By Dr. John Goldberg, Partner in the Normandy Group and USA Rice consultant
BRUSSELS, BELGIUM – “Luddite” is a derogatory term describing people who fear and oppose technology. Not surprisingly, the term originated in Europe in the early 19th century describing people involved in a movement against mechanization. Unfortunately, the Luddites are alive and well and thriving in Europe in an ongoing “30 Year” war against agricultural technologies.
Recently, Europe doubled down in its war against technology, this time in the form of new restrictions on how countries outside of the European Union (EU) manage the use of critical agricultural pesticides. For many years we have argued against the European approach to food safety regulation which employs the so-called “precautionary principle” – that the introduction of a new product or process whose ultimate effects cannot be proven with 100 percent certainty should be resisted.
As problematic as this has been, up until now, the impact on food exports to the EU has been limited to questions solely pertaining to the EUs precautionary approach to food safety. Now, the EU has expanded their use of the precautionary principle in a misguided attempt to further demonize how farmers around the world use agricultural pesticides by arbitrarily reducing or eliminating MRLs to force exporting countries to restrict the use of pesticides that the EU believes may impact pollinator health.
On February 15th, the EU published a regulation lowering the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for two important neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin (sold as Belay, Maxim, and Nipsitinside) and thiamethoxam (sold as Endigo and CruiserMaxx). Unlike previous MRL reductions for imported food products which the EU argued were based on concerns about food safety, these reductions stem from a stated interest in protecting pollinators in countries outside of the EU.
Once MRLs are reduced, trade may be affected unless import tolerances are granted. However, the EU requires that even import tolerance requests for these neonicotinoids will have to “provide relevant information to demonstrate that the Good Agricultural Practices applying for the specific uses of the active substances are safe for pollinators.” That information, if submitted, would only be assessed on a case-by-case basis. However, it is unclear what “relevant information” would be considered and how it would be evaluated. While the EU Luddite’s war on agricultural technology has been going on for nearly 30 years, unfortunately it appears that this is just the beginning.
USA Rice and other U.S. and world agricultural trade associations continue to push back against the EU’s narrative and fight for science-based over emotion-based regulation of food.