In theory, yes. The UK’s current pesticide standards offer better protection for human health and the environment than those of any non-EU country. Trade negotiations with all non-EU countries therefore pose a threat to UK pesticide standards as countries push to gain access to the UK market for their agricultural exports. The more agricultural produce a country exports the more it has to gain by driving down UK pesticide standards. It’s therefore vital that UK negotiators are most vigilant in defending our pesticide standards in trade negotiations with agricultural powerhouses such as Canada and Australia. If a country does not export much food (such as Japan for example) then it is unlikely to push for UK pesticide standards to be weakened.
In addition to allowing larger amounts of more toxic chemicals to appear in UK food, there are also a range of important differences between the way the UK has chosen to govern pesticides and that of future trade partners. Arguably the most fundamental is that the UK currently takes an approach based on the view that some pesticides are intrinsically hazardous and therefore simply too dangerous to be in use. In contrast, non-EU countries follow an approach based on the belief that almost every risk can be mitigated.
The divergence in the approaches of different trade partners also relate to numerous procedural aspects of the pesticide regime. For example, Australia and India have no set time period for reviewing pesticide approvals, meaning that harmful pesticides can remain in use indefinitely once authorised. In contrast, under the current UK system, pesticides are granted a maximum license of 15 years before having to go through a risk assessment process to be reapproved.
It is crucial that UK trade negotiators understand these differences so they are able to defend aspects of the UK pesticide regime designed to protect human health and environment.