Nearly 122,000 tonnes of pesticides banned within the European Union were exported in 2024 - a 50% increase compared with 2018 - according to an investigation by Public Eye and Greenpeace UK's Unearthed. The European Commission, which committed five years ago to end the production and export of hazardous agrochemicals, is now under mounting pressure for failing to act.

The banned substances include 1,3-dichloropropene, glufosinate, and mancozeb, all prohibited within the EU due to their toxic impact on human health and biodiversity. Yet they are shipped to 93 countries, three-quarters of which are low- and middle-income nations with weaker regulatory systems. Ironically, the United States and Brazil rank among the top importers, revealing how global trade asymmetries allow products considered unsafe in Europe to circulate freely elsewhere.

In 2024, BASF led exports with 33,000 tonnes, followed by Teleos Ag Solutions, Agria, Corteva Agriscience, and Syngenta. Environmental advocates accuse these corporations of exploiting regulatory loopholes and prioritizing profit over safety. In response, BASF argues that its products are safe "when used in the right context" and that climatic differences justify their use abroad. "Different regions face unique challenges," the company said in a statement, adding that a unilateral export ban would only shift production outside Europe and "hurt local farmers' livelihoods."

The European Commission maintains that it "shares concerns" about banned pesticide exports and is evaluating "legislative options" to address the issue. A public consultation began in 2023, but no binding proposal has yet emerged. Critics, including Public Eye, say this delay reflects intense lobbying from the agrochemical industry, which continues to influence the bloc's environmental policies despite the EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy.

Scientists and health experts strongly disagree with industry arguments. Michael Eddleston, toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh, noted that "only 5-10% of pesticides fall into this highly hazardous category, but they cause disproportionate harm. Removing just one could save thousands of lives." Similarly, Keith Tyrell from the Centre for Suicide Prevention stated that "if a pesticide is too dangerous for European farmers, it's too dangerous for anyone. Exporting it to poorer nations is not trade - it's outsourcing risk."

The controversy exposes a profound ethical contradiction in European policy. As Dave Goulson, biologist at the University of Sussex, remarked: "Europe boasts one of the world's most rigorous regulatory systems, yet exports chemicals it deems too dangerous for itself. This is irresponsible profiteering that undermines the EU's credibility in global environmental leadership." French agroecologist Fabrice Martin-Laurent added that, while companies operate legally under current rules, moral responsibility demands change. He proposed taxing exports per tonne of active ingredient, using the funds to strengthen pesticide governance in importing countries and promote safer alternatives.

The persistence of these exports highlights a critical weakness in global agricultural governance: the absence of harmonized sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards and effective multilateral enforcement mechanisms. While the FAO, OECD, and WTO advocate for greater sustainability and transparency in agrochemical trade, national interests continue to override global health priorities.

Ultimately, the EU's failure to act jeopardizes not only its green credibility but also the integrity of international food systems. Allowing banned pesticides to circulate freely in the Global South undermines global efforts toward sustainable agriculture, climate resilience, and food security. As pressure mounts from civil society, scientists, and trading partners, Europe faces a decisive moment: align its trade practices with its values - or risk being seen as complicit in the very environmental harm it claims to fight.