As more economies implement their own pesticide MRL systems, the complexities of global agricultural trade are increasing. Concerns related to products in the “channels of trade” have emerged as a critical issue, impacting growers' ability to use pesticides and shippers' confidence in exporting their goods. A “channels of trade policy” addresses cases when a pesticide MRL is restricted after a commodity has been treated with that pesticide but still remains in the market. That is, a channels of trade policy allows products that have been treated when a previous MRL was in effect, to remain in the market, as long as the MRL is compliant with the previously established level.
Pesticides are important tools growers use to treat fruits, vegetables, grains, and other foods, and may be present in small amounts, as residues, after treatments.
Before a pesticide can be sold or distributed, the relevant regulatory authority of each market evaluates the pesticide and determines whether to grant a registration that permits its sale and distribution. This regulatory authority also establishes maximum residue levels (MRLs), which is the amount of the pesticide residue allowed to remain in or on each treated food commodity.
In today’s global market, growers are aware of the need to comply with foreign MRLs when exporting their products. This awareness extends beyond simply following domestic Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs); it requires a comprehensive assessment of the target export market. Farmers now need to consider not only which pesticides effectively combat specific pests or diseases, but also which will keep their crops compliant with the MRL standards of their intended markets. This shift necessitates a more strategic approach to crop protection, highlighting the importance of regulatory knowledge, alongside agricultural expertise.
One of the key issues in agricultural exports is the potential for MRLs to change after a pesticide has been legally applied. For instance, if a grower uses a pesticide that results in residues that are compliant with the existing MRL, but the import market subsequently lowers or removes that MRL before the product arrives, the shipment may be deemed non-compliant. Certain agricultural products, particularly those with long storage periods, such as dried fruits, nuts, hops, wine, and various processed goods, are especially vulnerable to these MRL changes. This is because these products may remain in storage or on store shelves for extended periods, during which MRLs can change. Due to this, products could be rejected at ports, destroyed, or shifted to a third country. These outcomes would have significant financial ramifications for the exporter of origin.
Many countries lack a clear channels of trade policy, which leaves growers in a difficult position as it is not possible to foresee an MRL change years in advance, at the time of the pesticide application
Many countries lack a clear channels of trade policy to address the specific scenario described above, which leaves growers in a difficult position as it is not possible to foresee an MRL change years in advance, at the time of the pesticide application. Therefore, these unforeseen changes undermine their ability to plan effectively and may restrict their choices regarding pest management. This creates ambiguity regarding the product's compliance status, despite adherence to previously established MRLs.
The United States has a clear channels of trade policy. This policy addresses cases where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revokes, suspends, or modifies pesticide tolerances (MRLs) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This policy allows food treated legally with pesticides to still be sold if it meets the previous MRLs and does not pose an unreasonable dietary risk. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance in 2005, outlining enforcement of this provision, emphasizing that food producers and processors must prove that food was treated, according to FIFRA standards at the time of application, even if pesticide tolerances were later modified. This applies to both domestically produced and imported goods. The United States’ channels of trade policy has been effective in ensuring that food remains safe for consumption and is a model of how a market should deal with ever-changing pesticide tolerances to food products within international trade.
With these issues, improved channels of trade are necessary as billions of dollars of agricultural products are at stake. Necessary regulatory practices include establishing transition periods between the announcement and implementation of MRL changes, typically lasting from several months to a year. Additional practices include accepting products with documentation proving they were treated with pesticides prior to MRL changes. Furthermore, enforcement discretion allows for border assessments to determine if shipments pose any food safety risks, ensuring food safety is preserved while protecting growers from the repercussions of sudden regulatory shifts.
In summary, channels of trade are vital for navigating the complexities associated with pesticide MRL regulations across global markets. By fostering clear communication and understanding among growers, exporters, and regulators, channels of trade can help mitigate the challenges posed by changing MRLs. Through collaborative efforts and regulatory flexibility, stakeholders can better adapt to the evolving landscape of agricultural trade, ensuring that both food safety and economic viability are upheld. By incorporating thoughtful provisions into pesticide and MRL policies, economies can enhance transparency, improve compliance, and facilitate the safe movement of agricultural products.