Banned at Home, Sold Abroad: The EU’s Pesticide Hypocrisy

The Core Problem: A Toxic Double Standard

Despite domestic restrictions, the EU remains a major exporter of banned pesticides. In 2018 alone, European countries exported over 81,000 tons of pesticides containing 41 substances prohibited within the bloc. More than 75% of this volume went to low- and middle-income countries where legislation does not prohibit their use.

Among the hazardous chemicals still flowing from Europe’s factories is ethoprophos, a neurotoxic insecticide banned in the EU in 2019 due to links to developmental disorders but still sold abroad for use on crops like bananas and pineapples. Or chlorothalonil, a fungicide labelled as “probable human carcinogen” by EU authorities. Despite its ban, it remains in use in countries like Kenya, Brazil, and India.

“Out of 230 active pesticides ingredients, only 134 are approved in Europe, 19 are not listed in the EU database, and 77 have been restricted or withdrawn due to chronic health risks, their persistence in the environment, or toxicity to fish and bees”, comments John Kariuki, Slow Food Coordinator in Kenya.

Pesticides Atlas 2022, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union

Even more striking is diquat, a close cousin of the infamous, highly toxic paraquat, whose “popularity” took a hit after Brazil’s ban in 2020, in response to studies linking its use to Parkinson’s disease, the seriousness of accidental poisonings in the country, and information showing farm workers’ exposure to the weedkiller would exceed safe levels even if they were wearing protective equipment. But diquat is ready to take up the torch. Although it was banned in the EU in 2019, and despite the rising number of reported poisonings in recent years, diquat remains a top export. In 2023, Syngenta exported over 8,500 tons of banned pesticides from the UK, with diquat-based products making up the majority.

The irony? These chemicals don’t stay abroad. Food grown with EU-banned pesticides frequently finds its way back to European grocery stores. In 2022, 69 banned active substances were detected in food sold in the EU — especially in imported tea, coffee, and spices. In effect, Europeans are eating what their own laws forbid to be grown on home soil.

“Every time the planes pass, my eyes burn”

The human consequences of this toxic trade are devastating. According to UN human rights experts, hazardous pesticide exposure is responsible for an estimated 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, with the vast majority occurring in developing countries. Beyond fatalities, studies also indicate a staggering burden of hundreds of millions of non-fatal pesticide poisoning cases annually, affecting communities globally.

Farm workers across the Global South are on the frontlines of chronic exposure with risks ranging from toxic inhalation, chemical burns, to long-term illnesses. Chemicals like chlorpyrifos, still used in Indian rice farming and tea plantations, are known for their links to developmental neurotoxicity. In Kenya, dimethoate, banned in the EU, is regularly used on vegetables exported to European markets, with documented health risks for both farmers and consumers.

Pesticides Atlas 2022, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union

Nearby communities, too, face daily harm. In Costa Rica, for example, pesticide drift from banana and pineapple plantations routinely blankets villages, contaminating homes, schools, and water supplies. “Every time the planes pass, my eyes burn,” one resident told The Guardian in a 2024 article. In places like Cameroon and the Philippines, similar patterns of chronic respiratory issues, skin conditions, and cancer clusters have been linked to pesticide exposure. This is not an isolated problem — it’s a global public health crisis.

The environmental cost is equally alarming. Soil and groundwater contamination degrade ecosystems and render farmland less productive over time, locking farmers into cycles of chemical dependency. Biodiversity destruction is accelerating, and nowhere is the crisis more alarming than with pollinators. Neonicotinoids — banned in the EU for their devastating effect on bees — continue to be exported and used elsewhere. With an estimated 75% of global crops dependent on pollination, the collapse of bee populations directly endangers food production, ecosystems, and the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers.

The Loophole That Enables It All

Why does this double standard persist? The answer lies in a mix of economic interests, regulatory loopholes, and unequal power dynamics.

First and foremost, European agrochemical companies profit handsomely from these exports, with more than one-third of their sales coming from Highly Hazardous Pesticides, the most harmful to human health and the environment. They claim that banning production for export would hurt competitiveness and cost jobs. Yet a study from Le Basic published in April 2024 showed that a ban on the export of banned pesticides would neither endanger employment nor burden the economy in Europe.

Pesticides Atlas 2022, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung European Union

Yet the EU legal architecture still allows this juicy business to go on. How ? Thanks to a regulatory gap enabled by the EU Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Regulation, which requires notification and consent from importing countries, but does not restrict the actual trade of these substances,  even if they are proven to be harmful, or even banned in the EU itself.

This loophole is no accident; the agrochemical sector has fought hard to preserve it. These companies wield significant influence in Brussels and national capitals, with huge amounts of money at their disposal to wage their lobby campaigns. According to the Corporate Europe Observatory, “Seven chemical corporations and lobby groups are in the top 50 highest spenders on lobbying EU institutions: four companies (Bayer, ExxonMobil Petroleum & Chemical, Dow Europe, and BASF) and three lobby associations (CEFIC, the German chemicals industry lobby Verband der Chemischen Industrie, and Plastics Europe). Between them they declared €33.5 million expenditure on lobbying the EU institutions in the most recent year”.

Against such a firing power, importing countries — many of them in the Global South — are often unable to push back. Regulatory frameworks in countries such as Cameroon, Kenya, Brazil, and India are under-resourced, and enforcement is inconsistent. Farmers may not receive proper training, protective equipment, or even clear labeling in local languages. In some cases, they are unaware that the substances they use have been banned elsewhere due to their health and environmental hazards.

One Step Forward and Two Steps Back

The EU has acknowledged this problem — at least on paper. In its 2020 Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, the European Commission promised to ensure that “hazardous chemicals banned in the EU are not produced for export.” Yet five years later, and despite a joint call by several EU Member States to end this practice, the Commission’s promise remains largely unfulfilled. A binding proposal has yet to materialize, and opposition from the chemical lobby remains fierce.

Meanwhile, some Member States have taken the lead. France implemented a national ban on the export of certain banned pesticides in 2022, though reports indicate that loopholes have allowed continued exports. Belgium has adopted a similar ban set to take effect in May 2025, and Germany is moving towards enacting comparable legislation. While these national efforts are commendable, they result in a fragmented legal landscape, undermining the EU’s collective stance on sustainability and chemical safety.

Internationally, pressure is growing, but so is pushback. UN human rights experts have repeatedly urged countries to stop exporting hazardous chemicals banned in their own territories, describing the practice as a violation of the rights to health and life. Legal scholars have also affirmed that an EU-wide export ban would be compatible with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, thanks to exceptions for public health and environmental protection.

Yet these calls exist alongside significant resistance. Lobbyists representing the pesticide, oil, and agribusiness sectors have shown up in record numbers at key international events like the COP16 for biodiversity, working to dilute regulatory language and influence outcomes. Despite efforts by civil society groups to spotlight the issue on the global stage — including at UN meetings and through alliances with frontline communities — negotiations often remain skewed in favor of corporate interests. As a result, meaningful international governance on toxic exports remains uneven and slow-moving, even as scientific evidence and human rights principles argue for urgent action.

Toxic Trade on Trial

Progress is hard-won, yet a growing resolve for change is evident, fueled not only by environmental organizations but also by farmers, labor unions, human rights defenders, and affected communities, determined to hold the system accountable.

In Belgium, sustained pressure from civil society groups such as Humundi played a key role in securing the national ban on the export of certain banned pesticides, a milestone that shows how local advocacy can shift national policy.

At the EU level, citizen campaigns are gaining momentum. A petition with currently over 300,000 signatures, demanding that the EU stops exporting banned chemicals, was delivered to the European Commissioner for Environment, while a separate initiative by Foodwatch continues to gain traction. In parallel, more than 100 organizations, including Amnesty International and Greenpeace, have united to demand the closure of EU loopholes that allow the export of hazardous chemicals prohibited within the bloc.

And these efforts are finding allies across borders. In 2022, a remarkable show of solidarity emerged when 274 civil society organizations from 54 countries in the Global South voiced their support for Germany’s proposed ban on the export of EU-prohibited pesticides. In a joint declaration, they urged the German government to go further and include not just pesticide formulations but also the banned active ingredients themselves.

This transnational resistance is mirrored on the ground. In South Africa, the Women on Farms Project is documenting pesticide exposure among women farmworkers while campaigning for a national phaseout of hazardous chemicals, and the end of their exports from the EU. Meanwhile in Argentina, grassroots groups like the Mothers of Ituzaingó have drawn international attention to the devastating health consequences of pesticide spraying in agricultural zones, helping reframe the issue as one of human rights, not just environmental regulation.

These efforts show that the toxic double standard will not go unchallenged. Civil society is forcing the issue onto the political agenda—and with sustained pressure, the EU can still lead by example, closing loopholes and aligning its trade practices with its environmental and health commitments. There is overwhelming support for this, now is the time for action to match.

Slow Food’s Call to End Europe’s Toxic Exports

Slow Food’s Call to End Europe’s Toxic Exports

Europe must stop exporting what it cannot justify using at home.

Slow Food is calling for:

• A full export ban on pesticides banned in the EU;
• Mirror clauses in trade agreements, ensuring imported food meets the same environmental and health standards as EU-produced food;
• Greater transparency and accountability for companies engaged in toxic exports.