The EU’s export trade in banned pesticides has expanded dramatically in recent years, despite a European Commission promise to end the practice, a new investigation by Unearthed and Public Eye has found.

Last year, EU companies issued plans to export pesticides containing 75 different chemicals that are banned from use on the bloc’s own farms, documents obtained under freedom of information laws show. That is almost double the number of prohibited substances that were notified for export in 2018, the first year for which full data is available.

This sharp increase is because in the past seven years the EU has banned dozens of pesticides that were previously authorised for use on European farms, after evidence emerged of the dangers they pose to human health or the environment. However, it has so far placed no restriction on companies continuing to manufacture and export these chemicals to countries with weaker regulations. 

It has now been five years since the Commission promised to ensure that “hazardous chemicals banned in the European Union are not produced for export”, but it is yet to bring forward proposals for a change in the law. 

Most of the banned pesticides now being exported are recently prohibited. They include chemicals such as mancozeb, a fungicide banned at the end of 2020 after it was found to be “toxic for reproduction” – meaning it can harm fertility and babies in the womb. Last year, EU companies issued notifications for the export of more than 8,500 tonnes of mancozeb products, to 59 countries. 

The vast majority of those destinations were low- or middle-income countries such as Vietnam or Ecuador, where UN agencies say the use of highly hazardous pesticides tends to pose the greatest risks.

Kara Mackay, campaigns coordinator for the South African grassroots group Women on Farms Project (WFP), told Unearthed and Public Eye that the continued export of banned pesticides from the EU was a “blatant, obvious double standard” that revealed a “racist and colonial” way of thinking.

Mackay’s group is campaigning for an end to European exports of cyanamide, a chemical that has been banned on EU farms for nearly two decades, but which is still exported from Germany for use in vineyards in countries including South Africa. 

Sending banned pesticides to Africa, or to any low-income countries, is “only possible if you see the people that use these pesticides as inferior and therefore you do not have to care for their health,” Mackay said. “The practice puts profit before people and we in South Africa are demanding a change. We are sick of it and literally sick from it.”

A ‘form of exploitation’

The full extent of this trade was uncovered five years ago, when Unearthed and Public Eye, a Swiss NGO, published an investigation that mapped for the first time a full year’s exports of pesticides banned from use in the EU.

The investigation revealed that in 2018 EU companies had issued export notifications for around 81,600 tonnes of banned pesticides, to 85 non-EU countries. More than half of the total weight was destined for low- and middle-income countries. 

Shortly after these revelations, the Commission published a chemicals strategy that committed to ending the manufacture for export of hazardous banned chemicals. In the years that followed, two EU member states became the first countries in the world to implement laws against banned pesticide exports – first France in 2022, followed by Belgium earlier this year.

People have a right to health and a right to live in dignity. The European practice of exporting banned pesticides is a blatant violation of these fundamental rights. – Marcos Orellana, UN special rapporteur on toxics and human rights

However, the impact of these laws will be limited without an EU-wide ban, and the Commission’s work towards this has been repeatedly delayed. It has yet to bring forward a proposal for changes in European law.

So, to mark half a decade since the Commission made its commitment, Unearthed and Public Eye have again mapped a full year’s worth of Europe’s trade in prohibited pesticides. Using freedom of information requests to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and various governments, we gathered nearly 2,000 export notifications covering all of the EU’s banned pesticide exports for 2024.

These notifications are issued under the UN’s Rotterdam Convention, which prohibits countries from exporting banned and hazardous chemicals without the “prior informed consent” of the importing state. 

A European company planning to export a banned pesticide must send a notification to the ECHA, informing them of the product’s use, the banned chemicals it contains, and the estimated amount to be shipped that year. The ECHA then sends notifications to the governments of importing countries.

Export notifications are an imperfect record: they do not always tally precisely with the amount actually exported in any given year. One major company told Unearthed that its final export figures for 2024 were well below the quantities it had been authorised to ship, although it did not provide the final figures.

However, these documents are also the only publicly held record of banned chemical exports that detail what the chemical will be used for – so they are the most precise paper trail available for the EU’s trade in banned pesticides. 

The export notifications reveal that both the scale and scope of this trade have grown dramatically since the EU committed to ending it. 

Last year, EU companies issued plans to export 122,000 tonnes of banned pesticides, an increase of 50% compared to 2018. The number of banned chemicals being exported for agricultural use has increased by 83% over the same period, from 41 to 75.

Well over half of the total weight – 58% – was destined for low- and middle-income countries, with Brazil, Ukraine, Morocco, Malaysia and China all among the top importers.

Companies involved in these exports told Unearthed and Public Eye that the “mere fact” a pesticide was banned or unauthorised in the EU “says nothing about its safety” and that their products could be used safely and legally in the countries to which they were exported. They argue that countries such as the US, Canada and Japan have sophisticated regulatory systems that have approved the use of many chemicals banned in European agriculture.

The German chemical giant BASF was by far Europe’s biggest exporter of banned pesticides last year, with notified exports of 33,600 tonnes – three times those of its nearest competitor.

A spokesperson for the company said it does not think the EU needs to change the laws governing this trade.

“We believe that the current EU rules on export of chemicals give already a sufficient framework for a safe and transparent international trade of agrochemicals,” he told Unearthed and Public Eye.

“Recipient states must actively consent to the import of certain hazardous chemicals with the goal to protect [the] environment and society,” the spokesperson added. “Information is provided to developing countries on how hazardous chemicals are safely stored, transported, used and disposed.”

However, the UN’s special rapporteur on toxics and human rights, Marcos Orellana, said Europe’s exports of banned pesticides are a “blatant violation” of people’s rights to health and to live in dignity. “These odious double standards are a form of exploitation in the fields of the Global South,” he added.

A spokesperson for the European Commission told Unearthed and Public Eye that it is “aware of and shares the concerns regarding the exports to third countries of EU-banned pesticides” and remains “committed to addressing this important issue”. 

“The commission is exploring the options to ensure that the most hazardous chemicals banned in the EU cannot be produced for export, including by amending relevant legislation if and as needed,” she said. The work is “ongoing”, she added.

Culture of impunity

Europe’s major pesticide companies say they invest in training for farmers around the world on safe use of their products. 

Some also suggest it would be wrong for European lawmakers to restrict the availability of pesticides that other governments have concluded are needed by their farmers. 

“In many low- and middle-income countries, there are concerns that attempts by external bodies to impose EU rules can overlook local expertise and the realities of local agriculture,” said a spokesperson for the Swiss-headquartered pesticide giant Syngenta. “We believe each country should be free to make its own science-based decisions.”

But campaigners in the Global South say these arguments ignore the power that wealthy agribusiness lobbies can have to shape pesticide policy in low- and middle-income countries, the lack of regulatory resources in these countries, and the vulnerability of many farm workers.

“Farmworkers in South Africa are using the most dangerous of pesticides without proper protection or safety protocols,” Kara Mackay of WFP told Unearthed and Public Eye. 

Labour laws are not tightly regulated, she said, meaning farmers have the discretion to decide “if they will follow labour legislation, and which parts they shall follow”. This creates “a culture of impunity, which only deepens the power inequalities inherited from apartheid South Africa”, she said. Meanwhile, farmworkers frequently live on the farms where they work, and losing a job can also mean being “evicted and homeless”.

WFP is campaigning in South Africa for a ban on the agricultural use of cyanamide, a chemical manufactured by the German company Alzchem, and sold under the brand name Dormex. It is used as a “plant growth regulator” in warm climates, sprayed in vineyards and orchards to force buds to “break” earlier and increase fruit yields. 

This use of cyanamide has been banned in the EU since 2008, due to “clear indications” that it can be harmful to human health, particularly that of farmworkers who spray the chemical. 

However, last year Alzchem issued export notifications for 6,700 tonnes of agricultural cyanamide products. Almost two-thirds of it was destined for low- and middle-income countries including Peru, India, and South Africa.

“Regardless of the destination, Alzchem places the highest priority on product safety,” a spokesperson for the company told Unearthed.

She said the company’s “local distribution partners” carry out training sessions to inform users about “potential hazards”, helping to “protect farmers who may not be able to read product labels”. The company also provides personal protective equipment (PPE) like gloves “free of charge”, because in some markets “such equipment is difficult to obtain”. 

But farmworkers in the vineyards of South Africa’s Western Cape region, who Unearthed spoke to earlier this month, said they had not received training before spraying the chemical.

“I’ve been spraying Dormex for four years,” said one woman, whose name we are withholding to prevent reprisals from her employer. “No training was given. The farmer just said, ‘Here are your clothes, now go and spray.’”

She said she was given PPE – overalls with hoods, masks, gloves, boots and goggles – but even with this gear “I still managed to get a rash”. 

“When I sprayed, I started experiencing tightness in my chest,” she told Unearthed. “My face started blackening and I had pimples and spots in my face and the skin on my face started peeling off.”

On the farm where she works, she added, there are no showers: instead, workers clean themselves after shifts in plastic tubs. “[The] chemicals you wash off your body stay in the water you wash with,” the worker explained. The PPE “doesn’t get cleaned at all” and farmworkers use it “until it’s tattered and torn”. 

Dina Ndleleni, a former farmworker, told Unearthed that she collapsed at the vineyard where she used to work in 2022, while a tractor was spraying nearby. “I just felt my tongue was burning,” she said. “My chest started to burn, and I thought, ‘what’s happening with me?’”

She now suffers from respiratory conditions which have left her unable to work. “Sometimes I can’t go out because I’m coughing,” she told Unearthed. “It’s worse at night time. I can’t sleep lying down… When I sleep flat… my chest becomes very, very tight.”

Dina says she went to see a private doctor earlier this year who told her the likely cause of her lung damage was exposure to Dormex. 

“I want to say to European people, they must stop sending dangerous pesticides to South Africa,” she added. “Because I’m affected now for the rest of my life.” 

The Alzchem spokesperson told Unearthed that the company “ensures that all exports comply with legal requirements and that products are properly labelled and documented”. 

She added: “Furthermore, we maintain close communication with our international customers to support safe use in accordance with local regulations.”

A new generation 

Cyanamide was one of the EU’s biggest banned pesticide exports last year, as it was in 2018. In this respect, however, it was unusual. The majority of the EU’s top 10 biggest exports by notified weight now belong to a new generation of pesticides that were only banned in the past seven years.

Among these is the weedkiller glufosinate, which was banned by the EU in mid-2018 after it was classified as toxic to reproduction. Last year BASF issued plans to export nearly 20,000 tonnes of glufosinate-based pesticides to 26 countries, including Canada, Brazil, the US, Colombia and Indonesia. These made the chemical Europe’s second-biggest banned pesticide export by notified weight.

It was followed by mancozeb, a fungicide that is not only classed as a reproductive toxicant, but also an endocrine disruptor and suspected carcinogen. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interfere with the body’s hormonal system, which is crucial for reproductive function and development.

At least eight companies issued export notifications for mancozeb last year, but the main exporter was the Bulgarian company Agria.

Other notable new entries in the top 10 were picoxystrobin – a fungicide manufactured by the US company Corteva, which was banned in the EU over threats to wildlife and concerns that its residues could damage human DNA – and Syngenta’s neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam, which was banned from all outdoor uses in the EU in 2018 because of the risk it poses to bees.

EU lawmakers recently concluded that thiamethoxam and clothianidin, another banned neonicotinoid, pose such serious threats to global biodiversity and food security that they passed a law that will prohibit the import of foods containing all but the lowest detectable traces of these insecticides.

Despite this, last year Syngenta, its German counterpart Bayer, and other manufacturers issued notifications for around 4,600 tonnes of products containing these chemicals, in the form of insecticides and treated seeds. The main destinations were Ukraine, Russia and Brazil.

Syngenta’s spokesperson said: “These products are made for markets where local regulators and farmers have determined they are needed. This is similar to the pharmaceutical industry, where medicines may be produced in one country but sold in another where they are approved for use.”

A Bayer spokesperson said: “All our products are safe for humans and the environment if applied according to label instructions.”

Perhaps one the most controversial banned pesticides being exported from Europe is chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide banned in 2020 in response to scientific evidence that it caused “adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes in children”. There are decades of research suggesting chlorpyrifos exposure harms young children and unborn babies.

In 2024, European companies notified exports of 427 tonnes of chlorpyrifos-based insecticides, mainly to low- or middle-income countries.

Circumventing the ban

When Unearthed and Public Eye last compiled data on Europe’s exports of banned pesticides, the UK was by far the EU’s biggest exporter of banned pesticides, accounting for nearly 40% of the 81,600 tonnes notified for export.

The UK has since left the EU – but the data shows that EU exports have grown rapidly, driven by the prohibition of further chemicals on health or environmental safety grounds. 

Adjusting for Brexit by removing the UK’s exports from the 2018 statistics, the EU’s banned pesticide exports more than doubled between 2018 and 2024. Germany has now replaced the UK as by far the EU’s biggest exporter, accounting for more than 40% of the total weight notified for export last year.

Companies also notified ECHA of planned exports from a dozen other EU countries, with Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and Bulgaria making up the rest of the top five. This list is likely to change again in 2026, after a law banning the export of many banned pesticides came into effect in Belgium earlier this year.

Likewise, a law will take effect in France next year to close the key remaining loophole in that country’s ban on banned pesticide exports, after it was exposed in a 2024 Unearthed and Public Eye investigation. The initial law blocked companies from exporting pesticides containing banned chemicals, but left leeway for companies to export the substances in their undiluted forms, ready to be mixed into shop-ready products overseas. This loophole saw French authorities approve the export of around 5,400 tonnes of banned pesticides last year.

Both France and Belgium are among countries pushing the commission to move forward with EU-wide ban. France, the Netherlands and four other countries recently co-signed a letter from the Danish environment minister calling on the EU’s new environment commissioner to take immediate action to ban all the export of banned chemicals.

Some nations pushing for action told Unearthed and Public Eye that change must happen at EU level, because the way the customs union works undermines efforts to impose national bans. 

“The experience from national bans in other countries is that companies can circumvent the ban by exporting to companies in EU countries without a national ban and from there export the banned chemicals out of the EU,” said a spokesperson for the Danish Ministry of the Environment and Gender Equality.

This is because a product is not considered to be exported until it leaves the EU, meaning that multinationals with subsidiaries in various countries can simply find a different member state from which to export.

A spokesperson for the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management agreed that an EU initiative was needed because “national legislation might be circumvented easily”. She added that the large quantity of banned chemicals shipped from the Netherlands was “mainly due to the large port area of Rotterdam while production of the chemicals and pesticides concerned might take place elsewhere”.

Additional reporting: Onke Ngcuka