GLACIER FARM MEDIA — Canada’s agriculture sector is facing a serious trade issue in one of the top markets it has identified for diversification, according to the Canada Grains Council.
The European Union is taking an increasingly precautionary approach to agriculture innovation, removing about half of the crop protection products available to its farmers over the past 10 years.
The EU is now under pressure by its farmers to use pesticide reciprocity to block food imports produced using those same banned products.
Read Also
Tie vote derails canola tariff compensation resolution at MCGA
Manitoba Canola Growers Association members were split on whether to push Ottawa for compensation for losses due to Chinese tariffs.
“Depending on reciprocity’s implementation specifics as the policy comes into force in spring 2026 and then expands, all grain exports to the EU (cereal, oilseed and pulse crops) could be restricted or halted,” the council stated in a recent white paper on the subject.
“Allowing it to proceed unchecked will also impede Canada’s broader trade diversification efforts because many countries around the world are influenced by EU trade policies.”
WHY IT MATTERS: The EU has been identified as one of Canada’s top markets for trade diversification.
The council is calling on the federal government to establish and lead a coalition of like-minded countries to push back on the EU’s pesticide reciprocity measures.
It is also calling on Ottawa to use existing mechanisms in the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and World Trade Organization to address trade irritants related to reciprocity on its own.
On Dec. 16, the European Commission published a proposed regulatory simplification package that includes amendments to the EU’s pesticide maximum residue limits law and regulation.
The proposal would allow the EU to set MRLs at the limit of detection, which is effectively zero tolerance, for substances no longer approved in the EU.
“We feel this issue is becoming more and more urgent,” said Mac Ross, vice-president of trade policy and crop protection with the Canada Grains Council.
Hazard vs. risk assessment
The EU’s approach to regulation changed after it implemented the European Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy.
It departed from internationally accepted risk assessment principals and moved to a hazard-based system.
“Broadly, this means regulating pesticides on the basis of hazard alone, without considering the extent of exposure, which the rest of the world’s regulators consistently do,” the council said in its white paper.
That is why only two new active ingredients have been approved by the EU in the past decade.
The neonicotinoid precedent
This new approach led to a ban of neonicotinoid insecticides followed by the decision to slash MRLs that apply to neonic residues on imported food effective March 2026.
“Neonic insecticides are the first innovation targeted, but the EU has clearly articulated there will be others,” said the council.
In its notification to the WTO, the EU acknowledged that neonics are safe for consumers and that the ban was strictly to protect pollinators.
Ross said that is the first time a country or bloc has changed its MRLs based on environmental concerns rather than food safety concerns.
Global pushback and legal hurdles
Global legal action to get an injunction on that policy change is ongoing, but the EU still intends to move forward with the controversial policy.
The EU’s pesticide reciprocity strategy has triggered almost 900 Specific Trade Concerns at the WTO filed by more than 30 countries.
Farmers around the world are being confronted by the choice of either losing the EU market or not applying pesticides that have been approved by their own governments.
Ross said the EU’s new neonic MRLs will not have a big impact on Canada’s ability to continue using those active ingredients.
“Those actives we use as seed treatments,” he said.
“We’re not worried about any detectible residues or anything like that.”
What he is concerned about is the precedent it sets. It will be the first time the EU’s pesticide reciprocity rules take effect, but not the last.
Strategy for the future
That is why the council wants Canada to lead the charge in forming a coalition to fight back in unison against the EU’s reciprocity regulations.
“This group’s first short-term priority should be to advocate that EU import tolerances for agricultural products must be determined solely on the basis of dietary risk rather than the introduction of environmental criteria,” stated the council.
The coalition should also try to achieve MRL alignment on pesticides using an approach based on “scientific rigour and commercial realities.”
The council also wants Canada to push back on its own. Canada’s concerns with the EU’s reciprocity measures should be added to the agendas for upcoming CETA and WTO committee meetings.
“At least show them that they can’t just move forward with this approach unimpeded and unchecked,” said Ross.
He said now is the time to speak up and talk about how divergence away from science-based risk assessment can disrupt trade at a time when Canada is attempting to double non-U.S. exports over the next decade.
