G/SPS/GEN/1855  
 
6 November  2020 
(20-7916) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
 
"GLOBAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MISSING AND LOW PESTICIDE MAXIMUM  
RESIDUE LEVELS. VOL.1 " REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES  
INTERNATIONAL  TRADE COMMISSION  
(G/SPS/GEN/1842)  
SUBMISSION  BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
The following document , received on 5 November  2020, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the European Union . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The European Union would like to thank the United States for bringing this report to the attention 
of the SPS Committee. Given tha t the report examines extensively the EU system for setting 
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), the European Union would like to provide its comments on it.  
2.  At the outset, it is important to note that the report does not aim to determine whether various 
MRLs around the world are science -based, are developed transparently and in accordance with good 
regulatory practices, or whether they create "unnecessary obstacles" to international trade. 
The report does not undertake a critique of stringent pesticide re gulations either.  
3.  Instead, the report assembles numerous comments from stakeholders on alleged extra costs and 
burdens for producers caused by low or missing MRLs, which could give the impression that it only 
examines an agricultural model totally reliant on pesticides use. The report barely examines or even 
comments on other methods of production that use less pesticides, such as integrated pest 
management or organic production, and, only in passing , acknowledges that pesticide use can have 
adverse effects  on farmers and on the environment in producing countries.  
4.  Furthermore, the report does not examine or acknowledge the benefits of low MRLs in terms of 
protecting consumers from exposure to harmful pesticide residues in food.  
5.  During the preparation of the report, the European Union was in contact with the investigators 
of the US International Trade Commission (USITC) and explained in great detail the principles and 
procedures of the EU system for setting MRLs.  
6.  The European Union regrets to note that – in spite of the extensive consultations – the report 
contains a number of important factual inaccuracies and misleading statements in the description of 
the EU system for setting MRLs.  
7.  There is a persistent mix -up and confusion of the procedures related to the approval (or renewal 
of approval) of active substances in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on the placing 
on the market of plant protection products and the procedures for setting MRLs in accordance with 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.  
8.  In real ity, these procedures are separate and different. For example, in the report, time -limited 
validity is presented as relevant both for approvals of active substances and for setting MRLs, whilst 
in reality, this is only correct for approvals of active subst ances for domestic use in the European 
Union . G/SPS/GEN/1855  
 
- 2 - 
 
  9.  MRLs have no time -limited validity; they may be reviewed in the light of new applications. 
Therefore, no procedure for the renewal of MRLs exists, contrarily to what stated in the report.  
10.  Likewise, the cut -off criteria to which the report refers frequently are only relevant in the context 
of the procedures for the approval (or renewal of approval) of active substances for domestic use in 
the European Union . They have no relevance in the procedures for setting MR Ls: all MRLs are set on 
the basis of extensive and comprehensive risk assessments.  
11.  The scope and extent of the alleged 'hazard -based approach ' is also misunderstood, as readers 
may have the impression that all decisions on approvals and MRLs are based on h azard 
considerations, whilst in reality all MRLs are set based on risk assessments, and this is also the case 
for the decisions taken so far on the approval or renewal of approval of active substances. 
The internal EU evaluation of the EU pesticides legisl ation1 has shown that so far there has not been 
a single case where the approval of an active substance was not renewed after an assessment solely 
because an active substance met the health -based cut -off criteria.  
12.  In fact, in all cases where a substance m et these cut -off criteria, the assessment also found 
risks to human health and/or the environment. The cut -off criteria have provided clarity to potential 
applicants whether (or not) to submit an application for renewal.  
13.  The cut -off criteria play no role i n the setting of MRLs and, so far, no EU MRLs has been lowered 
due to the mere fact that an active substance meets the cut -off criteria specified in 
Regulation  1107/2009.  
14.  The report only assembles unfiltered comments and views from different stakeholders w ithout 
conducting its own analysis of whether these are plausible, based on facts/evidence and without 
putting the stakeholders’ feedback in context.  
15.  While it is comprehensible that stakeholders may harbour (negative) hypothetical expectations, 
actual rece nt trade figures, which were available at the time of drafting the report, show that these 
fears are not in line with reality. For example:  
• the value of bananas exported from Costa Rica to the European Union  in 2019 
(731 million Euros) is higher than in 20 16 (661 million Euros);  
• the value of exports of Peruvian table grapes to the European Union  increased 
significantly from 2016 (146 million Euros) to 2019 (228 million Euros);  
• exports of table grapes from Chile to the European Union  show fluctuations but no  
downward trend in the timeframe 2016 (197 million Euros), 2017 (208 million Euros), 
2018 (216 million Euros), 2019 (176 million Euros);  
• the value of exports of mangoes from Peru to the European Union  increased from 2016 
(145 million Euros) to 2019 (186 mi llion Euros);  
• the European Union  has indeed remained by far the primary export market for Kenyan 
French beans and the value of imports has increased from 93 million Euros in 2016 to 
97 million Euros in 2019.  
16.  The European Union urges the USITC to correct th e factual inaccuracies in the report and 
complement the case studies by providing and analysing actual trade statistics. The European Union 
continues to offer its cooperation for further clarification.  
17.  The European Union is committed to continue to fulfil its international obligations and further 
engage with any WTO Member to explain and provide information on the EU MRL setting system.  
__________  
 
1 https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/refit_en .