14 ONTARIO GRAIN FARMER MARKET DEVELOPMENT Melanie Epp EU residue rules raise questions for Ontario grain exports France’s import ban signals what could come next Proposed EU residue rules could put Ontario grain exports at risk by restricting imports of crops treated with products banned in Europe but still used in Canada, creating new market access uncertainty for growers. The European Union represents a $3 billion market opportunity for Canadian grain, and one of the most complicated. EU member states and the United Kingdom are among Ontario’s top grain buyers, importing more than one million tonnes of corn and 200,000 tonnes of soybeans annually. But the EU regulates crop protection products differently than Canada does. Its Food and Feed Safety Simplification Omnibus, published Dec. 16, 2025, would set import residue limits at effectively zero for substances banned in the EU but still used here, threatening that market access. Neonicotinoids were the first substances targeted, with new limits taking effect in spring 2026. The EU has signalled others will follow. What that could mean in practice became clearer Jan. 7, 2026, when France moved ahead of the EU and acted on its own. Using an emergency safeguard clause under European food law, the French government suspended imports of foodstuffs containing residues of five crop protection substances: glufosinate, mancozeb, thiophanate-methyl, carbendazim, and benomyl. All five are banned in the EU, but remain registered in Canada. The order covers wheat, barley, oats, and rye, as well as soybeans. Officials framed the move as a matter of public health, but comments in a press release from France’s ministry of agriculture suggest trade competitiveness was also a factor. “The products we chase out the door, because of the substances with which they are treated, must not come back through the window,” said Annie Genevard, France’s minister of agriculture. Trade minister Serge Papin, who co-signed the order, called it an end to “a clear distortion of competition penalizing our farmers.” France has used this mechanism before. A 2016 order on dimethoate became continent-wide policy in 2021. A 2024 order targeting thiacloprid was adopted EU-wide in 2025. According to Véronique Le Bail, secretary general of the French Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Importers, the French government is now using the Council of State ruling to extend the same logic to all substances banned for agricultural use in France through legislation currently before parliament. Other member states are moving in the same direction, she said, and Poland has introduced a similar bill. The country’s fruit and vegetable import sector challenged the decree at the Conseil d’État, France’s highest administrative court. Importers argued the measure contravened European rules on the free movement of goods and had been taken without consultation. The European Food Safety Authority had already established MRL standards for the substances in question and had identified no new consumer safety concern. The Commission, after examining the same data as French authorities, had not deemed emergency action necessary. The court upheld the decree regardless. Despite high-profile inspections following the order, no seizures have occurred. “We fear a tightening of protectionist rules at the borders of the European Union and France, under the guise of protecting consumer health,” said Le Bail. WHICH PRODUCTS ARE AT RISK? A cross-reference of EU hazard classifications against crop protection products registered in Canada for use on corn, soybeans, wheat, and barley flags five substances that could fall within the omnibus criteria. One product stands out: glufosinate-ammonium, sold commercially as Liberty. The EU withdrew approval for glufosinate in 2018, classifying
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQzODE4