The European Union is considering pesticide residue limits that would cripple Canadians who sell to European Union member countries.
More than $1.4 billion in Canadian agricultural exports are at risk if a new report, Vision For Agriculture and Food, is adopted.
There is no scientific evidence that the Canadian exports pose a risk to consumers.
The report calls for zero residue for 18 pesticides that are banned by the European Union.
That would impact 235 commodities from 86 exporting countries. About $1 billion of Csnafisn exports are at risk.
The European report speculated on three responses:
1.Producers in exporting countries do not change their current practices and lose their European markets.
2. Some producers adjust their practices.
3.More producers shun the use of the 18 pesticides.
EU total agricultural imports would plunge 41 per cent under the first response. eight per cent under the second and 0.4 per cent under the third.
European crop production would grow under all three scenarios as domestic farmers fill the gap left by reduced imports, the report said without examining how that could be done given current pesticide bans and manure and fertilizer limits.
The EU relies on imports for 29 of the impacted commodities, such as figs, almonds, hazelnuts and beans.
Canada is one of 14 countries that exports more than $1.4 billion annually of the listed commodities to Europe.
Lentils would be hard hit.
Janelle Whitley, senior director of market access and trade policy with Pulse Canada, said “this policy would shift how MRLs (minimum residue limits) are set from a risk-based process to a hazard-based process that isn’t yet clearly defined,
“We continue to raise these concerns with the Canadian government and directly with officials in Brussels,” said Whitley.
The pesticides glufosinate, spirodiclofen, mancozeb and metiram are tied to the largest import values that are at risk.
“It is explicitly a preliminary, exploratory analysis, not the rigorous impact assessment required under the EU’s own Better Regulation framework,” the U.S. Department of Agriculutre’s Foreign Agricultural Service stated in an Aug. 25 report summarizing the JRC study. It has more than $16 billion US at risk.
“This point reinforces why the United States and other trading partners are right to insist that no MRL reductions be finalized . . . until a complete, dedicated impact assessment — one that meets the EU’s own procedural standards — has been conducted.” the U.S. said.
