Pesticide Residue Policy Review May Bar Africa’s Agricultural Products From EU Market

Agricultural products from Africa may cease to enter European market if the Union finalises its pesticide residue rules.

The European Union (EU) is considering tighter pesticide residue rules that could make it harder for some agricultural products from Africa and other regions to enter the European market.

Under the proposal, residue limits for certain pesticides banned in the EU could be lowered to the lowest level laboratories can reliably detect, even when those substances remain legally used in exporting countries. The European Commission introduced the measure in December as part of a broader package to simplify food and feed safety legislation.

The proposal is based on a simple principle: pesticides considered too hazardous for use in the EU should not reach European consumers through imported products. While the measure could benefit European producers, it has also raised concerns about possible trade disruption with several partners, particularly in Africa.

The proposal would allow maximum residue limits, MRLs, for pesticides not authorized in the EU to be lowered to the limit of quantification, effectively the lowest level laboratories can reliably detect. Imports containing traces of those substances could then be rejected, even when their use remains legal in producing countries.

The proposal would not immediately lower all affected residue limits. It would first change the legal framework to allow the Commission to withdraw an import tolerance and lower an MRL to the limit of quantification if an impact assessment finds that the change is justified.

As part of the broader assessment of the potential consequences, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, JRC, published a study in August examining the possible economic effects of lowering maximum residue limits on imports. The study does not cover all pesticides banned in the European Union.

It focuses on 18 active substances considered among the most hazardous and examines cases in which existing MRLs remain above the limit of quantification. The analysis covers 235 commodities and 86 exporting countries.

The products include several major African agricultural exports, such as citrus fruit, tomatoes, grapes, avocados, bananas, beans, berries, mangoes, coffee, tea, spices, potatoes, cereals, pulses, nuts and other horticultural products.

Several African countries, along with trading partners from Latin America, Asia and North America, have urged Brussels to consult exporting countries before changing the rules governing pesticide residues in imported products.

Their main argument is that maximum residue limits should continue to be based on scientific assessments of risks to consumers, in line with international Codex Alimentarius standards, rather than solely on whether a substance has been banned in the European Union for environmental reasons.

They are also urging Brussels to comply with international rules governing how permitted pesticide residue levels are set for imported agricultural products. Several countries have raised their concerns at the World Trade Organization, WTO.

Kenya told the WTO that EU decisions to lower or withdraw some MRLs appeared to extend European environmental policies beyond the bloc’s jurisdiction. It argued that some EU import-tolerance requirements diverged from Codex standards and internationally recognized scientific risk assessments and warned of potential consequences for horticultural exports, including shipment rejections, greater uncertainty and income losses for small farmers.

Kenya also called on the EU to provide adequate consultation and transition periods, take into account the needs of developing countries and align import tolerances with Codex standards.

For many African countries, the EU is a major market for high-value agricultural products. Horticultural exports from Kenya, Ethiopia, Morocco, Egypt, Senegal, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and South Africa depend heavily on producers’ ability to meet European sanitary requirements.

A broad reduction of MRLs to detection levels would make compliance more difficult. Pesticides that are still legally used in producing countries could become incompatible with access to the European market, even when farmers rely on them because of local growing conditions or pest pressures.

Affected farmers cannot necessarily just switch to another pesticide. Compliance may require changes to treatment schedules, farming practices, pest-control methods, crop varieties, or storage and transport systems.

The most immediate risk is the rejection of shipments at the border, resulting in direct losses for exporters. But the bigger burden could come earlier in the supply chain.

To avoid non-compliance, companies may have to increase residue testing, document farming practices more extensively, train producers, separate shipments bound for Europe and improve traceability back to the farm. Those costs are particularly burdensome for small farms, which have limited financial resources and often sell through cooperatives or exporters.

Price pressure could also be passed on to producers. European buyers may demand additional guarantees without necessarily agreeing to pay more for compliant products.

In that situation, exporters and farmers could end up absorbing a large share of the compliance costs. For some sectors, the result could be lower volumes shipped to the European Union or a shift toward less demanding markets that often offer lower returns.

The level of exposure varies widely across African countries. South Africa has one of the highest numbers of authorized substances among the African countries examined, with more than 11 of the 18 active substances registered for at least one use.

That matters for an economy that exports a broad range of fresh fruit to Europe, including citrus fruit, table grapes, apples, pears, avocados, stone fruit and berries, as well as wine.

The report also identifies Egypt, Kenya and Uganda among countries for which the data show, depending on the pesticide and product, both authorization records and detected residues.

For Egypt, the main exposure is in fruit and vegetable exports to Europe. For Kenya, the issue is particularly important for the horticulture sector, including green beans, peas and cut flowers, as well as tea and coffee. Uganda, meanwhile, exports coffee, tea, fruit, flowers and several horticultural products to European markets.

Morocco could also be significantly affected. The JRC uses Moroccan tomatoes in its simulations, reflecting the sector’s importance in Morocco’s agricultural exports to the European Union.

Other Moroccan products that could be affected by lower MRLs include citrus fruit, strawberries, melons, watermelons, beans, peppers, zucchini and other vegetables for which the country is a major supplier to Europe, particularly during the winter.

The Commission’s feedback period on the proposal ended on June 12, 2026. Companies, farming organizations, consumer groups, foreign authorities and other stakeholders were able to submit comments.

World Trade Organization members had until March 30 to comment on the EU notification. Those submissions are being considered as the proposal moves through the legislative process.

The proposal is now being examined by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. On Wednesday, September 23, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, Coreper, is expected to consider whether to give the Irish presidency a negotiating mandate for talks with Parliament.

The latest presidency compromise would allow MRLs for certain substances not authorized in the EU to be lowered to the limit of quantification in specific cases, while requiring consideration of a prior risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority.

If member states approve the negotiating mandate, the Council will have cleared a major step toward talks with Parliament. The European Parliament must still establish its own position before interinstitutional negotiations, known as trilogues, can begin with the Council and the Commission.

If Coreper does not approve the mandate on September 23, the Irish presidency will have to continue consultations and revise the compromise in an effort to secure the required qualified majority.