"

One of the most frequent criticisms to the European “Farm-to-Fork” strategy is that it imposes obligations (and additional costs) on European producers which do not apply to imported products, causing unfair competition to the detriment of European producers and consumers.  

The Commission is so aware of the relevance of this criticism that it has included in its strategy a chapter «Promoting the global transition " where it explains that " The EU will seek to ensure that there is an ambitious sustainability chapter in all EU bilateral trade agreements. It will ensure full implementation and enforcement of the trade and sustainable development provisions in all trade agreements” and “EU trade policy should contribute to enhance cooperation with and to obtain ambitious commitments from third countries in key areas such as animal welfare, the use of pesticides and the fight against antimicrobial resistance. The EU will strive to promote international standards in the relevant international bodies and encourage the production of agri-food products complying with high safety and sustainability standards”.

Within the framework of bilateral agreements, it is always possible to renegotiate them. To reach an agreement, our partners must obtain concessions to compensate for the tightening of the access conditions to the European market. Clearly, this means an increase of of in quotas volumes and / or a decrease in the residual customs duties if they exist and / or (if applicable) an extension of the annual period to which they apply. In the multilateral agreements, this means renegotiating WTO and / or CODEX Alimentarius rules. These negotiations are complex. In fact, the Commission has already started but we must be aware that they will take time for uncertain results. 

Does that mean that there is nothing we can do today and now? My answer is clearly no. But we must expect strong resistance. Third countries will not like it, importing Member States either. The influential port and commercial lobbies will resist. So let's assume that the political will really exists, and classify the different alternatives according to their technical difficulties. 

We can strengthen our import health protocols, for example to put them at the same level of requirements as those which apply to exported European products. The concept of “one health” means that we must also give full priority to plant and animal health. Even with repeated alerts, like the very recent ones relating to South African oranges or Turkish lemons, nothing (or almost nothing) is today moving.  

We can also work on the Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). “In principle, when a plant protection substance is no longer approved at European level, the MRL is lowered to the detection limit, which generally corresponds to the absence of detectable residues by common analytical methods (default value of 0.01 mg / kg)”. I wrote “in principle”, because the European Commission can raise this MRL if the risk assessment concludes that there is " no unacceptable effect for dietary exposure ", in order to meet the needs of international trade.     

Glyphosate is a good example. It is used as a desiccator up to 4 days before harvest in Canada (practice not authorized in Europe). The MRL accepted for lentils was multiplied by 100 between 2008 and 2012 to reach 10 mg / kg, while that proposed by Codex is 5 mg / kg and the MRL applied in Canada is… 4 mg / kg.

Exceptional authorizations

This situation is particularly frequent in the case of fruits and vegetables, due to the "minor uses". Several products are authorized for uses with other products but not for fruits and vegetables. For example, ethephon is permitted for wheat, tobacco or rice; its MRL is 2 mg / kg. This is often (and repeatedly) why the member States have to give “exceptional authorizations” (often repeated).  

The registration of a plant protection product is an expensive process. It is often not profitable for many companies to make the human and financial efforts to prepare a case for these minor uses. In other cases, there are no alternatives because private research has no interest in engaging due to lack of profitability. If this is the situation, we are faced with a market economy failure. It is therefore up to public research or public funding to take over. 

If the product can be used "exceptionally" by the European producer, it can also be used "exceptionally" by third countries producers. If the MRL is set “normally” at the detection level, it should also be able to be adjusted “exceptionally”. Stricter conditions than those applied to European producers cannot be imposed on producers in third countries. This case of "exceptional authorisations" can be a real Trojan horse against a more rigorous approach. Sufficient investments should be made to reduce the number of authorizations granted, and to open a register of these authorizations for third countries.        

But, what to do then with the use of products banned in Europe which do not leave residues on the final product? We cannot impose our rules on third countries but we could ask (oblige?) these countries to export to us only products which have not used banned products. Once again, we find ourselves in the context of bilateral negotiations, assuming that the third country has the physical, budgetary and human means to do so. Let us be modest and careful in our demands. In 2020, the French Senator Laurent Duplombur wrote a report which concludes that around 900 substances (out of the 1,488 that should be controlled) are almost never controlled in Europe.  

During the 1996 reform of the European fruit and vegetable regulations, which established producer organizations as we know them today, the creation of a community control body was planned to strengthen the operational capacity of the Member States and ensure a similar level of control throughout the territory of the Union. After some stammering, the idea was abandoned. No Member State was really wanting true transparency and accepting that foreigners look to their “national kitchen”.

In conclusion, the French Presidency of the Union, which begins on January 1, announces that it wants to make serious progress on this file. This is for me obviously a good news. Yes we can, and yes we have to, but we must be aware of the complexity of the issue, the delay needed to obtain some results and the uncertainties on those ending results.