Significant price increases in everyday consumer products, from coffee and orange juice to blueberries, may be triggered by Brussels' plan for stricter rules on the use of pesticides in imported agricultural products.
An analysis by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), presented by Politico, confirms the warnings that non-EU producers have been making for months: banning even minimal residues of some of the most dangerous pesticides, the use of which has been banned in the European Union for health and environmental reasons, could limit imports and lead to significant price increases.
In the worst-case scenario examined by the JRC, in which third-country producers do not adapt to the new rules at all, the price of coffee could increase by 332% and that of citrus fruits by 82%.
At the same time, EU agricultural imports could be reduced by 41%, while livestock farmers would also be hit by the increase in feed costs.
Even in the most realistic scenarios of the study, in which producers outside the European Union adapt to the new requirements to varying degrees, prices for consumers are expected to rise and imports to restrict. On the other hand, this development would boost domestic European production.
Brussels' dilemma
The findings confront the Commission with a difficult political dilemma: on the one hand, to satisfy European farmers who demand a level playing field, and on the other hand, to avoid new burdens for consumers on supermarket shelves.
The proposed residue ban is part of the food and feed safety simplification package and finds strong support among European farmers.
Producers in the EU argue that they cannot be obliged to comply with strict restrictions on the use of pesticides while imported products are produced with substances that they themselves are not allowed to use.
The measure was also designed in part in response to strong farmers' reactions to the EU's trade deal with Mercosur, which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.
In practice, in order to ensure that no residue of a particular substance remains in fruit and vegetables, producers in third countries will have to effectively stop using it.
The "mirror clauses" and the reactions
Critics of the plan argue that the EU is essentially trying to impose its own production rules on third countries through so-called "mirror clauses", while creating problems for international trade rules.
Producer organisations from many countries argue that the proposed restrictions go beyond what is currently required to protect human health and apply a one-size-fits-all approach to producers facing different pests, climatic conditions and cultivation needs.
"The choice is between berries available all year round, healthy, safe and at a fair price, or limited production at high prices," said Amin Benani, president of the Moroccan Red Fruit Producers Association. As he argues, what Brussels calls "alignment of standards" is in practice a "trade barrier". He added that the association was never consulted, despite the fact that the legislation will affect 250,000 Moroccans working in this sector.
Reactions from all over the world
The reactions are not limited to Moroccan berry producers.
South African fruit and table grape producer organisations warn that exports to Europe are vital for thousands of workers.
Similar concerns have been expressed by Canada's cereal and legume sector, Honduran melon exporters, Brazilian agricultural and livestock sector organizations, and California's almond industry.
What does the Commission answer?
The European Commission argues, in response, that its aim is to prevent the re-introduction into the European market, through imported products, of the most dangerous substances that have already been banned within the EU. To achieve this, it is considering reducing the permitted residue limits to levels that, in practice, correspond to technical zero.
The Commission and international producers agree that the current residue limits have already been set with safe human consumption in mind. The disagreement lies in the fact that Brussels wants to go beyond these safeguards, excluding traces of substances that have been banned in the EU and for wider health or environmental reasons.
Eighteen substances, 235 products and 86 countries
Uncertainty for producers is intensifying, as the Commission has not yet determined which banned pesticides will be subject to the new regime.
The JRC study identified 18 active substances that could be covered by the residue ban, affecting 235 agricultural products in 86 countries.
Commission spokeswoman Eva Hrdzirová said that decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis and will be accompanied by impact assessments. He did not directly respond to concerns about rising prices and limiting the availability of products, but stressed that any decision "will take into account the importance of maintaining the EU's food security and the potential international implications".
The dispute reaches the World Trade Organization
International reactions have already reached the World Trade Organization. Countries such as Australia, Canada, Paraguay and the United States have challenged the proposed measure, while the International Fresh Produce Association argues that existing international food safety standards already protect consumers without hindering trade.
Within the EU, however, several countries support "mirror clauses", considering that they are a way of protecting European producers from competition from products that are not subject to the same restrictions.
France is at the forefront of this effort and has already imposed national bans on products containing residues of certain pesticides whose use is banned in the EU, including by restricting the entry into the country of certain potatoes and avocados.
protothema.gr
