Understanding international harmonization of pesticide

Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) with Codex standards:

A CASE STUDY ON RICE

Side event of the WTO Committee on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures
November 5th 2020
Background
 For years countries have emphasized the difficulties encountered in the absence of Codex
MRLs for important pesticides used at national level.

 Many concerns have been raised also with respect to trade problems linked to differences
in regulatory limits for pesticide residues imposed by different countries.

 In 2017, FAO initiated a study to systematically assess the level of harmonization

between countries and Codex pesticide MRLs. The results showed:
 a very low level of harmonization
 that pesticide MRLs stricter than those recommended by Codex, tended to be applied especially
for commodities such as rice, chili pepper and spices

 This highlighted the need to understand better the different dimensions of this
complex issue
Structure of the study (1/2)
PART A: Level of harmonization of rice pesticide MRLs with Codex and
impact on trade
 Pesticides used on rice and harmonization with Codex MRLs
 What does this mean for trade?

PART B: Reasons behind different levels of pesticide MRL harmonization

 Risk assessment methodology
 Risk management considerations
Countries/region:
1. Australia
Structure of the study (2/2) 2.
3.
Bangladesh
Brazil
4. Cambodia
Commodity: RICE 5. Canada
6. China
• Staple food - plays a significant role in food security 7. European Union
• Developing countries account for more than 96% of global rice 8. India
production and almost three quarters of global rice exports 9. Indonesia
10. Iran
• Appeared as subject to national MRLs stricter than Codex MRLs
11. Japan
(FAO pre-study) 12. Myanmar
13. Pakistan
14. Philippines
15. Saudi Arabia
Data availability constraints: 16. Thailand
PART A (economic analysis): 17 economies 17. United Arab Emirates
18. United States of America
PART B (reasons behind): 5 countries/region
19. Viet Nam
PART A
Level of harmonization
of rice pesticide MRLs
with Codex and impact
on trade
Harmonization with Codex
rice MRLs
PART A

Codex rice MRLs

Codex code Codex name Total # of MRLs
GC 0649 Rice 25
(defined as “rice with husks that remain attached to
kernels even after threshing: kernels with husks”)
CM 0649 Rice husked 18

CM 1205 Rice polished 13

GC 0655 Wild rice 1

GC 0080 Cereal grains (rice; wild rice) 25

82
PART A
National rice MRLs
National MRLs Codex MRLs
Codex MRLs
500
Total number of rice MRLs

450 467
400
350
300 260
250 207 486 271
200
150 317 288
263
100 66 102 31 6 60 1
119 35
50 82 92 11 5 37 23 65 50 82 82 12
29 6211 29 82 99 65 82
0 56 82 26 6 14 57 19 17 34 15 17 82 82 18 56 17 82 39 64
PART A
Harmonization with Codex MRLs
Aligned with Codex Higher than Codex Lower than Codex Codex MRLs but no national MRLs

80
Total number of rice MRLs

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
PART A
Codex MRLs missing at national level
Country/region Nat’l MRLs Enforcement procedure followed in the absence of national MRLs
Thailand Yes Defer to Codex
Brazil, Cambodia, Indonesia Yes Defer to Codex
Bangladesh, Myanmar No Defer to Codex
Saudi Arabia Yes Defer to Codex first - then MRLs of the EU or USA
United Arab Emirates No Defer to Codex first - then MRLs of the EU, then default limit at: 0.01 ppm

Pakistan No Defer to the lowest MRL among Codex, EU and USA

European Union, Japan, Yes Apply a default limit at: 0.01 ppm
India
Iran (Islamic Republic of) Yes Apply a default limit at: 0.05 ppm
Canada Yes Apply a default limit at: 0.1 ppm
Australia Yes Apply zero tolerance
United States of America Yes The crop is considered adulterated and may be seized
Philippines Yes Apply zero tolerance
China, Viet Nam Yes Not confirmed – it was assumed that in the absence of an official procedure, zero
tolerance applies
PART A
Harmonization with Codex MRLs
Aligned with Codex Higher than Codex Lower than Codex
80
Total number of rice MRLs

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
What does this mean for
trade?
PART A
Standards can affect trade in two ways
High consumer awareness of food safety in importing Costs to comply with food safety standards in
markets export markets
 Standards can be trade-enhancing  Standards can be trade-impeding
 More than 50% of the respondents in a household  Costs for stricter food safety management
survey in Georgia (United States of America) incurred at all levels of the (export) supply
perceived pesticide residues as serious or extremely chain
serious food safety threat already in the early 2000s
 Examples: Investment costs, expenses for
 Food safety was identified as the most important monitoring and certification, daily risk
sustainability attribute for rice consumers in Nigeria management
in a recent survey
PART A
Mixed effects found in the literature
Study Method Main results
Li and Beghin (2012) Meta-analysis SPS regulations tend to impede exports from developing countries
Santeramo and Meta-analysis Stricter MRLs tend to favour trade
Lamonaca (2019)
Chen et al. (2008) Gravity model MRLs on the insecticide chlorpyrifos reduce China’s exports of vegetables
Melo et al. (2014) Gravity model MRLs reduce Chile’s exports of fresh fruits
Kareem et al. (2018) Gravity model EU MRLs on tomatoes reduce exports from African countries
EU MRLs on citrus fruits enhance exports from African countries
Drogué and DeMaria Gravity model Increasing the similarity of MRLs among countries increases trade of
(2012) apples and pears
Winchester et al. (2012) Gravity model Stricter pesticide MRLs for plant products in one
country relative to other countries reduce exports to that country
Xiong and Beghin (2014) Gravity model Pesticide MRLs by OECD countries are associated with more trade;
divergence of regulations between importer and exporter impedes trade
PART A
Average MRLs on rice by importer/exporter
Rice in the husk Husked (brown) rice Rice, semi-milled or wholly milled Rice, broken
3.0
MRL index

2.0 Importers: Average

1.0 MRLs tend to be
0.0 stricter than Codex
Australia Canada China European Indonesia Japan Saudi Arabia United
Union States of
America
3.0
2.5
MRL index

2.0 Exporters: Average

1.5 MRLs aligned with
1.0 Codex in 50% of
0.5 the cases
0.0
PART A
Effects on trade in rice
Likelihood to trade Intensity of trade
2.0

Effect on trade

1.5 Importers: Stricter MRLs are

1.0 associated with relatively more rice
0.5
0.0 imports, possibly reflecting strong
-0.5 consumer awareness of food safety
-1.0
MRL Importer MRL Divergence  Exporters: Stricter MRLs of the
importer relative to those of the
Likelihood to trade Intensity of trade exporter are associated with
Production of exporter + + additional costs and may impede
Trade in 1995 + + exports
Rice variety + +
Colonial relationship +  Many other factors that influence
Tariff of importer - - trade between two countries
Distance - -
Development status - -
PART B
Reasons behind different
levels of pesticide MRL
harmonization
PART B

Reasons behind different levels of harmonization

In collaboration with the JMPR Secretariat, key issues that could lead to divergent
decisions concerning MRLs have been identified :
1) Differences in risk assessment processes
2) Differences in risk management policy/decisions
Interested countries/region were approached to gather their views.

This analysis focuses only on five countries/region: Australia, Canada, the European
Union, Japan and the United States of America
PART B
Risk Assessment methodology
Findings
 There is considerable variation in how countries are aligned with the JMPR and Codex process for the
development and establishment of pesticide MRLs.
 Many of the observed differences in risk assessments do not seem to have a significant impact on the
overall outcome of the pesticide safety evaluations.
 Some of the major differences in MRLs and residue definitions are due to the presentation of different
data to the various countries/region.
 Harmonization also depends on national authorities supplying updated consumption data to FAO/WHO,
via the GEMS and CIFOCOss databases.
 Many of the guidance/procedural documents related to MRLs and human health risk assessments of
pesticides were initially drafted 10 to 20 years ago. Consideration could be given to an update process that
can be agreed internationally.
PART B
Risk Management considerations
Findings
 Automatic harmonization with Codex MRLs is not the norm. For non-registered MRLs, common practices are
to set a default value (usually at the limit of quantification) or to not establish any tolerance/MRL.

 In the absence of a national MRL, an application can be made to have an MRL established, which is termed an
import tolerance.

 During the Codex step-process, active notification whenever a Codex MRL is not going to be adopted and the
scientific rationale for that decision is only rarely provided.

 Differences in the time of MRL adoption at Codex and at national level may entail changes in the scientific
data packages evaluated by the different authorities.

 There is great inconsistency among the commodity descriptions across different countries.
PART A PART B
Conclusions and recommendations (1/2)
Lack of Codex MRLs: addressing the need for more Codex MRLs should be further considered.

Missing national MRLs: deferral to Codex MRLs when national MRLs do not exist could be considered as
a default practice, as also recommended by the SPS Agreement: “the importing Member shall consider
the use of a relevant international standard as the basis for access until a final determination is made”.

Food classification: consistency could be improved to reduce the potential confusion over multiple MRLs
for different forms of a single pesticide/crop combination.

Improving harmonization: critical areas such as residue definitions, classification, etc. need to be further
considered.
PART A PART B
Conclusions and recommendations (2/2)
Transparency: it would be important that countries actively notify Codex whenever they have any
reservation and are not in the position to adopt a newly established Codex MRL, providing a science-based
rationale.
Capacity development: consideration should be given to developing countries’ needs for better and more
active participation in the Codex standard-setting process and to the needs of those countries when
developing new MRLs.
Dual effect of MRLs on trade:
 Balance between high food safety requirements on the importing side and the higher market access costs
incurred by exporting countries
 Increase developing countries’ capacity to comply with food safety standards in both their export and
domestic supply chains
Thank you!