ONTARIO GRAIN FARMER 16 MARKET DEVELOPMENT continued from page 15 and consistent with the EU’s international obligations under WTO/SPS rules,” said Anika Gatt Seretny, senior communications manager at CropLife Europe. “Our concern is that moving away from a predictable, risk-based system risks creating unnecessary uncertainty for operators, trading partners, and international supply chains.” The EU’s own feed sector shares that concern. The European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation, FEFAC, whose members depend on imported grain and oilseeds to produce the compound feed that sustains European livestock, has been engaging directly with members of the European Parliament on the file. “FEFAC is highly concerned about the potential impact on trade and on the EU food and feed security of the proposal allowing maximum residue limits of certain EU non-approved active substances to be set at the limit of quantification, merely based on their hazard profile,” said Alexander Döring, FEFAC’s secretary general. The federation is calling for a proportionate approach that considers the impact on trade in grains and oilseeds, and on food and feed supply chain resilience, given what Döring called the EU’s “acknowledged dependency on imported high-protein feed and cereals.” BASF Canada Agricultural Solutions supports maintaining the current MRL framework until the Commission’s own impact assessment is complete. “Access to a broad range of crop protection tools is important for Canadian growers, as they allow farmers to effectively manage production challenges while supporting resistance management and sustainable crop production,” said Tabetha Boot, head of communications and industry relations. That impact assessment is itself a concern. A study by the EU’s Joint Research Centre was promised before the summer break and has since slipped to September at the earliest. The omnibus is moving through the Council and Parliament regardless. “It’s very likely that they will go ahead with the legislative change without having seen a final impact assessment,” Bergeron said. “Having one after you’ve made your decision makes less sense than having one before.” WTO CHALLENGES GROW Canada was the first country to file a specific trade concern at the World Trade Organization’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee, targeting the omnibus MRL provisions in March 2026. Nineteen countries have since raised concerns, including Japan and several African nations. The Commission’s response has been that it sees no compliance issue. The EU has lost WTO cases in agriculture before and declined to change course. Canadian beef producers have lived that reality for decades. Whether Canada would escalate to that level on pesticide MRLs remains an open question. What is not in question is that the criteria defining which substances fall within scope can expand, and that the legislative process is moving ahead of its own evidence base. The substances of concern today may not be the only ones that matter tomorrow. “The active ingredients that might be affected today based on the Commission’s proposal might be very different in six months,” Bergeron said. “And we also have to think about the impact in other markets that are following the EU in terms of aligning MRLs.” •
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQzODE4