EU drops pesticide woes on SA farmers
● South African farmers are getting the squeeze from the EU, which has lowered its maximum residual levels of pesticide on imported produce, a move that could put South African exports at risk.
Paul Makube, senior agricultural economist at FNB, says if maximum residue levels (MRLs) are too low it becomes unprofitable for farmers, who may lose crops to pests or have to harvest later when there is less residue on the plants.
“Then they might lose the window of opportunity to deliver their produce,” he says.
In February this year, the European Food Safety Authority and European Commission lowered their MRLs for the amount of pesticides on agricultural imports. The new levels came into effect in September.
SA has petitioned the EU with 32 other countries as members of the Word Trade Organisation for an extension.
A commission official from the European Union said that while they are aware of challenges trading partners are experiencing, lowering the bar on food and agricultural standards is not the solution.
MRLs are the highest tolerable level of a pesticide that is left on crops after a harvest, says Luigia Steyn, MRL consultant at Agri-Intel and CropLife SA.
It is a common misconception that products are not approved in the EU because they are hazardous, but there are other reasons for a product not being approved, such as efficacy, says Steyn. The European agricultural environment differs greatly from SA’s, meaning pesticide products that are effective here may not be effective in the EU.
Steyn says if a product that uses an alternative active ingredient is not feasible then farmers often need to harvest the produce later or stop using the pesticide at an earlier growth stage than indicated on the product label. This will allow more time for the chemical to break down to levels that should not exceed the lower MRLs or that will not result in detectable residues.
Crops that arrive for import to the EU that exceed the MRLs are, according to its regulations, either destroyed or redispatched to another region.
Deon Joubert, the Citrus Growers’ Association’s envoy to the EU, says while in general MRLs are often reduced, farmers want to know why — and this isn’t always clear. He believes that sometimes reducing MRLs is a market protection issue.
Dawie Maree, the business head of FNB’s agriculture division, agrees that MRLs can create a trade barrier to exclude countries from a certain market. More than 60% of SA’s agricultural market is export-related and any change in the export market affects the local price of produce.
SA is seeking out new markets, he says, but that takes a long time. An example is the export agreement with the Philippines that took 10 years to conclude. The next step, he says, is for the individual producers to find ways into the market.
Asked to comment on whether the EU was using MRLs as a trade barrier, the EU declined to comment.
Derek Donkin, CEO of the Subtropical Growers’ Association, says MRLs are continually under review but the avocado industry “is OK at the moment”.
Steyn says SA has its own set of MRLs that assists farmers in keeping under the maximum level as there are different MRLs for different countries.
Canada, Japan, SA and the US are examples of countries that maintain their own national MRLs. Other countries, including Pakistan, Venezuela and Tanzania, do not maintain their own national MRLs and instead adopt the international Codex MRL values.
Differences in MRLs also depend on who the farmers supply. Steyn says many EU and UK supermarkets have private standards for pesticide usage and residues, which are imposed on their supply base.
Some supermarkets prohibit or restrict the use of certain pesticides in farming or have zero tolerance for any residues of prohibited active ingredients.