Foods imported into the EU are not required to meet the same production standards as European ones. The introduction of mirror clauses would guarantee reciprocity while also supporting the agroecological transition.
In the trade of food products between the European Union and non-EU countries, "mirror clauses" are needed to guarantee the principle of reciprocity: this is the call from Slow Food Italia, which in a lengthy and detailed document explains in depth the issues surrounding food imports, the difficulties faced by farmers, and the urgent need to transform agriculture. The report forms part of the manifesto for the EU elections that the association will send to European candidates, as well as to the governors of the Italian regions it works with, in the conviction that there are matters of principle that can also be applied at a local level.
"The Europe we want is a Europe that pays close attention to what it puts on the table, because this has enormous consequences for soil fertility, natural resources, the environmental and climate crisis, and economic and social issues — and this is not limited to imported products alone," explains Serena Milano, director of Slow Food Italia. "That is why Slow Food Italia has developed a manifesto, structured around 12 points, that encapsulates our vision of food and of the food and agricultural policies to be adopted."
Turning specifically to mirror clauses, the crux of the matter is that, while the agri-food production of the European Union must comply with certain quality standards designed to guarantee food safety, environmental protection, social rights and animal welfare, the same is not required of foods imported from non-EU countries, for which — with regard to pesticide residues, for example — only tolerance limits exist. This is a contradiction that, according to Slow Food Italia, can no longer be ignored. Double standards make it impossible to honour the commitments the European Union has made under the Green Deal, and they impede the global process of ecological transition towards the sustainable development goals of Agenda 2030; they also create a distortion of competition that is detrimental to European farmers, contributing to the discontent expressed through the recent tractor protests across Europe. The European Union's trade policy on food cannot retreat from its sustainability strategies; on the contrary, it must support farmers in identifying with this green pact.
"The adoption of mirror clauses is a matter of transparency for consumers and a guarantee from several points of view," says Milano. "From an economic standpoint, we are faced with a form of unfair competition: foods imported into the EU often do not comply with the same — stricter — rules observed by European producers. We are talking about regulations that have significant implications for the health of humans, animals, plants and the environment: they concern, for example, genetically modified varieties, the use of pesticides in fields, and the administration of antibiotics and hormones in livestock farming. These are absolutely justified restrictions, yet incomprehensibly the EU today applies them only to domestic producers and not to food that is imported."
To highlight the existing discrepancies between foods produced in the European Union and those imported from third countries, Slow Food Italia has analysed three supply chains: beef, soya and rice.
In the case of beef, European production is compared with that of Brazil, one of the world's leading producers. Whereas European beef requires traceability from birth to slaughter and is subject to animal welfare standards, in Brazil these two aspects are not regulated. Brazilian livestock farming also makes use of hormones and antibiotics for growth, as well as ruminant meat and bone meal in animal feed — all of which are banned in the European Union.
In the case of soya, too, the comparison is with Brazil and concerns primarily the GMOs and pesticides authorised in Brazilian production but banned in the European Union. Italy banned GMOs in 2015, along with 17 other EU governments, while in the remaining European countries GMOs require prior authorisation, including a risk assessment. On the other hand, 77 per cent of the soya produced worldwide is genetically modified — with peaks of around 94 per cent for soya grown in the United States and 97 per cent for that grown in Brazil. Since this soya is destined primarily for animal feed, a problem emerges here: GMOs nevertheless end up on Europeans' plates, hidden within products of animal origin (meat, milk, eggs, cheese), because it is not mandatory to indicate on the labels of these foods whether the animals were fed GM soya.
Closely linked to GM soya is the use of glyphosate, a herbicide classified as potentially carcinogenic by the Iarc: currently the maximum residue limit for glyphosate in imported soya is 20 ppm, that is 200 times higher than that permitted for many other crops. Brazil also uses many plant protection products that are banned in the European Union: in particular, one third of the active substances authorised in Brazil are banned in the EU. And the most pesticide-intensive crop in Brazil is soya, which accounts for 52 per cent of pesticide use.
The central issue with rice, too, is that of agrotoxins, and it emerges starkly when European rice is compared with Indian rice. The number of plant protection molecules banned in the EU stands at 195, while in India — which accounts for 80 per cent of global rice production — only 56 are banned. In addition to the many pesticides prohibited in the European Union but used in Indian production, there are also four molecules authorised in India that are unknown in Europe and for which, as a result, no maximum residue limits exist, nor any controls.
In detail, Slow Food Italia's requests to the European Union regarding foods imported from non-EU countries are to put an end to double standards by adopting mirror measures across all stages of the supply chain, and to apply to imported products the same safety measures that apply to those produced within the EU.
The association also calls for a rethink of the approach used to set maximum residue limits for products grown using hazardous substances, along with the establishment of a system for assessment, monitoring and sanctions. While waiting for the actual introduction of mirror clauses applicable to all European trade agreements, Slow Food Italia deems it necessary to refuse ratification of those that do not include them.
To this is added the demand to prevent European countries from producing for export to third countries the agrotoxins that are banned in Europe, so as not to contribute to harm to public health and the environment in those countries, and so as not to create the conditions for a conflict of interest within EU member states, which will be required to vote against raising tolerance thresholds for residues in imported agri-food products.
Slow Food Italia also calls for avoiding every form of colonial appropriation of the Global South by industrialised countries, such as the externalisation of the negative effects of agro-industrial systems working for the European market or the exploitation of the natural resources of third countries, and for taking into account the connections between the precautionary principle and the fundamental right to life of all people: those living in third countries, whose lives are threatened by toxic production systems, and those living in Europe, who are exposed to contamination from residues in imported products and whose right to information is also denied, given the gaps in traceability and labelling for imported products.
Slow Food Italia emphasises that in order to achieve these goals it is essential to support farmers in the Global South throughout this transition process and to put in place systems that enable their countries to meet higher standards, by shifting to agroecological food systems.
A different kind of agriculture is possible, Slow Food Italia declares loudly, as demonstrated by the figures for organic farming, in which Italy is among the world leaders, with 18.7 per cent of its utilised agricultural area certified. What is needed, however, is to guarantee fair prices for farmers, to reward those who produce healthy food while respecting the soil, to regulate competition between local and imported products, to support businesses so that they can change their production model, moving from intensive monocultures to agroecological practices — that is, practices in harmony with ecological processes, sustainable and respectful of biodiversity. In a word, the development of sustainable food systems must be promoted. And this not only within the European Union, but everywhere in the world.
Articolo sponsorizzato