Thread by @josiecoh

1/ UK-Australia deal "Agreement in Principle" published today by both Governments.

The SPS section appears to confirm many of @PAN_UK's fears that the deal will weaken UK #pesticide standards.

Here’s how…
gov.uk/government/pub…

2/ It agrees to "recognition of the principle of equivalence" which means achieving the same regulatory objective/level of protection by different means. #Australiatradedeal #Australiadeal

3/ This opens the door for Australia to argue that UK bans and restrictions on Australian food products which don’t meet UK pesticide standards are not safer to consumers but are designed to keep out imported products.

4/ For example, UK currently bans food imports containing detectable residues of lethal herbicide paraquat (banned in UK but permitted in Australia). Under this clause, Australia could argue that UK ban on food containing paraquat is unscientific and push for UK to accept them.

5/ Most worryingly, Agreement also includes "recognition of the importance of ensuring that respective SPS measures are based on scientific principles". Seems sensible right? WRONG...

6/ Endorsing "science-based" regulation may appear to be politically neutral, but concept long been used by some Governments and pesticide industry as veiled and publicly palatable way to attack the Precautionary Principle.

7/ Now that the UK has agreed to ensure that its pesticide regulation is "science-based", Australia can challenge UK bans on Australian agricultural exports which are based on concerns regarding pesticide levels.

8/ E.g. Australia could challenge UK ban on imports containing detectable residues of chlorpyrifos by arguing there is scientific uncertainty. Plenty of evidence that chlorpyrifos harms children's brain development but not "enough" for Australia where its still allowed for use.

9/ Example 2 - when evidence emerged that neonicotinoids were driving bee declines, UK Government was able to support a ban on their use on basis that there was sufficient cause for concern. They did not have to wait for the evidence to be definitive, an often unattainable goal.

10/ SPS section also includes two clauses on consultation information sharing. Again, sounds good right? But these aren't just transparency requirements....

11/ They provide the opportunity for foreign lobby groups, including Australian agribusiness, to apply pressure directly to UK regulators to approve new pesticides that exporters want to use, and to UK weaken safety limits.

12/ Caveat: while it doesn’t look good we still don’t have full text of agreement and much will come down to precise wording. Perhaps some of these clauses will be qualified in some way which protects UK pesticide standards from being undermined. We can only hope!!