the mechanism
- scientific evidence shows pesticide X causes harm
- eu bans pesticide X for domestic use
- eu-based company continues manufacturing X
- company exports X to africa, asia, latin america
- X applied to crops in those regions
- crops imported back to eu (with residue)
- eu criticizes destination countries’ “practices”
the circle completes.
documented cases
public eye investigation (2020)
| company | chemical | banned in eu | exported to |
|---|
| syngenta | paraquat | yes (2007) | brazil, india, indonesia |
| bayer | thiacloprid | yes (2020) | multiple countries |
| basf | various | restricted | global south |
unearthed investigation (greenpeace, 2020)
| finding | data |
|---|
| eu exports of banned pesticides | 81,000+ tonnes in 2018 |
| destination countries | 85 countries |
| top exporters | uk, germany, france, belgium |
| most exported banned chemical | paraquat |
paraquat specifically
| fact | documentation |
|---|
| banned in eu | since 2007 |
| causes parkinson’s disease | documented |
| lethal dose | one sip |
| antidote exists | no |
| largest producer | syngenta (swiss/eu) |
| still exports globally | yes |
health data
who estimates
| metric | figure |
|---|
| pesticide poisonings globally | 385 million/year |
| deaths from pesticide poisoning | 11,000+/year |
| location of majority | global south |
the circular trade
| product | origin | pesticide residue | eu action |
|---|
| bananas | latin america | eu-banned chemicals | consumed in eu |
| coffee | africa, asia | eu-banned chemicals | consumed in eu |
| cocoa | west africa | eu-banned chemicals | consumed in eu |
ban chemical for domestic health. export chemical for corporate profit. import food grown with that chemical. consume the residue anyway.
corporate structure
| company | headquarters | revenue | produces banned chemicals |
|---|
| bayer | germany | €44B | yes |
| basf | germany | €78B | yes |
| syngenta | switzerland | €28B | yes (largest paraquat producer) |
lobbying activity documented in eu transparency register.
official justifications
| eu stated principle | actual practice |
|---|
| ”precautionary principle” | applies domestically only |
| ”high level of health protection” | for eu citizens only |
| ”do no harm” | harm exported |
| corporate argument | counter-evidence |
|---|
| ”legal in destination country” | eu lobbies against stricter rules there |
| ”farmers need these tools” | safer alternatives exist |
| ”proper application is safe” | application conditions impossible in practice |
international law
rotterdam convention
- requires prior informed consent for hazardous chemical exports
- eu is signatory
- compliance: partial at best
human rights framework
| instrument | relevant provision |
|---|
| right to health | undermined by exported harm |
| right to life | deaths documented |
| corporate responsibility | un guiding principles violated |
the pattern
| domestic position | export practice |
|---|
| ban harmful chemicals | export harmful chemicals |
| cite health concerns | ignore same concerns abroad |
| claim moral leadership | profit from harm |
this pattern repeats across domains:
- pesticides: ban domestically, export
- plastic waste: restrict domestically, export
- e-waste: regulate domestically, export
- arms: human rights rhetoric, export to conflict zones
sources
- public eye. (2020). “banned in europe, exported anyway.”
- unearthed/greenpeace. (2020). “eu pesticide export investigation.”
- who. pesticide poisoning statistics.
- eu transparency register. lobbying disclosures.
- rotterdam convention. signatory compliance reports.
- pan europe. banned pesticide export tracking.
rune.ᛞ
