Despite growing scientific consensus around the dangers of certain pesticides, many of these chemicals continue to be produced, used, and consumed around the world—even in countries where they’ve officially been banned. This global dissonance is particularly stark when comparing pesticide regulations in the European Union (EU) and the United States.
Relying heavily on the precautionary principle, the EU takes a markedly more cautious approach than the US does to pesticide regulation. This principle prioritizes preventive action in the face of uncertainty, placing the burden of proof on manufacturers to demonstrate that a substance is safe before approving its use. If credible scientific evidence suggests that a pesticide could pose a serious threat to human health or the environment, the EU is more likely to ban or restrict it, even if all the risks are not yet fully established.
As a result, dozens of pesticides—including well-known chemicals like paraquat, phorate, and atrazine—are banned across EU member states. These substances have been linked to health issues, such as Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, and cancer, as well as to significant environmental damage.
In contrast, the US takes a risk-based approach, which allows pesticide use as long as the benefits are deemed to outweigh the potential risks. Regulatory decisions often rely on manufacturer-provided data and can be slow to change, even in the face of mounting evidence. Consequently, many pesticides banned in the EU remain legal and widely used in US agriculture. Paraquat, for instance, is banned in over fifty countries but is still applied in large quantities across US farmland, contributing to increasing cases of Parkinson’s disease.[1]
Ironically, while the US does ban certain pesticides due to safety concerns, American companies continue to manufacture and export these banned chemicals to other countries—particularly in the Global South. Today, more than 80 percent of countries importing neurotoxic pesticides banned for US domestic use are categorized as low to middle income and have few legal safeguards restricting their importation.[2] These pesticides are often used with fewer regulations and lower safety standards, putting farmworkers and surrounding communities at heightened risk.
This international demand keeps production levels high. Rather than phasing out harmful substances, manufacturers ramp up production to fill the global market. In many cases, pesticides banned in the US or EU are still in widespread use around the world.
Due to the global nature of the food supply, banned pesticides continue to make their way back into the US through imported food. Fruits, vegetables, grains, and other products grown with substances no longer permitted domestically can still be sold on American supermarket shelves. While import inspections exist, they cover only a small fraction of shipments, and pesticide residue limits vary widely between countries.
This loophole means that American consumers may unknowingly be exposed to dangerous chemicals that US regulators have deemed unsafe.[3]
The disconnect between domestic bans and international use highlights a pressing need for more consistent, globally coordinated pesticide regulations. It also raises ethical questions about wealthier nations’ role in perpetuating environmental and health hazards abroad. Strengthening international agreements, improving residue testing at borders, and incentivizing safer alternatives are key steps toward protecting both global health and the integrity of the food system.
Until then, the toxic trade in banned pesticides remains a striking example of how our health can be affected in hidden, noxious ways—often placing an unfair burden on consumers to protect themselves.
Copyright 2025 Center for Nutrition Studies. All rights reserved.
)
)
)
