Toxic Trade: Brazil

TOXIC TRADE How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil A report by PAN UK, Sustain and Dr Emily Lydgate February 2022

KEY ACRONYMS AIP

Agreement in Principle

ANVISA

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency

COP26

United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties 26th annual summit

CPTPP

Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

DIT

Department for International Trade (UK)

FACT

Forests, Agriculture and Commodity Trade

FTA

Free Trade Agreement

GM

Genetically modified

HHP

Highly Hazardous Pesticides

MRL

Maximum Residue Level

TAC

Trade and Agriculture Commission

TOXIC TRADE How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil A report by PAN UK, Sustain and Dr Emily Lydgate Cover photo: Illegal cutting and burning in the Jamanxim National Forest in Brazil. Credit Paralaxis/Shutterstock.com.

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

CONTENTS 4

Executive summary and key recommendations

9

Introduction

11

Pressure on UK pesticide standards from a UK-Brazil FTA

17

Exporting environmental harms to Brazil via a UK-Brazil FTA

21

Exporting human health harms to Brazil via a UK-Brazil FTA

22

Case study: Controversy surrounding the EU-Mercosur FTA

23

How can the UK avoid driving deforestation in Brazil?

25

Full recommendations

27

References

3

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY *

Tractor spraying watermelons with pesticides in Eunapolis, Brazil. Credit Joa Souza/Shutterstock.com.

The UK Government has touted agricultural powerhouse Brazil as a potential target for a postBrexit Free Trade Agreement (FTA). While there is not yet talk of formal trade negotiations launching, the two governments are in ongoing discussions and recently signed a new ‘memorandum of understanding’ aimed at facilitating trade in agricultural goods.

Brazil is part of Mercosur – a customs union which also includes Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

While officially this means that the UK would have to negotiate an FTA with Mercosur as a whole, Brazil is currently making unilateral moves on trade and what this means for the UK remains unclear. What is certain however is that an increase in trade with Brazil – whether under a UK-Mercosur deal or a bilateral UK-Brazil FTA – could have profound implications for the extent to which UK food consumption drives pesticide-related harms in both countries.

Brazil is the world’s third largest user of pesticides and its pesticide standards are far weaker than their UK equivalents, tending to prioritise the interests of the agrochemical industry over the protection of

the environment or human health. While the focus in the UK has shifted in the past few years towards pesticide reduction, Brazil’s President Bolsonaro has weakened national pesticide regulations significantly since taking office in 2019. His socalled “Poison Package”, which is currently being pushed through Congress, has removed a range of safeguards including eliminating the consideration of environmental and non-lethal human health impacts (such as the development of cancers) when deciding whether a pesticide should be approved for use.

While the UK already imports significant amounts of food (including meat and an array of fruit and vegetables) and animal feed (largely soya) from Brazil, produce containing pesticide residues which exceed UK safety limits is currently banned from entering the UK market. Brazilian companies would therefore have much to gain from weakening UK domestic pesticide standards in order to increase exports. In fact, it has been reported that the Brazilian agriculture minister has implied that, over time, the UK’s standards would evolve to mirror something more akin to the weaker Brazilian approach.1

* Unless provided, all references for the executive summary are to be found in the main body of the report

4

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Threats to human health, the environment and farming in the UK

Exporting UK environmental and health harms to Brazil

If the UK Government bows to pressure from Brazil to weaken domestic pesticide standards then the increased risk to the health of UK consumers could be significant. Brazil tends to allow larger amounts of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) to appear in food than the UK. As just one of many examples, Brazilian lemons grown for the home market are allowed to contain 200 times the amount of dimethoate than those allowed to be sold in the UK. Lemons are already a key export to the UK which would be likely to increase under a trade deal. Dimethoate has been shown to have links to cancer and is banned in the UK for reasons which include the potential risk posed to consumer health through long-term exposure via diet.

Even an FTA in which the UK maintained its domestic pesticide standards and imposed them on Brazilian imports, would likely drive increased exports of Brazilian soya and meat, causing potentially irreversible damage to the both environment and human health in Brazil.

Any increase in trade with Brazil also poses a risk to the environment. When compared to Brazil, the UK takes a more precautionary approach to which pesticides are allowed to be used, approving just 73 Highly Hazardous Pesticides compared to Brazil’s 131. The list of HHPs used in Brazil but banned in the UK includes chlorpyrifos which has been shown to negatively affect the brain development of foetuses and young children and neonicotinoids which are notorious for being highly toxic to bees. When a pesticide is banned in the UK, it is theoretically not allowed to be appear in food, thereby restricting imports. As a result, it is highly likely that the UK would come under pressure to weaken its approach to pesticide approvals during trade conversations with the Brazilian Government.

A rise in agricultural exports from Brazil also poses an economic threat to the future of UK agriculture.

Judging by the UK-Australia FTA (the only new FTA that has been signed by the UK Government post-Brexit), it is highly likely that an FTA with Brazil would increase quotas under which Brazilian agricultural exports receive low tariffs, thereby incentivising Brazil to export more to the UK. This, in turn, increases pressure on British farmers to intensify their own use of pesticides in order to compete with Brazilian produce grown on a largerscale and to lower environmental standards.

The significant role played by the growth of industrial-scale agriculture in Brazil (which is largely focussed on beef and soya production) in the devastation of the Amazon rainforest is welldocumented. Similarly, the Cerrado region – a vast, tropical savannah which is home to roughly 5% of the world’s plant and animal species – continues to be encroached upon, most notably by plantations of soya beans destined for animal feed. Much of this feed is produced for export, as highlighted by a 2020 report linking British consumption to the destruction of the Cerrado. Pesticide run-off is also contaminating water. According to a 2021 study, freshwater bodies in 80% of Brazilian states are now contaminated with herbicides such as glyphosate, posing a direct threat to aquatic species and ecosystems.

Pesticide use in Brazil has also been linked to a variety of human health problems. A 2020 study blamed contamination of drinking water by glyphosate used in soya production for a 5% increase in infant mortality (which correlated to 503 infant deaths) in the southern and western-central regions of Brazil. Direct poisonings also remain a problem. Pesticide drift from aerial spraying (which is all but banned in the UK) and tractors results in numerous pesticide poisoning incidents. A report

by Publica estimated that between 2007 and 2017 some 6,500 children under the age of 14 were poisoned by pesticides – almost two children per day.

5

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Proponents for an increase in UK-Brazil trade argue that the UK’s safety limits (known as Maximum Residue Levels or MRLs) are able to protect against pesticide-related harms in both Brazil and the UK. However, MRLs are woefully inadequate in terms of protecting human health or the environment for a range of reasons including: 66 Brazil’s largest agricultural export to the UK is soya beans, 80-90% of which is fed to animals.

However, MRLs do not apply to animal feed so Brazilian soya growers have no need to worry about using fewer pesticides in order to keep residues down to facilitate trade.

66 While MRLs do apply to food crops, it is possible to use highly hazardous pesticides that are banned in the UK (for example, beetoxic neonicotinoids), without the chemicals in question turning up as residues in the final product. Farming and food processing practices can reduce, and even eliminate, residues while doing nothing to prevent the environmental or health impacts where the food is grown.

66 The UK’s residue testing scheme is extremely limited, testing only around three thousand 1kg samples of food per year. As a result, it’s likely that many MRL exceedances are missed.

Whilst it can be argued that MRLs do offer some level of protection for the UK consumer, they are in no way a safeguard against pesticide-related harms on the ground where the food is grown.

Consequently, the Brazilian population, its wildlife and natural environment more broadly, can be exposed to highly toxic substances used to grow food or feed consumed in the UK. This is, at best, a double standard and, at worst, a reckless disregard for the rights of others to live a life free from the health and environmental problems associated with pesticide use.

6

Undermining UK Government commitments on trade, food safety and the environment A UK-Brazil FTA risks undermining a range of recent UK commitments designed to deal with the nature and climate crises, many of which already acknowledge that the UK must consider its environmental footprint beyond its shores. At COP 26 in November 2021, the UK led a coalition of 100 countries, including Brazil, in a pledge to reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. It is hard to see how either country could hope to meet this commitment without putting in place significant safeguards to ensure that a UK-Brazil FTA does not weaken pesticide standards.

While the UK Government has made repeated statements promising not to compromise on “… our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards” during trade negotiations, a document leaked from the Department for International Trade (DIT) in 2021 advised Government to “...not refuse to liberalise on products of environmental concern where there is an economic case for liberalisation, or partner interest is so strong that not doing so would compromise the wider agreement”2. While DIT distanced itself from the advice stating that it was not Government policy, many commentators immediately made the link to a trade deal with Brazil.3,4 Despite these widespread concerns, the UK Government continues to herald an increase in trade with Brazil as a great opportunity, with Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan stating in January 2022 that it offers “real opportunities to go further on green trade”5. However, the Government has provided no detail on provisions that would be put in place to ensure that UK diets don’t end up being responsible for driving serious health problems in Brazil and speeding up the destruction of some of the world’s most precious ecosystems.

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Key recommendations for the UK Government * 66 Do not allow any weakening of UK pesticide standards via a UKBrazil FTA. This must include: »» Ensuring that no currently banned pesticides are allowed for use in the UK »» Ensure that food containing detectable residues of currently banned substances cannot be imported into the UK »» Ensure that Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) are maintained or reduced.

66 Prevent UK farmers from being disadvantaged by cheap food imports produced to weaker pesticide standards in Brazil.

66 Put in place additional measures that go beyond Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) to ensure that Brazilian agricultural imports are not driving pesticide-related harms to either human health or the environment.

66 Ensure that a trade agreement with Brazil is coherent with the UK’s international leadership on combatting agricultural deforestation by avoiding further tariff liberalisation through increased quotas for all Brazilian agricultural exports, including animal feed.

66 The UK Government and/or the Trade Agriculture Commission (TAC) should undertake impact assessments on the following: »» The likely public health and environmental impact of the agreement on pesticide use both in the UK and Brazil »» The impact of the agreement on UK imports of Brazilian soya and the likely knock-on effect on deforestation and key habitat loss in Brazil 66 Introduce Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for all imported produce used for animal feed, including but not limited to both GM and non-GM soya. * See page 25 for full recommendations

7

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Photo: Spraying pesticides in a soybean field in Brazil. Credit FR.Agro/Shutterstock.com.

8

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

INTRODUCTION Brazil’s agricultural exports to the UK

An FTA with Brazil or Mercosur?

The UK has expressed interest in increasing and facilitating trade with Brazil, and the two countries have commenced an Economic and Financial dialogue to build cooperation and pave the way for a Free Trade Agreement.6 Brazil is an agricultural powerhouse, producing a wide range of produce for internal use and export globally. Its main exports include beef, coffee, soya, sugarcane, cotton and a wide range of fruits and vegetables.

Mercosur, sometimes described as the Southern Common Market, consists of Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay as full members. It is a customs union, which means that, theoretically at least, its member countries maintain the same tariffs and don’t negotiate new trade agreements independently of one another. This would prevent the UK from negotiating a bilateral FTA with Brazil, requiring that it negotiate with Mercosur as a whole. However, the status and nature of the custom union is currently being tested, with Brazil unilaterally reducing its tariffs, against protests from other Mercosur members.12 Brazil is also unsatisfied with Mercosur’s lack of success in negotiating trade agreements (only two have been concluded, with Egypt and Israel).13 What this means for the UK is unclear. The Brazilian Government has stated that it is ‘very interested’ in pursuing a Mercosur-UK FTA.14 It seems possible that Brazil will do so bilaterally either by leaving Mercosur or simply overriding or ignoring protests from other Members. However, Brazil hasn’t stated any intent to leave Mercosur.

Brazil’s largest agricultural export to the UK is soya beans, worth approximately 220 million USD in 2020. It is estimated that approximately 80-90% of soy in the UK is fed to animals (primarily chicken and pigs and, to a lesser extent, cows) with just 1020% used for food. This is particularly true in the case of soy coming from South America, including Brazil, which consists almost entirely of Genetically modified (GM) soy and has therefore not been used much, if at all, for food in the UK.7 While Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) dictate how much of a particular pesticide is allowed to appear in food which is traded internationally, there are no such restrictions on animal feed. As a result, Brazilian soya growers have no need to worry about keeping pesticide residues down in order to facilitate trade.

The UK also imports a wide variety of fruit and vegetables from Brazil including apples, grapes, melons, onions and tomatoes. In 2020 the UK was ranked 2nd behind the Netherlands in terms of fruit imports from Brazil.8 Meat imports to the UK are also significant. As an example, Brazil is currently permitted to export 26,800 tonnes of chicken products (such as nuggets and burgers) as well as 41,000 tonnes of fresh chicken per annum to the UK at preferential tariff rates.9,10 As of September 2021, ongoing talks between the UK and Brazil are looking to increase this quota to allow a further 16,000 tonnes of processed and 6,000 tonnes of fresh chicken per annum.11

For its part, the UK hasn’t included Mercosur in its list of immediate priorities for FTA negotiations, and there is uncertainty about whether, and on what timeframe, a UK-Mercosur FTA negotiation would be launched.15 However, some political impetus results from Mercosur’s progress in negotiating an FTA with the EU, a process that commenced when the UK was still a Member State. Thus it should be noted that, although this briefing focuses solely on Brazil, an FTA with Mercosur would have additional pesticide-related impacts resulting from other Mercosur members, notably major agricultural exporter Argentina.

9

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Brazil’s pesticide usage Brazil is one of the highest users of pesticides in the world, sitting third behind China and the USA in terms of total tons applied per annum. The most recent statistics show an annual consumption of approximately 377,176 tons of pesticide, equating to 6kg per hectare of the cropped area. In comparison, the UKs annual pesticide consumption is 19,844 tons which is roughly 3.2kg per hectare.16 The greatest user of pesticides in Brazil is the soya industry. It has seen huge growth over the last ten years rising from 75 million tons in 2010 to 134 million tons in 2020, an increase of 65%.17 The soya industry accounts for approximately 50% of Brazilian pesticide use.18 There are 150 pesticides approved for use on soya, 35 of which are not permitted for use in the UK – these include acephate, atrazine and carbendazim, all banned in the UK due to human health or environmental concerns.19 The most widely used pesticide in Brazil is glyphosate, which accounts for 35% of annual pesticide sales (in monetary value). Much of this use is related to the type of crops being grown and there has been a marked increase in its use with the adoption of more GM herbicide-resistant crops which are now widespread throughout Brazilian agriculture.20

Brazil’s regulatory approach to pesticides Since President Bolsonaro assumed power his efforts to remove and reduce environmental protections and support business interests have been widely reported, an approach which is reflected in changes made to pesticide regulation in Brazil. Between 2016 and 2019, 1,200 new pesticide products were approved for use in Brazil, a doubling of previous figures. 474 of these newly approved products were registered in 2019 alone, following the start of the Bolsonaro regime.21 Bolsonaro’s Government has also ushered in a much weaker approach to banning pesticides. The only criteria under which a pesticide can now be banned in Brazil is if it presents a “risk of death” to humans.22 There is no longer any reference to environmental impacts or to non-fatal health impacts of pesticide use, such as the development of cancer. There have also been, so far, unsuccessful attempts to introduce legislation that would reduce

10

the role of both the environment and health ministries in Brazil’s pesticide approval process.23 In contrast to the UK, in which pesticides must be reapproved every fifteen years, there is also no requirement in Brazilian legislation to reassess pesticides on a regular basis, or to retire pesticides that have been superseded by newer active substances or products.24 Overall, the focus of pesticide regulation in Brazil is geared toward increasing the availability of a wider range of pesticides. Impacts to human health and the environment are largely ignored. This sits in contrast to the UK pesticide regime which, while very far from perfect, is increasingly focussed on pesticide reduction.

While the UK and Brazil have not yet agreed a comprehensive bilateral trade deal, the two countries do have a number of specific agreements in place, none of which have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In February 2021, Defra signed a new ‘memorandum of understanding’ with the Brazilian Government with the aim of facilitating trade in agricultural goods between the two countries.25 When the agreement was signed, it was widely reported that the Brazilian agriculture minister said that over time, the UK would become more aligned with international rules on food safety, ‘closer to science-based approaches’.26 The term ‘science-based’ is often used by government and the pesticide industry as a veiled and publicly palatable way through which to attack the Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle theoretically underpins all current UK decison-making on pesticides. It allows regulators to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and the stakes are high. In contrast, many of the UK’s potential trade partners (including Brazil) follow what is misleadingly termed ‘the science-based approach’.

Under this approach, instead of a pesticide manufacturer having to demonstrate that their product is safe, regulators must offer a very high level of scientific proof that a product is dangerous.

The Precautionary Principle plays a particularly vital role in pesticide regulation since evidence of harms associated to using a particular chemical often won’t emerge for many years. In addition, many of the negative impacts caused by pesticide use – such as the development of malignant tumours or the extinction of a particular species – are irreversible.

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

PRESSURE ON UK PESTICIDE STANDARDS FROM A UKBRAZIL FTA Trade deals encourage regulatory alignment on a wide range of issues including pesticides. While far from perfect, UK pesticide standards are currently some of the strongest outside of the EU in terms of protecting human health and the environment. As a result, trade agreements with non-EU countries could present a risk to the health of UK citizens and the environment. This is particularly true in the case of large agricultural exporters like Brazil.

Such countries have a strong economic interest in pressuring the UK Government to weaken domestic pesticide standards in order secure access to the UK market for their food exports.

In order to identify potential areas where Brazil might pressure UK negotiators to drop standards, the research for this briefing explored both the amount of pesticides allowed to appear in food and the numbers of pesticides approved for use domestically in both countries.

For approved pesticides, the UK and Brazil (like almost all other countries) set what’s known as Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) crop-by-crop.

However, a general examination of Brazilian MRLs for all pesticides provides little insight, because there are examples of MRLs that are both higher and lower than those in the UK. In addition, while there has been a massive increase in approvals since President Bolsonaro came to power, the total numbers of both active substances and pesticide products authorised for use in Brazil remain lower than in the UK, with the UK approving 468 active substances and 2,900 pesticide products and Brazil approving 396 actives and 2,300 products.

While this may draw some to conclude that Brazilian pesticide standards are fairly similar to their UK equivalents, it is crucial to note that the figures outlined above relate to all approved pesticides and therefore include benign bio-pesticides such as soap.

In contrast, a closer look solely at Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) – a UN concept used to identify pesticides with high potential to cause harm to human health or the environment – reveals a very different picture in which the Brazilian approach is far less protective than that of the UK. For example, despite approving fewer pesticides in general than the UK, Brazil allows the use of almost double the number of HHPs. Table 1: Approvals of active substances classified as Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs)27

Pesticides stored on a farm in Araçatuba, Brazil.

Credit Ryoshi/Shutterstock.com.

Approved HHPs

UK

Brazil

73

131

11

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Health issues related to pesticides – an explainer The report lists the health issues associated to specific pesticide active substances. It is important to note that if a substance is classified as a ‘Carcinogen’ (for example) it does not mean that exposure to it will definitely result in the development of cancer. The classification simply means that in tests for toxicity the substance can cause a particular effect.

Here is a guide to the specific health issue classifications listed in the report: 66 Carcinogens are capable of causing different types of cancer, including Leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.

66 Endocrine disruptors (EDCs) interfere with hormone systems and can cause birth defects, developmental disorders and reproductive problems such as infertility.

66 Developmental or reproductive toxins have adverse effects on sexual function and fertility in both adults and children, and can reduce the number and functionality of sperm and cause miscarriages 66 Cholinesterase Inhibitors reduce the ability of nerve cells to pass information to each other and can impair the respiratory system and cause confusion, headaches and weakness.

66 Acute toxicity describes the adverse effects of an active substance that result either from a single exposure or from multiple exposures in a short period of time (usually under 24 hours). Effects of acute poisoning can range from itchy eyes and breathing difficulties to death.

Photo: Farmer with manual pesticide sprayer in soy field, Parana, Brazil. Credit Alf Ribeiro/Shutterstock.com.

12

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Many active substances that remain in use in Brazil are not authorised in the UK due to the threat they pose to environment and human health. The list includes the following HHPs:

Table 2: Examples of Highly Hazardous Pesticides approved for use in Brazil but banned in UK Pesticide (active substance)

Environmental issues

Human health issues (see guide on page 12)

Simazine (Herbicide)

66Persistent in water 66Harmful to aquatic ecosystems

66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

Imidacloprid (Insecticide)

66Highly toxic to bees

Acephate (Insecticide)

66Highly toxic to bees

66Carcinogen 66Cholinesterase Inhibitor 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

Chlopyrifos (Insecticide)

66Highly toxic to bees

66Cholinesterase Inhibitor 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

Paraquat (Herbicide)

66Persistent in water and soil 66Potential groundwater contaminant

66Acutely toxic 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

As has been seen with other agricultural powerhouses such as the US, the UK’s relatively precautionary approach to which active substances it decides to approve is likely to come under attack during negotiations with Brazil. Pesticides which are not approved for use in the UK are not allowed to appear as residues above the level of detection (0.01 mg per kg). As a result, Brazilian companies potentially have much to gain from any weakening of UK pesticide standards which would enable them to export food currently excluded from the UK market.

Similarly, when comparing MRLs for HHPs, it is clear that UK pesticide standards tend to offer more protection for human health and the environment than their Brazilian equivalents. As a result, UK trade negotiators are likely to come under pressure from their Brazilian counterparts to weaken UK MRLs in order to allow Brazilian food imports containing higher residues than currently permitted. By comparing MRLs for HHPs we are therefore able to see where potential threats to consumer protection and human health are likely to emerge in the UK.

The examples below compare UK and Brazilian MRLs for HHPs on three of the largest value fruit exports to the UK - lemons, grapes and melons - as well as apples for which Brazilian exports to the UK are predicted to increase in volume in coming years. The UK may also come under pressure from Brazil to revert to minimum international standards (which in the case of pesticides come from the Codex Alimentarius28, a set of food standards under the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization), so these figures have also been included. The Codex has a history of setting weaker safety standards than the EU, including on pesticide MRLs, and has been widely criticised for prioritising free trade over concerns around consumer health and for ignoring the Precautionary Principle in decision-making.

13

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Table 3: Examples of Maximum Residue Levels set for Highly Hazardous Pesticides used on lemons Pesticide (active substance)

UK

Brazil

International Health issues (see guide on page 12) standard (Codex)

mg/kg

mg/kg

vs. UK

mg/kg

vs. UK

Chlopyrifos

0.01

2

X 200

1

X 100

66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor 66Cholinesterase inhibitor 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin

Dimethoate

0.01

2

X 200

5

X 500

66Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin 66Cholinesterase Inhibitor

Folpet

0.03

10

X 333

N/A

N/A

66Carcinogen

Fenbutatin Oxide

0.01

2

X 200

5

X 500

66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin

Propargite

0.01

5

X 500

3

X 300

66Carcinogen 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin

Table 4: Examples of Maximum Residue Levels set for Highly Hazardous Pesticides used on grapes Pesticide (active substance)

14

UK

Brazil

International Health issues (see guide on page 12) standard (Codex)

mg/kg

mg/kg

vs. UK

mg/kg

vs. UK

Captan

0.03

2

X 66

25

X 833

66Carcinogen

Iprodione

0.01

1

X 100

10

X 1000

66Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

Procymidone

0.01

5

X 500

N/A

N/A

66Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

Propineb

1

3

X3

N/A

N/A

66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin

Tebuconazole

0.5

2

X4

6

X 12

66Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Table 5: Examples of Maximum Residue Levels set for Highly Hazardous Pesticides used on melons Pesticide (active substance)

UK

Brazil

International Health issues (see guide on page 12) standard (Codex)

mg/kg

mg/kg

vs. UK

mg/kg

vs. UK

Acephate

0.01

0.1

X 10

N/A

N/A

66· Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor 66 Cholinesterase inhibitor

Captan

0.03

2

X 66

10

333

66Carcinogen

Folpet

0.4

2

X5

3

7.5

66Carcinogen

Thiabendazole

0.01

4

X 400

N/A

N/A

66Carcinogen 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin

Table 6: Examples of Maximum Residue Levels set for Highly Hazardous Pesticides used on apples Pesticide (active substance)

UK

Brazil

International Health issues (see guide on page 12) standard (Codex)

mg/kg

mg/kg

vs. UK

mg/kg

vs. UK

Carbendazim

0.2

5

X 25

3

X 15

66Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

Imazalil

0.01

2

X 200

N/A

N/A

66Carcinogen 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin

Iprodione

0.01

5

X 500

5

X 500

66Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor

Malathion

0.02

2

X 100

0.5

X 25

66Carcinogen 66Suspected Endocrine Disruptor 66Cholinesterase Inhibitor

Propargite

0.01

1

X 100

3

X 300

66Carcinogen 66Developmental or Reproductive Toxin

15

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Photo: Burning Amazon Forest in Brazil to open space agriculture. Credit Pedarilhosbr/Shutterstock.com.

16

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

EXPORTING ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS TO BRAZIL VIA A UK-BRAZIL FTA Increasing the imports of produce grown to lower environmental standards – including using more hazardous pesticides – is likely to result in the UK effectively exporting environmental harms associated with its consumption patterns.

The concept of “offshoring” such harms is well recognised in, for example, UK climate policy: the UK government includes carbon emissions generated outside the UK associated with UK consumption in its estimate of the UK’s carbon footprint.

While the UK already imports significant amounts of agricultural produce from Brazil, it is likely that volumes would increase under a UK-Brazil FTA. UK MRLs will be applied to Brazilian imports with the aim of preventing the import of produce containing residues which exceed the UK’s legal limits, but, as stated above, these do not apply to animal feed. In addition, the UK’s residue testing scheme is extremely limited, testing only around three thousand 1kg samples of food per year.29 Furthermore, food can be grown using environmentally-damaging pesticides that are banned in the UK (for example, bee-toxic neonicotinoids), without the chemicals in question turning up as residues in the final product. Farming practices such as leaving longer intervals between pesticide application and harvest can reduce, and even eliminate, residues while doing nothing to prevent the environmental impact where the food is grown.

The international trading system, with its emphasis on MRLs, is only set up to protect consumer health from pesticide-related harms. The environmental impacts associated to growing food for export remain almost entirely invisible within the supply chain. Given Brazil’s weaker approach to pesticide approvals (which sees it authorise almost double the amount of HHPs than the UK), relying on MRLs to prevent UK diets driving pesticide-related harms to Brazil’s natural environment is woefully inadequate.

On the ground in Brazil where this food is produced, the devastation of the rainforest by farming encroachment, rampant wildfires and land grabbing from indigenous communities are well documented.30 They are largely a direct result of the growth of industrial-scale agriculture, notably beef and soya. One of the key driving factors behind the growth in soya production has been the availability of GM herbicide-resistant varieties supported by the huge use of glyphosate and other herbicides.

A report published in 2020 highlighted the link between British consumption and wildfires and deforestation that have been happening in the Cerrado savannah region of Brazil.31 This is an area of huge importance in terms of biodiversity and is home to an estimated 5% of the world’s plant and animal species. Industrial food production in the form of soya, aided by the use of glyphosate, is encroaching into this vital biodiversity hotspot at a rapid pace alongside beef pastures.

The UK imports 100,000 tonnes of soya beans from the Cerrado region every year, the majority of which is for animal feed.32 Some this total will come from GM herbicide-resistant crops, which are engineered to survive direct application of pesticides and therefore tend to come hand-inhand with high levels of pesticide use. While the remainder will be non-GM soya, the fact that crops grown for animal feed are not regulated or monitored for pesticide residues in the UK means that this could also have been produced using high levels of HHPs. UK consumers remain largely unaware that much of the meat they buy (including beef, dairy and chicken reared in the UK) has been fed on soya grown on deforested land using toxic pesticides.

17

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

It is not just the forests that are suffering as a result of farm encroachment based on high pesticide use. Agricultural run-off of pesticides into water is not only contaminating drinking water33 but also harming aquatic ecosystems. Of greatest concern are the herbicides, glyphosate, 2,4-D and atrazine. In a report published in June 202134, it was estimated that freshwater bodies in 80% of Brazilian states are contaminated with these herbicides, posing a direct threat to aquatic organisms and ecosystems throughout Brazil.

A UK-Brazil FTA risks undermining a range of recent UK commitments designed to deal with the nature and climate crises, many of which already acknowledge that the UK must consider its environmental footprint beyond its shores.

Commitments include the Government’s target to reach net-zero by 205035, as well as due-diligence measures in the 2021 UK Environment Act which aim to tackle illegal deforestation in UK supply chains by making it illegal for companies to use “key forest risk commodities produced on land illegally occupied or used”36. In addition, at COP 26 in November 2021, the UK led a coalition of 100 countries, including Brazil, in a pledge to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030.37 It is hard to see how either country could hope to meet this commitment without putting in place significant safeguards to ensure that a UK-Brazil FTA does not weaken pesticide standards.

Even an FTA in which the UK maintained its domestic pesticide standards and imposed them on Brazilian imports, would likely drive increased exports of Brazilian soya and meat, causing further harms in Brazil and driving potentially irreversible damage to some of the world’s most precious remaining ecosystems. This is because the UK would likely increase the quotas under which Brazilian agricultural exports receive low or no tariffs, in the manner of the EU-Mercosur FTA examined below. However, an FTA could potentially go further in incentivising destructive pesticide practices if the UK agrees to lower its MRLs in response to pressure from Brazil, an issue we address further below.

Photo: Feedlot cattle farm in Brazil. Credit Paralaxis/ Shutterstock.com.

18

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Solutions to the animal feed problem Any crop grown exclusively for animal feed is not subject to an MRL. However, animal feed is still entering the food chain, albeit indirectly, and should therefore be subject to similar restrictions and monitoring as crops grown for direct human consumption. This certainly applies to Brazilian soya, a large proportion of which is slated for animal feed and is therefore exported to the UK without any pesticide-related conditions.

In order to ensure that high levels of pesticide residues are not entering the UK food chain through the back door, MRLs should be introduced for all produce used for animal feed (including but not limited to both GM and non-GM soya coming from Brazil). These MRLs should be set at equal levels (or lower) than those applied to produce for human consumption. So, for example, the UK’s MRL for glyphosate in soya beans destined for human consumption is 20 mg/kg but there is currently no MRL for soya bean meal which is used for animal feed. While it has been a topic of discussion for a number of years, it appears that no country currently sets MRLs for products destined solely for animal feed. In fact, the UK’s key regulation on MRLs (which is based on EU Regulation 396/200557) creates an exemption for feed, stating that “MRLs do not apply to products or part of products that by their characteristics and nature are used exclusively as ingredients of animal feed”58.

As well as protecting the health of UK citizens by ensuring that the meat they consume does not contain high residues, introducing MRLs for animal feed would also help to safeguard the health and wellbeing of livestock that can be adversely affected by exposure to pesticide residues. In addition, as has been seen with food crops, strict MRLs can be a powerful driver for reducing the use of pesticides in exporting countries. Therefore, setting MRLs for animal feed could also provide a major incentive for Brazilian growers to reduce their pesticide use in order to avoid importing countries such as the UK rejecting shipments on the basis of high residues.

By becoming the first country to do so, the UK Government would demonstrate their credentials on reducing environmental harm overseas and provide much needed global leadership by encouraging other countries to follow suit.

While setting MRLs for animal feed would be a step forward, the best way to ensure that the UK does not encourage the use of HHPs in Brazil and the inevitable deforestation that results from growing soya for animal feed is to reduce the UK livestock sector’s reliance on imported animal feed. The UK government should be actively seeking alternatives to imported feed in order to make the UK livestock sector more environmentally sustainable and financially resilient.

19

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Photo: Processing empty pesticide containers in Piracicaba, Brazil. Credit Alf Ribeiro/Shutterstock.com.

20

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

EXPORTING HUMAN HEALTH HARMS TO BRAZIL VIA A UK-BRAZIL FTA Given that Brazil is one of the world’s largest users of pesticides in terms of volume38, it is no surprise that the country suffers from pesticide-related human health harms.

by Publica has estimated that in the ten years from 2007 – 2017 some 6,500 children under the age of 14 have been poisoned by pesticides – almost two children every day of the year for ten years.43

One area where this effect is particularly pronounced is the use of glyphosate for growing soya. Approximately 36 million hectares of land are given over to soya production in Brazil – roughly the size of England.39

The citizens of Brazil are also exposed to high levels of pesticides in the food that they eat. The Brazilian Ministry of Health, ANVISA, undertakes a pesticide residue testing regime where 25 common foods are monitored for the presence of 232 types of pesticides.

From 2013 – 2015, 20% of the items tested contained pesticide residues that exceeded the legal limit, or residues of pesticides that have been banned.44 MRL exceedances in the UK and EU seldom rise above 4% of a far wider range of tested produce. It is also worth noting that the Brazilian residue testing regime does not test for residues of either glyphosate or 2,4-D.45 These are two of the most widely used pesticides (herbicides) in Brazil and both are classified as HHPs.

In 2020 a study, carried out by researchers at the universities of Princeton, FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Insper, concluded that contamination of drinking water by glyphosate was responsible for a 5% increase in infant mortality in southern and western-central regions.40 The 5% increase correlates to 503 infant deaths, which the researchers linked specifically to the use of glyphosate on soya bean production in these regions. One of the main contributing factors to this contamination is the level of glyphosate that is permitted to be present in water bodies in Brazil.

Drinking water in Brazil can contain glyphosate at levels up to 500 micrograms per litre. The current level for drinking water in the EU and UK is 0.1 micrograms per litre – 5000 times lower than the level in Brazil.41 Pesticide poisonings in Brazil are not limited to contaminated water or glyphosate. Pesticide drift from aerial spraying (which is all but banned in the UK) and tractors results in numerous pesticide poisoning incidents. In one incident in November 2018, 100 people including 52 children were exposed to the acutely toxic herbicide paraquat which was being sprayed in a field adjacent to a local school in the Brazilian state of Parana.42 There were no fatalities but all those exposed experienced a range of symptoms from headaches to vomiting, a small miracle given the highly toxic nature of paraquat. This is not an isolated incident. A report

As outlined previously in this briefing, Brazil approves almost double the number of HHPs than the UK. While we ban the majority of these substances due to concerns that they are harming human health, we continue to import food that has been grown using hazardous pesticides which are not allowed to be used domestically, albeit with MRLs in place. However, as mentioned previously, it is possible to grow food using hazardous pesticides without the chemicals in question appearing as residues in food. As a result, whilst it can be argued that MRLs do offer some level of protection for the UK consumer, they are not a safeguard against pesticiderelated harms on the ground where the food is grown. Consequently, Brazilian farmers, growers, agricultural workers and the general public can be exposed to highly toxic substances used to grow food or feed consumed in the UK. This is at best a double standard and at worst a reckless disregard for the rights of others to live a life free from the health problems associated with pesticide use.

21

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

CASE STUDY

Controversy surrounding the EU-Mercosur FTA The UK is not the first country to have to grapple with this dilemma when considering trade with Brazil and surrounding nations. Tensions that have arisen in the EU-Mercosur negotiation are instructive for the UK. Mercosur completed negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement with the EU in June 2019, but a number of EU Member States and Members of the European Parliament have stated that they will refuse to ratify the FTA. EU farmers have expressed concerns46 about the impacts of Mercosur’s agricultural tariff liberalisation, which include reduction of beef tariffs through a quota of 99,000 tonnes at 7.5% (the previous Most Favoured Nation, or international, tariffs were set at 40-45%) and a duty-free quota of 450,000 tonnes for ethanol.47 Even though these figures represent a fraction of total EU imports, concern also arises from their symbolic value, given the gravity of the problem of agricultural deforestation in Brazil, and the contribution of liberalised trade to incentivising destructive agricultural practices.

In order to appease concerns of Member States and MEPs who have stated they will refuse to ratify the agreement, the Commission is currently seeking to secure specific commitments on climate and deforestation from Mercosur members, though their content remains unclear.48 It is possible, for example, that the EU will seek to require that exported commodities have to meet certain environmental criteria to obtain preferential tariff treatment. It has already taken this approach in Mercosur with eggs, which have to match EU animal welfare standards to receive tariff free access.49

22

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

HOW CAN THE UK AVOID DRIVING DEFORESTATION IN BRAZIL? The UK has shown international leadership on efforts to combat agricultural deforestation in the context of Paris Agreement negotiations, with pledges for climate finance to prevent deforestation in developing countries, and also by co-chairing the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade (FACT) dialogue50 on voluntary approaches to preventing commodity-driven deforestation.51 The UK has also recently introduced domestic legislation to try to prevent the import of commodities linked to illegal deforestation.52 To ensure that its trade agreement with Brazil is coherent with the international leadership it has shown on this issue, the UK should avoid full, unconditional tariff liberalisation (so-called Duty Free Quota Free market access) in this FTA. Unconditional liberalisation even goes against recommendations from key domestic stakeholders regarding managing agricultural trade in FTAs. The EU approach of conditioning tariff-free access on achieving particular standards closely resembles the so-called ‘dual tariff’ proposals put forth in both the UK’s Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) Report and also Part One of its National Food Strategy.

The TAC Report advocated that the UK should only offer tariff-free access where trade partners can meet ‘high standards of food production expected from UK producers,’ and can demonstrate equivalence with these standards (Recommendation 8). Part One of the 2019 independent but government-commissioned National Food Strategy also recommended that the UK should only cut tariffs when products met UK core standards on animal welfare and environment/ climate protections (p. 75).

The precedent from the UK-Australia FTA and UK-New Zealand Agreements in Principle (AIP), in which the UK agreed to phased removal tariffs and

quotas on almost all agricultural products suggests that the UK will adopt a more liberalising stance on agriculture than the EU. This will likely cause future trade partners such as Brazil to increase their ambition for UK agricultural liberalisation.

The EU-Mercosur FTA text provides a world-leading model of using an FTA to affirm the ability of domestic regulators to restrict pesticides based on concerns about human or environmental health risks. It does so by explicitly affirming the ability of both Parties to invoke the precautionary principle, fundamental to the UK’s current hazard-based approach to pesticide regulation.53 Certainly, emulating this provision would ensure that the FTA appropriately safeguards the UK’s current hazardbased approach. Such an approach exceeds the endorsement of precaution that has been included in many of the UK’s existing Free Trade Agreements.

In acceding to CPTPP, for example, the UK will already have agreed to provisions that suggests its willingness in principle to move away from a precautionary approach, and which advocate the use of international standards.54 It is likely that Brazil will press for similar provisions with the UK, pressuring the UK to adapt international standards for pesticides that would be less difficult for Brazil’s exporters to meet. As Tables 3 to 6 above demonstrate, international standards for MRLs tend to be less stringent than current UK MRLs, so conforming with them would result in a reduction in the level of consumer and environmental protection. The combination of weaker MRLs and increased competition from cheap Brazilian imports would also encourage UK farmers to intensify their domestic pesticide use, contributing to further environmental harms in the UK and putting innovative new farm support schemes, based on delivering environmental goods including reducing the impact of pesticides, at risk.

23

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Current controversy in the EU is instructive in that it reveals that affirming the right to regulate domestically in FTAs, including through precaution, does not fully counter concerns that the FTA itself is contributing to increasing potential harms, including from pesticide use. Again, this suggests the need to avoid unconditional agricultural liberalisation with Brazil.

Another source of criticism levelled at the EU is that it failed to conduct adequate assessment of environmental impacts of the FTA within a timeframe that would enable meaningful change.55 Given the UK’s track record of conceding agricultural liberalisation, this same concern seem set to be even more pressing in a UK-Brazil negotiation. Clearly, impact assessment should

include detailed examination of how agricultural liberalisation would impact upon pesticide use, including through the use of animal feed.

It is imperative that Brazil is not exporting agricultural products to the UK that have been obtained through illegal deforestation or that impose pesticide-related harms on local populations. Thus the UK Government should consider introducing enhanced due diligence requirements, particularly if increasing tariff-free agricultural quotas. These might include increased monitoring and reporting requirements, use of scorecards, and commitments to ban products obtained illegally, along the lines of the EU’s proposal to ensure deforestation-free products.56

Photo: Aerial view of tropical deforestation in Mato Grosso do Sul in Brazil. Credit BMJ/Shutterstock.com

24

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

FULL RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE UK GOVERNMENT: Please note that the following recommendations apply regardless of whether the UK negotiates an FTA with Mercosur, or a bilateral UK-Brazil FTA. For ease, we refer below to a ‘UK-Brazil FTA’ to mean any trade arrangement between the UK and Brazil.

66 Do not allow any weakening of UK pesticide standards via a UK-Brazil FTA. This must include: »» Ensuring that no currently banned pesticides are allowed for use in the UK

66 The UK Government and/or the TAC should undertake impact assessments on the following: »» The likely public health and environmental impact of the agreement on pesticide use both in the UK and Brazil

»» Ensure that food containing detectable residues of currently banned substances cannot be imported into the UK

66 66 66 66

66

66

»» Ensure that Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) are maintained or reduced.

Prevent UK farmers from being disadvantaged by cheap food imports produced to weaker pesticide standards in Brazil.

Ensure that a UK-Brazil FTA explicitly affirms the ability of both Parties to invoke the precautionary principle.

Be clear throughout all stages of negotiations that the UK does not intend to lower its pesticide standards.

Put in place additional measures that go beyond MRLs to ensure that Brazilian agricultural imports are not driving pesticide-related harms to either human health or the environment.

These might include increased monitoring and reporting requirements, use of scorecards, and commitments to ban products obtained illegally or from producers causing health and environmental harm due to pesticide use.

Ensure that a trade agreement with Brazil is coherent with the UK’s international leadership on combatting agricultural deforestation by avoiding further tariff liberalisation through increased quotas for all Brazilian agricultural exports, including animal feed.

Prevent an increase in imports of agricultural products from Brazil by rejecting calls to reduce tariffs.

66

66 66

66

66 66

»» The impact of the agreement on UK imports of Brazilian soya and the likely knock-on effect on deforestation and key habitat loss in Brazil Introduce MRLs for all imported produce used for animal feed, including but not limited to both GM and non-GM soya. Ensure that MRLs for animal feed are set at equal levels (or lower) than those applied to produce for human consumption Secure specific and binding commitments on climate and deforestation from the Brazilian Government before signing an FTA. Reject clauses in a UK-Brazil FTA which create additional obligations to justify taking a less stringent approach to protecting human health and the environment from pesticides.

Ensure that any SPS provisions urging use of international standards and science-based risk assessment are granted an exemption from dispute settlement.

Resist all attempts by Brazil to push the UK to revert to weak Codex Alimentarius standards on pesticide residues.

Set out a plan with industry for increasing domestic, sustainable supplies of animal protein feed to allow a significant reduction in reliance on imported soya as animal feed in livestock farming and to drive dietary shifts to reduce overall reliance on meat and feeds.

25

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

Photo: High clearance pesticide sprayer on a soy field in Mato Grosso, Brazil. Credit Alf Ribeiro/Shutterstock.com.

26

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

REFERENCES 1

The Scottish Farmer (17th February 2021) Brazil beef warning after Defra signs Brazil trade ‘understanding’ https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/19096935. brazil-beef-warning-defra-signs-trade-understanding/ (Accessed 3rd February 2022) 2 Sky News, UK trade deals should prioritise economic growth over environmental protections – leaked government document (14/10/2021)https://news.sky. com/story/uk-trade-deals-should-prioritise-economicgrowth-over-environmental-protections-leaked-govtdocument-12433808 3 HM Government, Hansard, Trade Deals: Environmental Standards (21/10/2021) https://hansard.parliament.uk/ commons/2021-10-21/debates/C7E73946-1658-4868802A-2383F97F242C/TradeDealsEnvironmentalStandards 4 Sky News, UK trade deals should prioritise economic growth over environmental protections – leaked government document (14/10/2021) https://news.sky. com/story/uk-trade-deals-should-prioritise-economicgrowth-over-environmental-protections-leaked-govtdocument-12433808 5 Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Twitter (18/01/2022) https://twitter. com/annietrev/status/1483510595076993030?s=20 (Accessed 20/01/2022) 6 Joint Statement by the Economy Minister of Brazil and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the UK at the Fourth UK-Brazil Economic and Financial Dialogue, 10 December 2020, para. 4 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/943514/UK-Brazil_4th_EFD_Joint_Statement_10_ Dec_2020.pdf 7 Table Debates, Soy in the UK: what are its uses?

(20/02/2020) https://www.tabledebates.org/blog/soy-ukwhat-are-its-uses 8 Fresh Fruit Portal, Brazil eyes opportunities to strengthen fresh fruit ties with UK post-Brexit (08/02/2021) https:// www.freshfruitportal.com/news/2021/02/08/brazil-eyesopportunities-to-strengthen-fresh-fruit-ties-with-uk-postbrexit/#:~:text=The%20UK%20receives%20from%20 Brazil,persimmon%2C%20are%20growing%20in%20volume 9 Reuters, Brazil in talks to increase chicken exports to UK (29/09/2021) https://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-meatidUSL1N2QV1PD 10 Tariff rate quotas provide a quota of tonnes that can be imported tariff free, or at a low tariff rate, and this then goes up to a prohibitively high tariff once the quota has been met.

11 Reuters, Brazil in talks to increase chicken exports to UK (29/09/2021) https://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-meatidUSL1N2QV1PD 12 The Rio Times, Brazil bypasses Mercosur and unliterally reduces its external tariffs by 10% (06/11/21) https://www.

13

14 15

16 17 18

19

20

21

22 23

24

riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/brazil/life-brazil/brazilbypasses-mercosur-and-unilaterally-reduces-its-externaltariffs-by-10/. For a fuller discussion, see: ECIPE webinar: Mercour: How far can a customs union be stretched? https://ecipe.org/events/ecipe-webinar-mercosur-customsunion/ Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Mercosur should become a free trade agreement (04/06/2020) https://www.csis.org/analysis/mercosur-should-becomefree-trade-agreement; see also: https://riotimesonline. com/brazil-news/rio-business/brazil-and-argentina-discusseasing-mercosur-trade-rules/ Reuters, Brazil to seek a Mercosur-UK trade agreement similar to the EU (31/01/2021) https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-brazil-trade-britain-idUSKBN1ZU32X UK Government, Trade negotiations the UK is prioritising (19/07/2021) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ the-uks-trade-agreements#trade-negotiations-the-uk-isprioritising Worldometer, Pesticide use by country https://www. worldometers.info/food-agriculture/pesticides-by-country/ Statista, Soya bean production in Brazil https://www. statista.com/statistics/741384/soybean-productionvolume-brazil/ Ricardo Alcántara-de la Cruz, Guilherme Moraes de Oliveira, Leonardo Bianco de Carvalho and Maria Fátima das Graças Fernandes da Silva, Herbicide Resistance in Brazil: Status, Impacts, and Future Challenges (19/02/2020) https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/71135 Government of Brazil, pesticide approvals database https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/acessoainformacao/ dadosabertos/informacoes-analiticas/monografias-deagrotoxicos Ricardo Alcántara-de la Cruz, Guilherme Moraes de Oliveira, Leonardo Bianco de Carvalho and Maria Fátima das Graças Fernandes da Silva, Herbicide Resistance in Brazil: Status, Impacts, and Future Challenges (19/02/2020) https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/71135 Mongabay, Brazil sets record for highly hazardous pesticide consumption (12/03/2020) https://news.mongabay. com/2020/03/brazil-sets-record-for-highly-hazardouspesticide-consumption-report/ Ibid Human Rights Watch, Brazil needs more pesticide regulation, not less (23/12/2019) https://www.hrw.org/ news/2019/12/23/brazil-needs-more-pesticide-regulationnot-less Friedrich K, Silveira GRD, Amazonas JC, Gurgel ADM, Almeida VES, Sarpa M. International regulatory situation of pesticides authorized for use in Brazil: potential for damage to health and environmental impacts. Cad Saude Publica.

(14/05/2021) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34008735/

27

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

25 UK Government, UK and Brazil to boost economic relationship (11/12/2020) https://www.gov.uk/ government/news/uk-and-brazil-to-boost-economicrelationship 26 UK Government, Fifth Brazil-UK strategic dialogue (09/10/2020) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ joint-communique-fifth-brazil-united-kingdom-strategicdialogue;The Scottish Farmer, Brazil beef warning after Defra signs trade understanding (17/02/2021) https:// www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/19096935.brazil-beefwarning-defra-signs-trade-understanding/ 27 PAN International, Highly Hazardous Pesticides List (2021) http://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/PAN_ HHP_List.pdf 28 Codex Alimentarius, Codex Pesticides Residues in Food Online Database, http://www.fao.org/fao-whocodexalimentarius/codex-texts/dbs/pestres/en/ 29 Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF), Pesticide residues in food: results of monitoring programme, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ pesticide-residues-in-food-results-of-monitoringprogramme 30 Song, XP., Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P. et al. Massive soybean expansion in South America since 2000 and implications for conservation. Nat Sustain 4, 784–792 (2021). https://doi. org/10.1038/s41893-021-00729-z 31 Unearthed, Soya linked to fires and deforestation in Brazil feeds chicken sold on the British high street (25/11/2020) https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/11/25/brazil-firesdeforestation-tesco-nandos-mcdonalds/ 32 Ibid 33 Reporter Brasil, Cocktail of 27 pesticides found in water of 1 out of 4 Brazilian cities (15/04/2019) https:// reporterbrasil.org.br/2020/02/cocktail-of-27-pesticidesfound-in-water-of-1-out-of-4-brazilian-cities/ 34 Brovini, Emília & Corrêa, Beatriz & Vilas Boas, Jéssica & Quadra, Gabrielle & Carvalho, Luana & Mendonça, Raquel & Pereira, Renata & Cardoso, Simone. (2021).

Three-bestseller pesticides in Brazil: Freshwater concentrations and potential environmental risks. Science of the Total Environment. 771. 144754. 10.1016/j. scitotenv.2020.144754.

35 HM Government, Press Release: World leading Environment Act becomes law (10/11/2021), https://www. gov.uk/government/news/world-leading-environment-actbecomes-law 36 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Consultation: Implementing due diligence on forest commodities, https://consult.defra.gov.uk/internationalbiodiversity-and-climate/implementing-due-diligenceforest-risk-commodities/ 37 HM Government, Press Release: Over 100 leaders make landmark pledge to end deforestation at COP26 (02/11/2021), https://www.gov.uk/government/news/over100-leaders-make-landmark-pledge-to-end-deforestationat-cop26 38 Worldometers, Pesticide use by country https://www. worldometers.info/food-agriculture/pesticides-by-country/ 39 The Conversation, Demand for meat is driving deforestation in Brazil (17/12/2020) https://theconversation.com/ demand-for-meat-is-driving-deforestation-in-brazilchanging-the-soy-industry-could-stop-it-151060

28

40 Mateus Dias, Rudi Rocha, Rodrigo R. Soares, Down the River: Glyphosate Use in Agriculture and Birth Outcomes of Surrounding Populations (December 2020) https://www. insper.edu.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Dias-RochaSoares-2020.12.30.pdf 41 Barbosa Lima, Igor & Boechat, Iola & Gücker, Björn.

(2021). Glyphosate in Brazil: use, aquatic contamination, environmental effects, and health hazards. Caderno de Geografia. 31. 90-115. 10.5752/p.23182962.2021v31nesp1p90.

42 Human Rights Watch, Brazilians poisoned by pesticides sprayed near homes and schools (06/11/2019) https:// www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/06/brazilians-poisonedpesticides-sprayed-near-homes-and-schools 43 Publica, Contaminação recorde por agrotóxicos no Paraná atinge mais de 50 crianças, (11/12/2018) https://apublica. org/2018/12/contaminacao-recorde-por-agrotoxicos-noparana-atinge-mais-de-50-criancas/ 44 Frontiers in Public Health, Pesticides in drinking water – the Brazilian monitoring program (04/11/2005) https://www. frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00246/full 45 Human Rights Watch, The failing response to pesticide drift in Brazil’s rural communities (20/07/2018) https:// www.hrw.org/report/2018/07/20/you-dont-want-breathepoison-anymore/failing-response-pesticide-drift-brazils 46 Euronews, EU-Mercosur deal: Is the agreement a threat to European agriculture? (03/-7/2019) https://www. euronews.com/2019/07/03/eu-mercosur-deal-is-theagreement-a-threat-to-european-agriculture 47 European Commission, EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (June 2019) https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/ june/tradoc_157955.pdf 48 Reuters, EU seeks Mercosur green commitments by end 2021 (30/04/2021) https://news.trust.org/ item/20210430140712-0judg/?source=spotnewsfeed 49 Euractiv, EU implements first animal welfare-based condition in trade agreement (28/07/2021) https:// www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/euimplements-first-animal-welfare-based-condition-in-tradeagreement/ 50 HM Government, Joint Statement on the Principles for Collaboration Under the Forest, Agriculture and Trade Dialogue (27/05/2021) https://www.gov.uk/government/ news/joint-statement-on-principles-for-collaborationunder-the-forest-agriculture-and-commodity-trade-factdialogue 51 The Guardian, UK push plan to halt and reverse global deforestation by 2030 at CoP 26 (15/10/2021) https:// www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/15/uk-topush-plan-to-halt-and-reverse-global-deforestation-by2030-at-cop26-aoe 52 The Independent, New UK law will stop firms using products linked to illegal deforestation (11/11/2020) https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/ illegal-deforestation-uk-law-b1720571.html 53 In cases when scientific evidence or information is insufficient or inconclusive and there is a risk of serious environmental degradation or to occupational health and safety in its territory, a Party mayadoptmeasuresbasedontheprecautionaryprinciple.’

Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter, Article 10(2).

TOXIC TRADE: How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil

54

PAN UK, Toxic Trade: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (2021) https:// www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade-cptpp/ 55 Client Earth, What’s going on with the EU-Mercosur agreement? (11/06/2021) https://www.clientearth.org/ latest/latest-updates/news/what-s-going-on-with-the-eumercosur-agreement/ 56 European Commission, Proposal for a regulation on deforestation-free products (17/11/2021), https:// ec.europa.eu/environment/publications/proposalregulation-deforestation-free-products_en 57 Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum

residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32005R0396 58 HM Government, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin https://www.legislation. gov.uk/eur/2005/396/annex/I/part/A; HM Government, The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (20/03/2019), https:// www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/557/data.pdf

29

TOXIC TRADE

How a trade deal threatens to increase pesticide-related harms in the UK and Brazil A report by PAN UK, Sustain and Dr Emily Lydgate

Pesticide Action Network UK PAN UK is the only UK charity focused solely on tackling pesticdes and promoting safe and sustainable alternatives in agriculture, urban areas, homes and gardens. We work tirelessly to apply pressure to governments, regulators, policy makers, industry and retailers to reduce the impacts of harmful pesticides to both human health and the environment.

Our work includes campaigning for change in policy and practices at home and overseas, co-ordinating projects which help smallholder farming communities escape ill-health and poverty caused by pesticides, and contributing our wealth of scientific and technical expertise to the work of other organisations who share our aims. www.pan-uk.org The Green Hub The Brighthelm Centre North Road Brighton BN1 1YD Telephone: 01273 964230 Email: admin@PAN UK.org

Sustain Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming, advocates food and agriculture policies and practices that enhance the health and welfare of people and animals, improve the living and working environment, enrich society and culture, and promote equity.

It represents around 100 national public interest organisations working at international, national, regional and local level. www.sustainweb.org Sustain, The Green House 244-254 Cambridge Heath Road London E2 9DA Telephone: 020 3559 6777 Email: sustain@sustainweb.org

Dr Emily Lydgate Emily Lydgate is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sussex with a specialism in international trade law. She holds a PhD from King’s College London, where she received an International Graduate Scholarship, an MSc (with distinction) from Oxford University, and is a fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory. She has consulted at UN Environment’s Economics and Trade Branch, where she acted as a WTO liaison, and was the programme officer for the Clean Trade Project. Emily has advised business and government on the implications of the UK leaving the EU and is an instructor on the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Diplomatic Academy.

Her research and commentary have been featured in a wide variety of media outlets, from BBC to Vice.