “more diversified food systems worldwide.”

Wealthy countries allow the export of plant protection products banned in the EU to countries that are not equipped to manage the risks associated with their use. According to UN organizations, these wealthy countries thereby violate their obligations under international human rights law.

Grassroots Initiative of European Courts

I am far from conspiracy theories that claim powerful, wealthy, and numerous chemical industry lobbyists effectively influence the operations of European offices. However, it is hard to shake the impression that the European Commission does not adequately respond to the dire threats posed by exporting chemicals to the Third World.

Chemical corporations also readily use legal avenues, which they intend as a defense against social organizations, which they claim are trying to “restrict economic freedom.” However, in 2022, French judges dismissed a lawsuit filed by one of the leading pesticide manufacturers. They ruled that restricting economic freedom is socially justified in the face of potential harm to human health and environmental destruction.

Based on this ruling, France banned the export of substances prohibited in the European Union in 2022. Following France’s lead, the Belgian government also imposed a total ban on the export of harmful substances outside the EU in 2023.

Chemical Corporations Circumvent Local Export Bans

In response, the export of hazardous pesticides from France and Belgium was moved to Germany. The production and export levels of French chemical plants remained unchanged. Since 2021, there has also been a ban on the export of the five most dangerous plant protection products from Switzerland, which is not a member of the EU.

Interestingly, chemicals do not even need to be transported to Germany for further export outside the EU. Filling out export documents for a German subsidiary of a French manufacturer suffices. According to Laurenta Gaberella, an agricultural and food expert at the Swiss non-governmental organization Public Eye, this is one of the most significant legal loopholes allowing circumvention of export bans in certain EU countries. Public Eye, along with the English branch of Greenpeace called Unearthed, found that after France imposed export bans in 2022, Germany’s exports of hazardous plant protection products more than doubled. According to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), over 18,000 tons of banned pesticides were exported from Germany in 2022, nearly twice as much as in 2021. Some hope came from the German government, which announced in September 2023 its intention to introduce a ban on the export of banned pesticides. Unfortunately, as long as the EU is not managed as a single export market, there will always be loopholes allowing individual countries’ export bans to be circumvented.

Exporters Change Product Signatures

Another loophole in European law is the export of harmful pesticides as pure, active chemical ingredients, which can then be combined in countries outside the EU. Slight modifications to the chemical composition or the creation of a concentrate may justify selling the substance under a different trade name. Public Eye and Unearthed estimate that approximately 20% of harmful pesticides are exported from the EU in this manner each year.

The legal solution adopted by the French government allows such practices to circumvent export bans. However, the 2023 law passed by the Belgian government (in the form of a royal decree) comprehensively bans the export of both finished products and pure chemicals, as well as concentrates.

The Belgian export ban also covers all possible uses of chemical substances. In the case of Swiss and French solutions, export bans primarily apply to products intended for agricultural use. Declaring that the chemicals are for non-agricultural use effectively bypasses all export bans.

Protection of Jobs and Concern for the Economic Situation of Chemical Corporations

Chemical corporations’ PR agencies try to mitigate the legal effects of export bans. This year, representatives of the French branches of Bayer, Italy’s Syngenta, and BASF publicly stated that the regulations adopted by the French government threaten 2,700 jobs.

A similar defense by lobbyists occurred a few years ago when the Polish government began to declare its intention to ban fur animal breeding in Poland. A vital tool in the European Commission’s arsenal is granting main importer status to non-EU countries. If the EU decides to use this tool, countries using harmful chemicals will be excluded from the EU’s food export market. Ukraine, which extensively uses chemicals banned in Europe in its agriculture, may be the first such country in the future.


Wojciech Moszczyński
Graduate of the Department of Econometrics and Statistics at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, specializing in econometrics, finance, data science, and management accounting. He specializes in optimizing production and logistics processes. He conducts research in AI development and application and has been involved in popularizing machine learning and data science in business environments.