EU Commission abandons ban on exports of non-approved pesticides
- Pesticides
- politics and law
The EU did not approve the use of these pesticides because of being too dangerous — then kept exporting them anyway. Now the Commission is quietly dropping its promise to stop this unethical trade.
Pesticides not allowed in the EU because of their danger for human health and the environment are still being exported to other countries — and returning to Europe through residues in imported food. In late June 2026, the European Commission confirmed to Danish outlet Danwatch, and in a letter to foodwatch, that it is giving up on its commitment to stop this trade. The decision breaks a promise made under the EU's own Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability in 2020.
Why is the EU exporting pesticides it won't allow at home?
The Commission first confirmed this U-turn to Danwatch: a unilateral EU export ban, it argued, wouldn't necessarily help, since affected countries could just buy similar or worse chemicals elsewhere. It also warned a ban would hurt the EU's chemical industry. Arguments that have interestingly been repeated over and over again by the same chemical industry that has been lobbying against the ban since it was first announced.
In a letter to foodwatch, the Commission repeated this line, pointing to existing frameworks instead: the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, implemented via the EU's POPs Regulation (which restricts persistent, highly toxic pollutants) and PIC Regulation (which governs the export and import of hazardous chemicals).
Either way, this is a significant U-turn on one of the flagship measures in the EU's 2020 Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.
You cannot claim to protect health and the environment while shipping chemicals that are deemed too dangerous for Europe abroad — and allowing them back in our food.Lead Campaign Strategy
If it's too dangerous for Europe, why is it fine in the Global South?
The logic behind the original ban was straightforward: a substance judged too dangerous for health or the environment in Europe does not magically change properties once it crosses a border. If it harms people in Europe, it harms people elsewhere too.
Critics point a practice that can be called chemical neocolonialism: pesticides too dangerous for European fields, shipped instead to countries in the Global South with weaker regulatory protections — a double standard that treats some lives as less worth protecting.
Who's really being protected — farmers or industry?
European farmers are barred from using these substances — while competing against imported products grown with them. According to foodwatch, a full export ban would therefore benefit farmers by providing a level playing field with those outside of Europe. On the contrary, failing to do so will mostly benefit the companies that make millions out of this juicy trade.
The pesticides come back in our food
Pesticides not approved in the EU but still used abroad don't just stay abroad. They return as residues in imported food, exposing European consumers to residues of substances that their own regulators have already ruled too risky. foodwatch demands an end to this loop: no export, no residues, no exposure. At the time of writing, even the limited proposals of the Commission to address residues of non-approved pesticides are too weak to protect consumers.
Cutting Red Tape — But at What Cost?
The Commission is currently undermining Europe’s food safety net, with the Food and Feed Safety Omnibus, under the guise of cutting redtape. Abandoning the pesticide export ban fits that same logic. Still, there is a legitimate question for citizens to ask: how come that the taxpayers’ money spent on the preparation of an impact assessment for a ban never released and how can the Commission justify dropping the ban without publishing its supporting evidence? foodwatch demands consistency: if the Commission is so keen on cutting redtape, then it cannot only be when it fits its political agenda. Instead of dropping laws and safeguards out of the blue, then maybe it should start by making better use of its own resources, starting by releasing the analysis it commissions and providing fact-based justification for its decisions. .
In 2023, the Commission launched a consultation to prepare an impact assessment on this issue. Three years on, nothing has been published — no report, no draft, no findings. foodwatch demands full transparency: taxpayers paid for this work and deserve to see it before any decision to scrap the export ban is finalised.
Stand for food safety: stop the omnibus
Brussels wants to fast-track a mega-bundle of food safety rollbacks — weakening pesticide safety reviews, residue limits, and import controls. Ten laws at once, in a very short period, means reduced protection without proper scrutiny. Tell Members of the European Parliament: stand up for food safety!