Embodied Pesticides and the EU– Mercosur Partnership Agreement

The EU-MERCOSUR Partnership Agreement (EMPA) liberalises chemical trade between the EU and Mercosur, with the Interim Agreement going into force in May 2026 (Notice 2026/868). The Mercosur countries (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) reduced tariffs on EU pesticides, whereas the EU significantly increased Mercosur’s ethanol quota (EMPA, Annex 2A). The potential environmental consequences of these changes demonstrate how EU policy does not safeguard against the pesticide related environmental harms embodied by imported agricultural products.

Background

The EU increased Mercosur’s ethanol quota due to trade events with the EU’s major ethanol importer, the USA (ePure, 2024). Additionally, the EU’s biofuel supply is already strained due to the war in Ukraine (RED III, 2023, s76), and sugarcane ethanol biofuel is more sustainable than palm oil biofuels, which the EU is moving away from due to their contribution to deforestation (Follador, et.al., 2021, p.1). However, the Mercosur countries use a significant amount of pesticides (FAO, 2025, pp.9-10), and with cheaper imported pesticides from the EU under EMPA, and agricultural intensification caused by the Agreement, unsustainable pesticide use is expected to continue (Mendez-Parra, et.al., 2020, pp.93,216). This contrasts with the sustainability position of the EU’s Farm-to-Fork Strategy (Treat, 2020, p.5) as pesticides negatively impact the environment, polluting soil and water (Arias-Estévez, et.al., 2007, p.248; Danielopol, et.al., 2003, p.113), harming non-target organisms (Sánchez- Domene, et.al., 2022, p.6), and causing health issues in humans (Domingues, et.al., 2024, pp.10-11).

Academics and environmental organisations in both the EU and Mercosur have spoken out about the pesticide harms associated with the Agreement, particularly in relation to EU double standards. The EU produces and exports pesticides that it bans internally (Krämer, 2021, p.154; Palmieri, 2024, p.361), but since 2020 discussions in the European Parliament and European Commission have failed to produce legislation banning the practice (Buczinski, et.al., 2023, p.28; European Commission, 2023). This means that pesticides produced, but banned, in the EU can be exported to Mercosur where they cause environmental harm, before being imported back into the EU on agricultural products that embody that environmental harm.

The EU Pesticide Policy Gap

Currently, the importation of commodities produced with pesticides is only regulated by the EU in terms of physical pesticide residuals (Maximum Residual Levels, or MRLs), rather than the actual pesticide harm caused by the production of the product (embodied pesticide harm). This is due the health focus of MRLs as a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) measure. While MRLs test for pesticide residuals for health reasons, they also unintentionally safeguard against excessive or dangerous pesticide use on products intended for the EU market. The issue in the case of ethanol is that MRLs only apply to food and feed products (Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Article 2), so secondary agricultural products like ethanol are not tested for pesticide residuals. This means that there is no safeguard against the embodied pesticide harm in ethanol and similar products.

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) plantation ready for harvest, São Paulo State.

Source: Mariordo - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w /index.php?curid=4304989

Closing the EU Pesticide Policy Gap

Closing this policy gap is not as simple as expanding the MRLs to include non-food products, as some agricultural products cannot be tested for pesticide residuals. For example, ethanol is listed as an active substance (European Commission, n.d.), rather than a tested product. This demonstrates that consideration for embodied pesticide harm cannot just be an inadvertent consequence of health policy if the EU wants to minimise its contribution to pesticide harms caused by EU consumption.

The EU could address ethanol biofuel’s part in policy gap through the Renewable Energy Directive III (RED III). Under the RED III, biofuel can contribute to the EU Member State’s sustainability targets, so any negative environmental effects of its production should be accounted for. This is essential to holding Member States accountable for environmental harm that they outsource. The RED III already bans the import of biofuels produced on high biodiversity land (RED III, 2023, Article 29.3) and accounts for greenhouse gas emissions as saving 50% of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels. It could also account for embodied pesticide use in biofuels; however, doing so would increase regulatory burden and reduce efficiency. Furthermore, Brazil’s ethanol from sugarcane avoids more carbon emissions than other products, so it may be the most sustainable option despite pesticide related harms (Follador, et.al., 2021, p.1).

Any unilateral environmental policy that could be considered as nullifying or substantially impairing a trade benefit of EMPA would justify Mercosur initiating dispute settlement proceedings under this rebalancing mechanism (EMPA, Article 21.4). Therefore, EUassisted sustainable agriculture capacity building and regulation reform in Mercosur could be the least disruptive course of action for the EU under EMPA. There is room for education to make a difference in this space, as many small farms in Brazil use pesticides without training (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2017, p.77). These efforts could be facilitated by the Trade and Sustainable Development chapter of EMPA, which includes voluntary collaboration, technology exchange on chemical management, and sustainable production and consumption (EMPA, Articles 18.12-18.13). Additionally, the EU could focus its capacity building on farms whose products do not fall within the remit of the MRLs, such that the EU’s efforts are targeted at sectors whose pesticide use is not safeguarded against.

Overall, closing the EU Pesticide Policy Gap may not be the most environmentally sustainable or desirable option, but policymakers and civil society should be aware of it. EU policy decisions should be made with a full awareness of the EU’s contribution to environmental harm, particularly when it does so in the name of sustainability.

References

Arias-Estévez, M., López-Periago, E., Martínez-Carballo, E., Simal-Gándara, J., Mejuto, J.-C., & García-Río, L. (2008). The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 123(4), 247-260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.07.011

Buczinski, B., Chotteau, P., Duflot, B., & Rosa, A. (2023). The EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement, Its impacts on Agriculture. Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament. https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/study/the-eu-mercosur-free-trade-agreement-its-impacts-on-agriculture

Danielopol, D. L., Griebler, C., Gunatilaka, A., & Notenboom, J. (2003). Present state and future prospects for groundwater ecosystems. Environmental Conservation, 30(2), 104-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000109

Domingues, R. C., Gurgel, A. D. M., Santos, R. C. D., Lima, F. L. M. D. A., Santos, C. C. S. D., Santos, M. O. S. D., & Gurgel, I. G. D. (2024). Use of pesticides in Pernambuco sugarcane fields and damage to workers’ health. Saúde em Debate, 48(141), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1590/2358-289820241418714I

European Commission. (n.d.). Active substance: Ethanol. EU Pesticides Database. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/start/screen/active-substances/details/88

ePure. (2024). European renewable ethanol – key figures 2024. ePure. https://www.epure.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/250908-DEF-PR-European-renewable-ethanol-Key-figures-2024.pdf

FAO. (2025). Pesticides use and trade: 1990–2023: FAOSTAT Analytical Briefs, Issue 109. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/3251bdcf-888c-40ab-8223-b135cebfe91e

Follador, M., Soares-Filho, B. S., Philippidis, G., Davis, J. L., de Oliveira, A. R., & Rajão, R. (2021). Brazil’s sugarcane embitters the EU-Mercosur trade talks. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1- 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93349-8

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2017). Censo Agropecuario 2017 Resultados Definitivos. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?view=detalhes&id=73096

Krämer, L. (2021). A Lost Opportunity? The Environment and the EU - Mercosur Trade Agreement. Journal for European environmental & planning law, 18(1-2), 143-163. https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-18010009

Mendez-Parra, M., Garnizova, E., Baeza Breinbauer, D., Lovo, S., Narayanan, B., Bauer, M., Lamprecht, P., Shadlen, K., Arza, V., Obaya, M., Calabrese, L., Banga, K., & Balchin, N. (2020). Sustainability Impact Assessment in Support of the Association Agreement Negotiations between the European Union and Mercosur. London School of Economics and Political Science. https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/reports/sia-in-support-of-the-association-agreement-negotiations-between-the-eu-and-mercosur

Notice 2026/868. (2026, 15 Mar). Notice concerning the provisional application of the Interim Agreement on Trade between the European Union, of the one part, and the Common Market of the South, the Argentine Republic, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, of the other part. Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202600868

Palmieri, R., Amice, C., Amato, M., & Verneau, F. (2024). Beyond the Finish Line: Sustainability Hurdles in the EU–Mercosur Free Trade Agreement. Social Sciences, 13(362), 1-11. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/13/7/362

Sánchez‐Domene, D., Da Silva, F. R., Provete, D. B., Navarro‐Lozano, A., Acayaba, R. D., Montagner, C. C., & Almeida, E. A. (2023). Combined effects of landscape composition and agrochemicals on frog communities amid sugarcane‐dominated agroecosystems. Ecological Applications, 33(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2781

Treat, S. (2020). The EU-Mercosur Agreement: Increasing Pesticide Use and GMOs, and Undermining Healthy Food Production and Standards. Heinrich Boll Stiftung, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, FASE, & Misereor. https://eu.boell.org/en/2020/12/05/eu- mercosur-agreement-increasing-pesticide-use-and-gmos-and-undermining-healthy-food