According to European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy John Dalli, the recent introduction of tougher border controls on fruit and vegetables and the outlawing of a wide range of pesticides has ‘boosted food safety’ in the EU. The new regime provides for intensified document checks and analysis for pesticide residues from third countries. Furthermore, according to a press report, ‘new rules, adopted last year and due to come into force in June 2011, will beef up approval for chemicals that are carcinogens, mutagens and substances that are toxic for reproduction and endocrine systems’: approval for these chemicals will be withheld ‘unless exposure to humans is negligible’, according to an EC statement.

Meanwhile, a review of studies on the internal costs of EU standards has highlighted that the EU nitrate directive is estimated to increase production costs for dairy products by between 0.1% and 0.6%, for beef products by around 0.01%, and for pig meat by around 0.55%. Compliance with identification and registration standards for cows is estimated to increase costs for dairy producers by less than 0.15%, and for beef producers by 0.45%. These increased costs are estimated to reduce EU dairy exports by 1% and beef exports by 2.7%.

Compliance costs for cereal producers are estimated at below 1%, with no clear pattern emerging for EU fruit and vegetable producers. The review noted that farm size has a strong influence on the overall cost-increasing effects of EU standards, but concluded that ‘in-depth studies do not support claims that EU farmers face significant disadvantages as a result of strict EU standards.’ It was argued that over time, compliance costs fall as farmers learn and adjust through investments and changed practices, and that furthermore the costs of compliance need to be seen in the light of the economic benefits accruing to farmers from higher quality standards.

In mid March the Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) was formally launched. The aim of CAHFSA is the ‘establishment of an effective and efficient regional sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS) regime’, and the facilitation and harmonisation of the relevant laws and administrative practices across CARICOM member states. The agency’s priorities, according to the Guyana-based CARICOM secretariat, are ‘the development of technical measures and protocols for member states to achieve mandatory SPS certification to conduct agricultural trade; and devising measures to reduce the use of SPS and other non-tariff measures as deterrents to agricultural trade. It is thought that the agency can lay the basis for promoting greater intra-regional trade in food and agricultural products.

On 24 September, after much controversial debate, the EU Council adopted the new regulation on plant protection products. The EC Health Commissioner claimed that the new regulation would ‘establish the most modern and protective system for the health of consumers worldwide’. However, concerns continue to be expressed over the impact of the new regulation on global agricultural productivity. The UK Crop Protection Agency has argued that the new regulations, which are no longer based on an assessment of the risk to health from absorption of plant protection products, but rather on ‘hazard-based cut-off criteria’, could result in ‘some 15%-20% of currently approved crop-protection products’ being lost to farmers. According to press reports, ‘experts have warned that the new rules will reduce crop yields and quality and increase the cost of food to consumers’. The Crop Protection Agency’s chief executive, Dominic Dyer, has argued that the new EU rules are ‘at odds with the urgent demands placed on modern, productive agriculture’.

Against the background of these concerns, the UK government has launched a £13 million programme of support to research and development for crop-protection products. The aim of the programme is to ‘help meet new and existing EU regulations on pesticide approval and use’ by helping growers ‘[to] respond to the dual challenges of increasing the productivity of crops while reducing the environmental impact of crop protection’. This initiative has been welcomed by UK horticulture producers, given that ‘the funds will mostly be allocated to applied R&D’.

A research paper has been posted by the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) which seeks to identify the legal measures under the EU food safety policy which ‘cause the most problems for developing [country] exporters’ and propose possible solutions. It notes that food safety requirements have been identified as ‘one of the foremost issues affecting exports of agricultural and food products from developing countries’, with shortcomings in compliance that are estimated to cost African exporters over US$1 billion per annum in lost exports.

The analysis identified seven key characteristics of the EU food safety regime:

• its coherence in terms of all foodstuffs, including imported foodstuffs;
• its comprehensive nature, covering products from farm to fork;
• the centrality of consumer protection concerns;
• the importance attached to ensuring free movement of goods within the EU;
• the transparency of the whole system, with extensive public consultation and information activities;
• the risk-based nature of the food safety control systems;
• the importance attached to the precautionary principle, i.e. prioritising protection of public health even in situations of scientific uncertainty.

It is argued that these characteristics of the EU food safety regime ‘do not take into account the consequences of the food safety regime which go beyond the Community’s borders’. Equally, EU standards do not take into account the different conditions of production and certification existing in developing countries. This, it is held, results in a situation where at times EU food safety standards ‘may constitute a barrier to exports into the Community’.

Against this background the report proposes three specific measures ‘to make the barriers more easily surmountable’:

• ‘strongly increased harmonisation of the industrialised countries’ food safety standards’;
• comprehensive reviews of each new proposal’s ‘likely consequences on developing countries’, including a review of possible ‘alternative measures’ which would have less impact on developing countries;
• ‘continued (and preferably increased) technical assistance to the developing countries to enable them to comply with the food safety standards’.

A COLEACP report argues that new EU pesticide regulations have introduced a major policy change by requiring pesticide approvals to be based on ‘“hazard-based cut-off criteria”, which take into account only the intrinsic chemical properties of the pesticide’. Previously, approvals were based not only on the toxicity of the pesticide, but also the risk arising from when, where and how frequently the product was used.

This study, financed by Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP), was undertaken to access ‘the potential implications of the new regulation on pesticides that are currently recommended and approved for use on horticultural export crops in ACP countries’. The study concludes that although ‘several pesticides currently used on export crops may be withdrawn in Europe, the new Regulation is not likely to have a major impact in ACP countries in the short term’. It notes that ‘substances will remain authorised until they come up for review when their annex I listing expires, and even then the possibility of derogations should allow time to develop alternatives’. Even where a pesticide is no longer authorised for use in the EU, ‘continued use on ACP export crops will still be possible provided that the product is registered locally, and EU MRLs and Import Tolerances are complied with’.

In the longer term, the use of some less expensive substances may need to be phased out, with ‘consequent increases in production costs’. This could have a particular impact on the smallholder sector. In addition, certain elements of the regulation remain unclear and these clarifications could impact on ACP exporters, for example the ‘import tolerances of substances that are withdrawn’. The report highlights the need to develop ‘alternative pest management strategies in order to limit the impact when substances are eventually lost’.

Meanwhile the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) has posted its first annual review of pesticide residues in food, covering tests conducted in 2007. The report found that the majority of the samples ‘were compliant with the legal maximum residue levels (MRLs)’ of pesticides (96% of the samples analysed). It pointed out that even where MRLs were exceeded (4% of samples), this ‘does not imply that this is a food safety concern’, since ‘consumer exposure needs to be calculated in order to assess whether this represents a potential risk for consumers’. On only one pesticide were concerns raised, and ‘since December 2007 all authorisations concerning this substance have been withdrawn and MRLs have been lowered’.

Significantly, the EFSA report highlighted that ‘MRLs are more often exceeded in samples imported from Third Countries than in EU products (2.31% of surveillance samples with EU origin and 6.84% ... from Third Countries)’

The European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE) has posted a paper which argues that ‘the WTO’s Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM) could play an important role in defusing the trade-disrupting potential of SPS regulation’. The paper suggests that the WTO should play this role, since it would allow the review ‘to be tailored to the needs of the trading system’, with the selection of issues being designed to facilitate trade. It suggests that such a review process could ‘review in greater detail the policy-making procedures that lead to SPS measures’ to ensure transparency and independence in countries’ risk assessment processes and ensure countries take account of the trade consequences in selecting specific SPS measures. It argues that ‘SPS measures should be designed to be as trade-friendly as possible without impinging on their health objectives’. The paper notes that ‘protectionist interest groups lobby for offsetting the partial loss of tariff protection in the case of a successful conclusion of the Doha Round with trade-restrictive SPS regulation’.

The paper suggests that the proposal would require the establishment of ‘special trade policy reviews dedicated exclusively to SPS regulation’, which would complement the current overall policy review. It argues that the main thrust of these dedicated reviews ‘should not be to evaluate SPS measures directly but to analyse how SPS regulation is being made’. It suggests a five-part structure to such a review report, comprising: qualitative description; quantitative description; analysis of trade and welfare effects; issues raised by trading partners; and policy-making processes.

The paper argues that the establishment of a dedicated SPS review process could then ‘serve as a model for establishing further issue-specific reviews that address technical barriers to trade, trade in services and other complex regulatory challenges’.

The Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CUTS) has produced a briefing paper reviewing standards in the food sector and their trade effects. Having explored the benefits of international standards in the food sector, the paper argues that ‘stringent food safety standards, imposed over and above the Codex standards, and inter-country difference of standards in importing developed countries are now impeding the export performance of developing countries’. It supports this conclusion by reviewing the constraints on compliance faced in developing countries.

The main constraint faced by these countries is identified as being ‘the lack of adequate financial, technical and infrastructural support, compared to that of their industrialised counterparts’. Another problem identified is weak ‘institutional capacity to control and support high standards’. In addition, a critical factor in the ability of developing countries to meet food standards is the precise modalities for implementing, monitoring and verifying compliance. Particular problems are faced in smallholder-based production systems.

External constraints on compliance identified in the paper include an absence of ‘timely dissemination of requisite information’ on new standards in developed country markets. The briefing argues that ‘some of these standards for the past few years have also been used as trade barriers’.

The briefing maintains that while ‘producers all around the globe have realised the need and importance of harmonising and standardising their quality standards to globally accepted levels’, the emergence of private standards which go beyond internationally established norms are placing particularly onerous requirements on poor producers. This takes on particular significance where ‘private standards become the industry norm’ and where ‘a small number of food retailers account for a high proportion of food sales’. In these circumstances, ‘the choice of whether or not to comply with a voluntary standard becomes a choice between compliance and exit from the market’. This development raises the issue of who carries the financial burden of compliance with private standards, some of which are only loosely based on scientific grounds.

In conclusion, the CUTS briefing highlights the need to make sure that ‘regulatory barriers are not misused to achieve protectionist objectives’. It notes that the growing plethora of food standards can ‘erode the benefits offered by tariff and subsidy cuts’. It is in this context that financial and technical assistance with compliance attainment and verification is needed. Currently, while international agreements encourage the deployment of such assistance, it is not compulsory. The briefing calls on developing countries to focus increasingly on becoming ‘“standard makers” instead of “standard takers” in the international arena’. However it is acknowledged that this is a costly endeavour.

A survey of fresh fruit and vegetable exports in sub-Saharan Africa looking at the impact of changing buyer requirements on supply chains has been carried out in the framework of the Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP) initiative. The focus of the survey was on the impact of private voluntary standards (PVS) on procurement practices, and exclusively covered companies which had received technical support to meet EU standards under the PIP initiative.

The survey found ‘an appreciable growth’ in aggregate exports of these companies between 2000 and 2006, and noted the emergence of distinct supply chains to different national markets within the EU. The ‘anglophone’ value chain links Kenya, Zambia, Uganda and Ghana to supermarkets in the UK, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland. The ‘francophone’ value chain links exporters in Madagascar, Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, Senegal and Côte d’Ivoire ‘principally to “other buyers” (wholesalers, catering and others) in France, Italy and Switzerland’. A third value chain included plantation crops that are ‘sold via French importers to a range of market segments throughout Europe, from wholesale to high-value retail’. The survey noted that ‘distinct differences were found between companies supplying these value chains in terms of the demands and pressures they face from buyers, as well in the adaptations they make in order to meet them’.

Based on the experience of rejected consignments of the companies surveyed, the report concluded that ‘fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) sourced from Africa, a high proportion of which are supplied by smallholders, is not high risk when compared with FFV from other sources’. It therefore questioned the ‘proportionality of some EU retailer policies which, assuming higher risk …, apply more stringent controls on developing country suppliers’.

The ACP producers surveyed faced a range of non-market constraints on exports, the most widespread being ‘the increasing cost of fertiliser, fuel and freight; poor access to credit; and lack of government policy or support for the sector’.

The survey found that ‘traceability emerged as one of the most significant requirements requested by buyers in recent years, but surprisingly it was not generally considered as difficult to meet’. Most companies, with the benefit of external support, ‘have risen to the challenge by installing traceability systems’, illustrating ‘the capacity of ACP exporters to adapt and meet new technical requirements’.

Surveyed firms found private voluntary standards ‘difficult or very difficult to meet’. Significantly, ‘exporters supplying “anglophone” value chains were very much more likely to score PVS as the most significant buyer requirement than those supplying the “francophone” value chain’. Firms supplying the anglophone chain were under more pressure and experienced more problems that those supplying the francophone chain. Over half of the firms surveyed (58%) saw ‘increased buyer demands’ as reducing their profitability. ‘This was most marked among companies in countries where EurepGAP/GLOBALGAP certification is just beginning’. This reflects the considerable initial investments needed to comply. However, in addition ‘over the longer term some companies reported reduced profits due to the lack of price premium as well as the increased costs of maintaining certification’.

The report noted the gradual rolling-out of the process of certification and highlighted the relatively low level of certification of smallholder out-growers (only 15.9%, despite substantial exporter and donor support). It raised the question as to whether smallholder out-growers could cost-effectively sustain certification over the long term. Some 20% of companies involved with smallholder out-growers reported that ‘some had chosen not to renew their certificate despite the fact that they had the infrastructure, procedures and knowledge in place’. Significantly, these companies where out-growers were not renewing their certification were concentrated in countries where compliance with standards has been established for some years, and where the full impact of recurrent costs was known (e.g. Kenya).

Overall however the report found that, despite earlier fears of a generalised exodus of smallholder out-growers from export value-chains in response to stricter food standards, ‘volumes sourced from out-growers changed relatively little between 2000 and 2007, though there had been a general shift away from sourcing via intermediaries’. There were, however, marked differences between countries. Thus we find that in Kenya there is evidence that ‘very small-scale out-growers are being excluded from high-value retail supply chains due to the demands of PVS’. The PIP survey noted that while ‘the future trends for sourcing from small-scale growers are unclear, … there is a risk that the pattern seen in Kenya will be repeated elsewhere as demands for PVS … become more widespread and tightly enforced’.

The report noted that for a variety of reasons, private standards such as GLOBALGAP ‘may be disproportionally more difficult to meet for suppliers in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly smallholders’. In this context, PVS ‘can create obstacles as well as opportunities’. Against this background, the PIP initiative report argued for:

• ‘continued technical assistance both from national and international agencies’;
• ‘improved routes of engagement with those who set and implement the PVS, as well as mechanisms to adjust them, in order that they can be better adapted to local circumstances’;
• ‘improved dialogue … with EU buyers in order to ensure that their policies create and enhance opportunities to trade’;
• ‘the fairer apportionment of costs along the supply chain’;
• a more proactive approach from developing countries in achieving compliance and defining how this is to be achieved.

CTA has produced a reader on the topic of food-safety and agricultural health standards. By way of introduction the briefing notes the increased attention paid to this issue as a result in part of ‘scientific advances … shifts in consumer demand and ... a series of food-safety scandals and disease outbreaks in industrialised countries’. It points out that ‘standards also can be used as a trade-protection measure’, particularly in the context of declining levels of tariff protection. This can have particularly detrimental impacts on small developing countries, where they can come to constitute an ‘insurmountable’ barrier to new entrants. Particular concerns exist around:

• the possible discriminatory use of food-safety and health standards;
• the weakness of technical compliance capacities and enforcement and verification capacities;
• the costs of compliance;
• the inadequacy of support for capacity building for compliance with food-safety and health standards.

The briefing looks at: the international system for establishing food-safety and health standards (Codex Alimentarius, the world organisation for animal health, the International Plant Protection Convention, the WTO SPS agreement, the WTO agreement on technical barriers to trade); the EU approach to food-safety and health standards; the emergence of private-sector standards alongside public standards; the impact of food-safety and health standards on developing countries, with a focus on the impact on smallholder growers.

The briefing notes that the international agreements allow governments to adopt a ‘higher level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection than international standards’, but that this must be based on ‘assessment of the risks to human, animal and plant health, taking into account the risk-assessment techniques developed by relevant international organisations’. This is intended to ensure that SPS measures ‘are not misused for protectionist purposes’.

Against this background in recent years the EU has developed a highly integrated approach to food safety, covering all stages of the production and supply chain from ‘farm to fork’. The EU approach is based on risk analysis, responsibility for which is now lodged with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Overall policy coordination however lies with the EC Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (DG SANCO). Ensuring compliance with EU standards both for domestically produced food and imported products lies with the EU Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). An additional important part of the EU system is the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, a network of EU and member states agencies designed to respond to any food-safety scares.

The briefing highlights the fact that all imported food must comply with EU regulations and standards before it can be placed on the EU market. This needs to be demonstrably verified. An important part of this dimension of the EU system is that importers have a legal responsibility for ensuring the safety of the food they place for sale on the EU market and can be fined for failure to comply with this responsibility.

It is in part against this background that the emergence of stricter private-sector food-safety and health standards needs to be seen. A further dimension of the emergence of private standards however relates to the ‘refocusing (of) agricultural and food-supply chains from price-based to quality-based centres of competition’. This forms part of a wider process of ‘product differentiation’ designed to ‘protect and gain market share when competing in national and regional markets’. Often these private standards are ‘higher and more demanding than the minimum standards enforced by governments’.

In terms of the impact of food-safety and health standards on developing countries the briefing notes that ‘strict standards can create an incentive for producers to invest in modernising their production processes and output’ and can help exporters ‘maintain and improve their market access’. It further notes that ‘larger suppliers have an advantage over smallholders’ in this regard. For smallholder farmers in particular therefore food-safety and health standards can come to constitute a barrier to trade and can lead to smallholder producers being excluded from supply chains. Often alliances with larger exporters or importers are required to keep smallholder growers in the supply chains, since they can provide technical support in assisting smallholder growers in meeting the required standards. However there remain uncertainties over whether ‘development strategies postulated on smallholder production from high-value agricultural products for export’ are realistic in the absence of targeted and sustained support.

On March 12th the EC announced the completion of its pesticide review. Of approximately 1,000 substances available before 1993, ‘about 250 have passed the harmonised EU safety assessment. All reviewed pesticides have undergone a detailed risk evaluation with respect to their effects on humans and on the environment’. The EC has now created a consolidated list of approved substances, which member states may authorise for use in plant protection products. Only 70 substances failed the review process and were removed from the market. The remaining 680 products were ‘either not submitted, or were incomplete or were withdrawn by the industry’.

A programme of seminars extending the EU ‘Better training for safer food’ initiative to Africa has been launched. Training workshops on the theme of ‘better training for safer food in Africa’ have been held in Addis Ababa and Mauritius. The aim of the programme is ‘to keep participants up to date with Community law in these areas’ and to promote ‘more harmonised and efficient controls’. Some €10 million is to be spent over the next three years in seven programme areas: four are to be implemented through the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) at a cost of €5.4 million, two through Agriconsulting Europe at a cost of €3.9m, and one worth €0.22m through AETS consortium.

Speaking in Addis Ababa at the launch of the programme, EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou set out the main objectives of the programme as being:

• to strengthen human capacity through training of trainers, in particular for veterinary and laboratory services;
• to help improve national and regional legal frameworks towards harmonised systems;
• to strengthen capacity of small and medium enterprises to enhance their access to local, regional and EU markets;
• to strengthen the capacity of the African Union on SPS issues.

Additional priorities include: sharing information and policy advice; strengthening official feed-and food-control systems; and the modernisation and rehabilitation of testing and certification laboratories.

More information on the ‘Better training for safer food in Africa’ initiative can be found at the EC BTSF web page, in the March 2009 newsletter.

The UK Fresh Produce Consortium (FPC) has argued that new EU rules on pesticide use could reduce the yields and quality of UK fruit-and-vegetable production and says ‘it may become uneconomic to grow some crops such as sprouts and carrots’. This could result in consumers having to pay higher prices for fruit and vegetables, ‘including apples, pears, raspberries, leeks, peas and beans’. Press reports indicate growing political support for the Fresh Produce Consortium’s position. Defra Secretary Hilary Benn was reported to be deeply concerned that ‘these regulations could hit agricultural production in the UK for no recognisable benefit to human health’. FPC is pushing for a common-sense approach involving ‘safeguards to minimise the impact on UK horticulture before the implementation of the regulation in 2010’, and the conduct of a comprehensive impact assessment before the entry into force of the legislation. A European association claims that its farmers ‘have already lost 60% of the substances previously available in 1991’.

There are still seen to be problems with the new regulation despite the compromises so far reached, which include longer phasing-in periods (until 2017-18 for some products) and country-specific exemptions where serious dangers to plant health arise. Press reports note that the new EU pesticide regulations ‘will have the knock-on benefit of cutting the use of hazardous pesticides elsewhere, since fruit and vegetables imported to the EU must not contain banned pesticides’.

Looking beyond producer concerns, supporters of the new regulations argue that ‘a signal is being sent to the plant protection industry: it needs to make available less hazardous products’, while farmers ‘need to keep on implementing a reasoned and sustainable agriculture’. Green MEPs argued that the legislation marked ‘an historical moment’ in reducing pesticide usage, since ‘the decision to phase out highly hazardous pesticides sets a new milestone for environment and health protection ... [and] ... will bring clear health benefits and improve both food and water quality in the European Union’.

Meanwhile the EC DG SANCO has posted its first major evaluation of an ACP country’s implementation of EU pesticide-related requirements. The evaluation of the Dominican Republic’s control systems took place following notification of unacceptably high levels of pesticide residues in products imported into the EU. The report concluded, ‘There is a very poor control system in place. Plant protection product use is extensive and not effectively controlled in authorisation, marketing or use. Many pesticides not authorised for marketing and use in the EU are regularly used in products for export. The control system does not provide guarantees equivalent to EU standards. There is no analytical capability and therefore further residues with toxicological risks in exported products remain highly likely’. The report recommended action in seven areas, with the competent authority in the Dominican Republic being required to submit activity plans within 25 days of receipt of the report. The recommended steps to be taken included:

• improving the control system for pesticides in fruit and vegetables for export to the EU in line with EU standards;
• ensuring proper record-keeping of the application of plant protection products in produce exported to the EU;
• establishing a post-registration control programme for the marketing, use and quality of pesticides;
• establishing MRLs for goods destined for export to the EU and communicating these to producers and exporters;
• developing a plan to monitor pesticide residues;
• developing the analytical capacity to monitor pesticide MRLs;
• setting up a system of authorisation based on risk assessment, a register of authorised products and their uses and ensuring that this information is communicated to growers, pack houses and exporters.

The planned FVO schedule of inspections in 2009 can be found at the web link below.

The final ‘pesticides package’ agreed on December 21st 2008 included a derogation clause which would allow the continued use of ‘certain active substances if certain pests cannot be contained’. This is in acknowledgement of the limited options available for certain fruit-and-vegetable products. A new fund is to be established ‘to promote greater availability of active substances for minor uses’. Industry sources stressed the importance of such a fund to finding ‘timely alternatives’ to products being phased out. It is hoped that the new package will improve consumer confidence and boost fruit-and-vegetable consumption.

There had been fears that the pesticide package would undermine the ability of EU producers to fight common pests and make production less competitive, with consequences for the prices charged to final consumers.

Meanwhile a study of pesticides in fruit juices revealed larger levels of pesticide residues in fruit juices from the UK than from any other country surveyed, with levels 34 times greater than the levels permitted in drinking water. Even so the residue levels found were not seen as injurious to health, and the British Soft Drinks Association claimed that consumers had no grounds for concern. Soil Association representatives, however, called for more work on the cumulative health effects of pesticide residues.

Industry sources claim that ‘the EU’s pesticide proposals could reduce crop-protection products by 23% across Europe’ and put long-term food security at risk. As a consequence of the EC pesticide proposals ‘fruit and vegetable prices could be set to rocket and it may not be economic to grow certain horticultural crops in the UK’. Against this background the fresh produce industry is calling for ‘a full European impact assessment … before they are enforced’.

Meanwhile in a related development representatives of 17 EU countries have called for urgent measures to fight fake pesticides. The second international conference on counterfeit plant-protection products held in Warsaw on November 13th 2008 reached four concrete conclusions:

• ‘fake pesticides harm farmers, consumers and the environment’
• the EU and the EC must take a proactive ‘zero-tolerance approach’ to fight fake pesticides’;
• a coordination mechanism should be set up at EU-level;
• fighting counterfeit and illegal pesticides must become an integral part of the EU counterfeiting strategy’.

According to press articles a draft EC report suggests that ‘food on sale across Europe has been contaminated by record levels of toxic pesticides … half of the fruit, vegetables and cereals tested in 28 countries …was found to contain traces of pesticides. 5% of samples were found to have ‘levels in breach of safety limits’. This comes against the background of efforts to ‘ban the use of the more hazardous pesticides’. EU pesticide industry sources however claimed ‘the apparent increase was just a ‘spike’ caused by harmonising the collection of monitoring results from across Europe’ and it was stressed that ‘removing large numbers of pesticides would put up the cost of food’.

The EC has acknowledged shortcomings in its analysis of the possible implications of the pesticides review, noting that a comprehensive review was not undertaken since ‘at the time of its original proposal it was not possible to anticipate which substances would remain on the market at the end of the review’. Horticulture industry sources argue the review process could have ‘severe implications for pest management globally if resistant strains, selected as a result of intensive use of surviving active substances, spread’. Industry sources note that without viable markets in the EU ‘some crop-protection companies might have to reconsider their investment in research for alternative products’. There are also concerns that EU controls ‘could be deemed to be a barrier to international trade’. Against this background a ‘thorough assessment of the impact of these proposals’ has been called for.

Meanwhile the OECD have posted a review of methods for quantifying the trade effects of standards in the agri-food sector, which could over time help to promote a better understanding of the trade effects of food standards.

On September 1st 2008 revised and simplified rules on pesticide residues came into effect. The new rules harmonise minimum residue levels for pesticides across all 27 EU member states, replacing the different national systems. They also ensure that pesticide residues are as small as possible. The EC has also posted a fact sheet on the new rules and established a database of the applicable MRLs.

Representatives of the fruit-and-vegetable industry have welcomed the new harmonised rules and the upgraded EC information systems, expressing the hope that the new measures would ‘increase consumer confidence in the safety rules … and further stimulate consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables given the overwhelming health benefits’.

Farmers’ unions have criticised the EU on the grounds that the proposed new rules on pesticide use could force up food prices. The currently proposed measure involves establishing cut-off dates for ‘certain active ingredients in the crop products that are deemed hazardous’. This could lead to ‘15% of existing products being deregistered immediately and a further 24% forcibly replaced within five years’. Calls have been made for ‘a proper assessment of the impact of the proposals on agricultural production EU-wide’.

The May 2008 PIP magazine notes that retailers are increasingly requiring stricter certification standards for imports and that this is reducing the scope for smallholder participation in the vegetable sector. In this context its reports on the success of the PIP capacity building programme in developing local capacity to certify to retailer standards and carry out laboratory tests.

According to the ICTSD the UK Soil Association has declared that it will continue to certify air-freighted fresh produce as organic, regardless of its ‘carbon footprint’, given the development benefits of this trade for poor people in some very vulnerable countries. The Soil Association Chair, Anna Bradley, stated that ‘it is neither sustainable nor responsible to encourage poorer farmers to be reliant on air freight, but we must recognise that building alternative markets that offer the same social and economic benefits as organic exports takes time’. In this context the importance of building local organic markets was emphasised.