the quiet erosion of pesticide standards by the previous uK government and how to fix it
September 2024
Despite promises made to tackle the biodiversity crisis and address the impact of pesticides on bees and other key species, the outgoing administration has not had a good track record. This is particularly highlighted by the four-year rolling ‘emergency’ derogation for the use of the beetoxic neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam, on sugar beet. It is, therefore, heartening to acknowledge Labour’s public commitment to closing this loophole.
However, these derogations are just the visible ‘tip of the iceberg’ of an ongoing weakening of UK pesticide standards that has occurred over the past five years. Almost all of the changes have slipped in under the radar and are not immediately obvious. Cumulatively, and if allowed to continue, they could result in a significant undermining of UK pesticide legislation and open UK residents, consumers and the environment up to unforeseen harms. Similarly, many of these ‘invisible’ measures could also result in negative effects elsewhere as the UK exports its pesticide-related harms to impact workers, communities and wildlife in third countries where our food is grown.
PAN UK is keen to discuss the issues raised in this briefing further. Do contact us at josie@pan-uk.org if a meeting would be useful.
Pesticide approvals
Since leaving the EU, it has been no secret that the UK lacks the capacity to properly undertake the pesticide approval functions that were shared by the 28 EU Member States. Pesticide active substance approvals should be renewed every 15 years but, due to this lack of capacity, the UK government has chosen to grant automatic approval extensions for a wide range of active substances. The result is that harmful pesticides are being allowed to continue to be used without a proper assessment of their toxicity. Some pesticides initially authorised for a maximum of 15 years (as EUderived legislation dictates) will be on the UK market for 20 years or more without going through a renewal process.
Some examples have been provided below of active substances that have received automatic appeal extensions. The focus is on Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) which is a UN concept used to identify pesticides with high potential to cause harm to human health or the environment.1
6 In 2021, the HSE gave an automatic three-year approval extension to any active substance whose approval was due to expire before 31st December 2023.2 It is unclear exactly how many active substances this extension was applied to, but it included a number of HHPs including;
® Captan – carcinogen
® Imazalil – carcinogen and Endocrine Disruptor (EDC)
® Tefluthrin – acutely toxic and highly toxic to bees
beet Credit: Leopictures/Pixabay.com
6 In 2023, HSE announced that approvals would be extended again. Any active substance with an approval due to expire before April 2025 was given up to a five-year extension.3 The extension was applied to 179 active substances, including a number of HHPs. For example:
® Tebuconazole – carcinogen and EDC – expiry date 31/08/24 extended to 31/08/28. This automatic extension results in it being approved for a total of 19 years.
® Cypermethrin – carcinogen and highly bee toxic – expiry date 31/10/24 extended to 31/10/28. This automatic extension results in it being approved for a total of 22 years.
® Folpet – carcinogen – expiry date 31/07/24 extended to 31/07/29. This extension results in it being approved for a total of 22 years. These extensions have also led to divergence from pesticide active substance approvals in the EU. In September 2023, PAN UK identified 36 active substances that had been banned for use by the EU but remained approved by the UK.4 By the time these new extensions have expired, this number is likely to have increased significantly unless the current trend is reversed. In addition to the threat to human health and the environment, this divergence also risks putting our farmers at a competitive disadvantage. GB food exports containing residues of pesticides not approved for use in the EU risk being rejected at borders for not meeting EU standards. Given that the EU remains the UK’s primary agricultural export destination (accounting for roughly 60%) this poses a major threat to the UK agriculture sector.
Fixes:
6 Create a timebound plan for putting all the pesticide active substances that received automatic approval extensions since 2021 through the full renewals process.
6 Put in place measures which prevent pesticide active substances from being approved indefinitely without going through the renewals process.
6 Maintain a close alignment with EU pesticide approvals, with a precautionary approach to assessing risk to human health and the environment.
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) and consumer safety
Governments set Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) which place limits on how much of a specific pesticide is allowed to appear in a particular food item. At the time of EU exit, the UK’s MRLs were carried over from the EU and were therefore in alignment.
However, over the last three years, the UK government has been weakening many of our current MRLs to bring them into line with those set by Codex Alimentarius, a set of international food standards published by the UN FAO. Codex MRLs tend to be weaker than those set by the EU or UK. The body is widely criticised for being heavily influenced by the agrochemical industry, for ignoring the precautionary principle and prioritising free trade over concerns around consumer health.5 It should be noted that the MRL changes only apply to GB and are not applicable to Northern Ireland.
Over the last three years;
6 41 different active substances have had their GB MRLs weakened:
® 12 of those active substances are classified as HHPs, meaning that they are particularly harmful to human health and/or the environment.
® 16 of those active substances are not currently approved for use in the UK. Weakening MRLs for pesticides that GB farmers are prohibited from using hands foreign growers a competitive advantage.
6 Examples of HHPs that have had their MRLs weakened include:
® Carbendazim (carcinogen and EDC) – GB MRL for seed spices increased by 50 times from 0.1 to 5 mg per kg.
® Chlorantraniliprole (ground water contaminant) – GB MRL for tea increased by 4,000 times from 0.02 to 80 mg per kg.
® Bifenthrin (carcinogen, EDC, developmental toxin) – GB MRL for avocadoes and pomegranates increased by 50 times from 0.01 to 0.5 mg per kg.
There are some highly concerning but telling phrases used in the HSE justification for these changes, notably; “The CXL (Codex) does not need to be adopted as the GB MRL is higher (weaker)”.6 The converse has also been true. When a GB MRL is weaker it has been retained, instead of being replaced by the stronger Codex MRL. In other words, the previous administration chose to align with Codex MRLs only where they offer less protection to consumers than the GB MRL. Where a Codex MRL offered more protection, they decided not to adopt it.
With MRLs, we are slowly moving away from prioritising food safety and out of alignment with the EU. This is effectively reducing protections for GB consumers by exposing them to higher levels of potentially harmful pesticide residues in their diet. There is also a real danger that exporters from non-EU countries that have produce rejected by the EU due to high pesticide residues will choose to divert their produce to the GB market.
Fixes:
6 Review the MRLs changed by the previous government since 2022 and, where they reduce consumer protection and food safety, revert to the previous MRLs.
6 Maintain alignment with EU MRLs and adopt a precautionary approach so that there is no weakening of MRL levels for produce grown in or imported to the UK.
6 Resist pressure from trade partners to adopt Codex MRLs.
The National Action Plan on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides (NAP)
The NAP is the guiding document for how and where pesticides are used in the UK. It was initially considered by the previous Labour government but the first version was published by the Cameron-Clegg coalition government in 2013. At that time, it could best be described as weak and lacking measures that would significantly reduce the use or impacts of pesticide use in the UK.
In 2018, the previous government promised in its 25 Year Environment Plan7 to review the existing NAP. To date, six years later, we are still waiting for it.
While in opposition Labour has been incredibly supportive of efforts to get the revised NAP published, repeatedly calling out the previous government in both parliament and the media for these unacceptable delays.
It is vital that the NAP is published by the new government, without delay. Without it, the UK does not have a strategy for how it plans to reduce pesticide use and related harms or encourage the adoption of nonchemical alternatives. However, merely publishing a NAP is not enough.
The revised NAP needs to contain bold measures for reducing the use and impact of pesticides including;
6 A commitment to reducing pesticide use, through the introduction of clear reduction targets for both usage and toxicity.
6 Maintaining the UK’s ‘hazard-based’ approach to pesticide regulation and continuing the commitment to the precautionary principle as the basis upon which decisions related to pesticides are made.
6 Commit to a phase out of all pesticide use in urban areas (all non-agricultural public spaces in villages, towns and cities), following the examples of France, Luxemburg and Denmark as well as 100 UK towns and cities.
6 Commit to ending repeated emergency approvals of all unauthorised pesticides (not just neonicotinoids).
Fixes:
6 Review the unpublished draft NAP (if one exists!) from the previous government. Where it lacks ambition, amend the draft to align with Labour’s vision on pesticide reduction, nature restoration and health outcomes.
6 Publish an ambitious, final NAP within six months of taking power.
International trading agreements
The new Free Trade Agreements signed by the previous government (with Australia and New Zealand) threaten UK pesticide standards in a variety of ways, as does the joining of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). In summary, these new trading arrangements are likely to lead to larger amounts of more toxic pesticides in our food and drive an increase in the use of environmentally-damaging pesticides (such as beetoxic neonicotinoids) in third countries.
All three agreements contain text which undermines the precautionary principle and pressures the UK to acknowledge the ‘equivalence’ of other countries’ weaker standards. They also push the UK to accept weaker international standards (set by Codex Alimentarius), a fear raised repeatedly with the previous government which has now become a reality (see section on MRLs on page 2).
In addition to threatening human health and the environment, these deals also pose a threat to the future of UK agriculture. The government’s own Trade and Agriculture Committee highlighted that all three deals are likely to lead to an increase in imports that have been produced at lower cost, using pesticides
that are banned for use by UK farmers.8 There are major questions regarding whether the UK border regime is sufficiently robust to prevent these imports from entering the country and undermining farmers.
For more information on trade and pesticides, see our Toxic Trade series of reports: https://www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade/
Fixes:
6 Review all FTAs signed by the previous UK government to identify threats to existing UK pesticide standards and, where necessary, put in place measures to prevent human health, the environment and UK farmers’ livelihoods from being undermined.
6 Ensure that any new trade deals do not allow any further weakening of UK pesticide standards. Pay particular attention to the UK-India FTA which poses especially high risks due to India’s status as one of the world’s largest agricultural producers and the country’s ongoing problems with high pesticide residues in its exports. A UK-Turkey deal would also pose similar risks since Turkish food exports also struggle with high residues.
Trade agreements threaten UK pesticide standards. Credit: Postcardtrip/Pixabay.com
Statutory Instruments bringing the EU pesticide regime into domestic law
In 2019, the previous government put through two new Statutory Instruments9 (SIs), the stated aim of which was to replace all pesticide-related EU processes with national processes and build additional capacity to operate a standalone UK pesticide regulatory regime. While the government argued that the changes made by these SIs were purely procedural in nature, in reality they weakened the protections provided by the UK pesticide regime in a wide range of ways, most notably:
6 Loss of oversight, checks and balances and a significant consolidation of power – the SIs replaced the roles played by a range of EU decision-making and advisory bodies with ‘competent authorities’. As a result, the Defra Secretary of State, Welsh and Scottish Ministers and relevant body in Northern Ireland have almost total discretion to amend the pesticide regime. All references to an independent body with assessment, monitoring or enforcement powers were removed along with provisions for processes of appeal/administrative review.
6 Weakening of the requirement to obtain independent scientific advice and consider monitoring data – under the EU regime, the Commission is required to seek scientific or technical assistance and take into account monitoring data when approving pesticides or setting safety limits for residues in food. However, the SIs made any such checks at the discretion of the competent authority, rather than being required by law.
6 Weakening of the requirement to renew active substances every 15 years and granted Ministers the power to extend approvals indefinitely. We have already seen this come to fruition (see section on pesticide approvals on page 1).
6 Trebling of the EU requirement to review MRLs within 12 months of an active substance being authorised (in GB this is now 36 months), without introducing any additional measures to ensure that residue levels stay below those which pose a risk to consumers during that period. Gave Ministers the power to extend this period indefinitely.
6 Mistakes in the drafting of the SIs – a number of mistakes were spotted in the SIs themselves. One such example is the deletion of all the text on Endocrine Disruptors (EDCs) from the PPP SI. This was remedied once civil society spotted the mistake and threatened the government with legal action. However, the SIs were put through in an extreme rush and it is highly likely that mistakes remain in the text.
Fixes:
6 Conduct an in-depth legal analysis identifying the changes (including mistakes) made by SIs passed since 2019 to existing GB legislation on pesticides.
6 Where those changes resulted in a weakening of the protections offered to human health and the environment, update the relevant legislation with the aim of, at the very minimum, reverting to the levels of protection offered by the EU pesticide regime, and ideally going further.
Please note that this briefing is a summary and further detail is available upon request.
For more information, please contact Josie Cohen, josie@pan-uk.org or Nick Mole, nick@pan-uk.org .
References
1. Addressing Highly Hazardous Pesticides”, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - https://www.fao.org/pestand-pesticide-management/pesticide-risk-reduction/reducingglobal-risk-from-hhp/hhps/en/
2. Regulating pesticides in the UK after Brexit”, UK Health and Safety Executive - https://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/brexit.htm
3. Extended approval expiry dates for GB pesticide active substances expiring before April 2025”, HSE, 12/04/2023 - https://content. govdelivery.com/accounts/UKHSE/bulletins/3531ae4
4. UK falling behind EU pesticide standards”, PAN UK, 13/09/2023https://www.pan-uk.org/post-brexit-pesticide-divergence/
5. Lowest Common Denominator”, Center for International Environmental Law, 2015 - http://www.ciel.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/LCD_TTIP_Jan2015.pdf
6. Evaluation Report and Reasoned Opinion on the Assessment of Codex MRLs (CXLs)”, HSE, March 2024 - https://www.hse.gov.uk/ pesticides/assets/docs/mrlcx-aagw-0447.pdf
7. 25 Year Environment Plan”, UK Government, 11/01/2018https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/25-yearenvironment-plan
8. CPTPP accession: advice from Trade and Agriculture Commission”, 07/12/2023 – “UK-Australia FTA: advice from Trade and Agriculture Commission”, 13/04/2022 - “UK-New Zealand FTA: advice from Trade and Agriculture Commission”, 30/06/2022, UK Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/cptpp-fta-advice-from-trade-and-agriculturecommission https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-australia-ftaadvice-from-trade-and-agriculture-commission https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-newzealand-fta-advice-from-trade-and-agriculture-commission
9. The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, UK Governmenthttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/557/contents/made The Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, UK Government - https://www.legislation. gov.uk/uksi/2019/556/contents/made
Bumblebee on rapeseed. Credit: Leonid Ikan/Shutterstock.com
Pesticide Action Network UK
PAN UK is the only UK charity focused on tackling the problems caused by pesticides and promoting safe and sustainable alternatives in agriculture, urban areas, homes and gardens. We work tirelessly to apply pressure to governments, regulators, policy makers, industry and retailers to reduce the impact of harmful pesticides. Find out more about our work at: www.pan-uk.org
