{"id":27164,"date":"2020-06-19T00:01:48","date_gmt":"2020-06-19T04:01:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=27164"},"modified":"2020-06-18T21:04:58","modified_gmt":"2020-06-19T01:04:58","slug":"toxic-trade-will-the-u-s-force-a-trade-agreement-that-allows-more-poisons-in-the-uk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2020\/06\/toxic-trade-will-the-u-s-force-a-trade-agreement-that-allows-more-poisons-in-the-uk\/","title":{"rendered":"Toxic Trade: Will the U.S. Force a Trade Agreement that Allows More Poisons in the UK?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, June 19, 2020)\u00a0As it navigates an exit from the European Union (EU) and its trade agreements, the UK is considering the establishment of its own Free Trade Agreements, including commodities treated with pesticides, with various partner countries. Toxic Trade,<\/em> a new report<\/a> from Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) and others, reveals how such agreements between the UK and other countries \u2014 and the U.S., in particular \u2014 threaten to weaken existing protections from pesticides in the UK, which are stronger than those in most other countries. The report points to potential harms to UK residents, environment, and wildlife; it further suggests that the likelihood of the U.S. successfully imposing a weakening of UK protections is high. In November 2019, Beyond Pesticides covered the warnings<\/a> from PAN UK and the Soil Association<\/a> that the UK\u2019s \u201cBrexit\u201d might result in greater pesticide use and\/or exposure.<\/p>\n

The UK, and other European countries, have taken a more-precautionary approach to the permitting of pesticide use than does the U.S., Australia, or India. The UK bans a long list of pesticides that threaten human health, pollinators, ecosystems, and natural resources; many of these same compounds continue to be used in these three other countries. Shockingly, paraquat<\/a> \u2014 banned in more than 40 countries because of its extreme toxicity to humans and high fatality rate, but not in these three \u2014 is one of them. Likewise, fipronil<\/a> and neonicotinoids<\/a>, both insecticides that cause severe harm to pollinators, are banned in the UK but permitted in this trio of countries. The report also<\/a> calls out the uses of the herbicides atrazine<\/a> and diuron<\/a> in the three nations, whereas the UK has banned them because of their harm to aquatic life and damage to water body ecosystems.<\/p>\n

Toxic Trade<\/em><\/a> is co-authored by PAN<\/a> UK, Emily Lydgate, Ph.D., senior lecturer in environmental law, University of Sussex, and SUSTAIN<\/a>, a UK nonprofit focused on food and farming. It captures concerns in the UK\u2019s public health and environment sectors that in negotiations on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), the U.S. will exert significant pressure on the UK to compromise its stronger pesticide regulations in order to secure agreements with the American government. The U.S. goal is to weaken such regulations so that it can export its more-contaminated food products to the UK. The report warns<\/a> that this could result in both an increase in amounts of pesticide residues and increased toxicity of pesticides in food imported into the UK. But the impacts would go well beyond the residues in any U.S. foods that folks across the pond might consume: it would necessarily require more-lax pesticide standards for domestic UK food production.<\/p>\n

The co-authors note<\/a>, \u201cTrade partners attempting to secure access to the UK market for their food exports have listed UK pesticide standards as a key sticking point and made it clear that weakening them is a priority.\u201d One of the report co-authors, Dr. Lydgate, adds<\/a>, \u201cA clear and central objective of US negotiators is for the UK to lower its pesticide standards. The current picture in the UK of intense political pressure coupled with a lack of parliamentary and public scrutiny means the risk of this happening is very high.\u201d<\/p>\n

A comparison of a few rough metrics<\/a> reveals some of the differences between U.S. and UK regulations. The UK has approved use of a total of 2,900 pesticide products; Australia has permitted 8,000, and the U.S., 9,000. Those products in the UK comprise 468 active ingredients; in Australia, that number is 486; in the U.S., 692. Of pesticides the authors label \u201chighly hazardous,\u201d the UK allows 73, whereas the U.S. allows 102, and Australia, 144. Finally, regarding organophosphates, which are highly toxic to humans<\/a>: the UK permits 4; India, 16; the U.S. 26, and Australia, 33.<\/p>\n

The reports asserts<\/a> that UK acquiescence to such U.S. pressure would mean considerable risks to human and environmental health in the UK. Were the UK to relax standards to secure FTAs, the authors say, pesticides that have been banned in the UK could again appear in UK foods. Examples include:<\/p>\n