Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Salerno.
It's going to start in a minute.
Speaker 3
Delegates, colleagues, friends, my name is Marcos Urellana, and I am the United Nations special rapporteur on toxics and human rights. This is a special procedure of the UN Human Rights Council that has been created in the understanding that exposure to hazardous substances and wastes can compromise the effective enjoyment of a range of internationally protected human rights, including the rights to life, health, and a healthy environment. I am very pleased to have the chance to join you today via this video recording, and share some reflections on hazardous pesticides and human rights. Every year, tens of thousands of tons of highly hazardous pesticides that are banned in the European Union are nevertheless manufactured for export. These odious double standards are a form of exploitation in the field of the global South.
While workers and their families suffer, pesticide manufacturers profit. In 2020, the European Commission released a chemical strategy that pledged to put an end to this abhorrent practice, yet it has yet to propose legislation to make good on its promise. Recognition that the human body is the same for each member of the human family regardless of residence or skin color should lead to effective bans on the export of prohibited pesticides. The moral imperative for a ban on the export of banned pesticides is clear. The export from Europe of banned pesticides inflicts serious harm on individuals and communities in developing countries.
Exposure to hazardous pesticides causes cancers, infertility, diabetes, neurological diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and disorders of the endocrine and immune systems, among other serious harms. It affects adults, but also newborns, causing birth defects and congenital malformations, as well as neurodevelopmental disabilities, including reduced intelligence quotient. 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. Certain industry actors have at times argued that if only workers used personal protective equipment, then banned pesticides could be used safely.
This ignores that such equipment is most often not available or accessible, especially to workers living in poverty, and that high temperatures in the fields often make protective gear impossible to use. This argument also puts the burden on the weakest link of the agricultural value chain, and it misses the ecosystem impacts, especially on pollinators and loss of biodiversity. Certain governments have argued that each country is sovereign to decide what to import. This argument overlooks the lack of capacity of most developing countries to manage information necessary to make such determinations. It also neglects the human rights obligations of states regarding the foreseeable consequences of their conduct in other countries.
Moreover, this argument ignores that in states with weak governance, sovereignty is often captured by and at the service of corporate interests, including because of corruption, and this to the detriment of human rights and food production for the local population. Certain actors have also argued that a European ban on the export of banned pesticides would simply displace production elsewhere, depriving European industry of income without solving the problem. This argument is morally untenable. If accepted, it would justify doing away with labor protections, social security, the abolition of slavery, and many other hard-fought human rights protections. Real leadership requires confronting the short-term economic costs of doing the right thing, and costs in the short term are a bet on the long term.
A ban on prohibited pesticides would stimulate innovation for safe alternatives, leading to economic advantages of new markets for first movers. A human rights-based approach supports determined action to put an end to the double standards. Yet, while the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of every child to live in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, children suffer heavily from exposures to hazardous pesticides given their stage of neurological development. This includes aerial and other spraying of highly hazardous pesticides over or around schools, further undermining educational opportunities. The International Labour Organization has also recognized a healthy environment as a fundamental right and principle at work.
However, the pesticide atlas of the Heinrich Boll Foundation has estimated that every year, tens of thousands of workers die and 350 million workers fall ill. The harm is thus widespread, systematic, and severe, and it affects future generations. All countries should cooperate to ban the export of banned pesticides and uphold the right to a toxic-free environment. But change requires a vision and a moral conviction. Some European countries, such as Belgium and France, are taking the lead in banning this abhorrent practice.
European institutions should also show leadership at the regional level and act to ban the export of banned pesticides. Thank you very much for your attention.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you. Mister Oriano couldn't be here with us, but I thought it was very important that we listen to him in that video. Now I'd like to give the floor to madam Judge. You're online. I hope the connection is good.
You have the floor for 7 minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you. I'd like to begin by thanking the subcommittee on human rights of the European Parliament for this opportunity to present the findings of the South African People's Tribunal on agrotoxins. Thank you for the introduction. So I am Navi Pillay, a former UN judge and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I chaired the tribunal together with commissioners Miss Filila Ntulli of the South African Human Rights Commission and Doctor Sophie Kisting Cancross, occupational health expert.
And I'm very happy that special rapporteur Marcus Oriana also addressed the tribunal. The tribunal in South Africa was convened by farm work organizations, civil society organizations, affected communities, as well as activists and experts, all of whom have been trying to draw attention to the issue of pesticides in South Africa for years. Over three days in March, the tribunal held public hearings and heard testimony from farm workers and dwellers from rural communities and fisherfolk affected by pesticide exposure and by the chemical disaster at a UPL warehouse in Durban. Scientists, public health experts, and environmental justice organizations also presented evidence. The tribunal jurors took the voices of victims who have historically been ignored directly to the South African parliament on 21 May 2025 to the parliamentary portfolio committee on agriculture, where we engaged with them, sparking internal debate about the notion that industrial agriculture is the only path to food security and placing on record the extensive human rights and labor violations associated with agrotoxins.
During this time, a tragic crisis was unfolding in South Africa. In October 2024, six children from a low-income community in Johannesburg died after exposure to the highly hazardous organophosphate pesticide, Turbofos. Turbofos is widely known as a street pesticide. Although restricted for agricultural use, it is illegally sold in small, unlabeled packets for domestic pest control in communities facing poor sanitation and waste services. As more cases of illness and deaths linked to pesticide-contaminated food emerged, pressure mounted on the 06/12/2025.
I'm happy to say that the South African parliament banned Turbofoss, a move that was welcomed by the South African Human Rights Commission, who said it was a historic milestone for the rights to health, water, safe environment, and food. After decades in which agrotoxins were taken for granted in food production, that assumption is now being publicly challenged. I will now summarize some of the key findings of the tribunal. First, the tribunal recognized the existence of environmental racism in pesticide exposure. Farm workers, farm dwellers, and marginalized communities, overwhelmingly Black and Colored, carry the greatest burden of exposure and its health impacts.
At the same time, pesticides burned elsewhere continue to be exported and used in South Africa, revealing troubling double standards in global chemical governance. These chemicals enter a country where pesticide regulation is already severely lacking. Much of South Africa's legal framework still rests on legislation dating back to 1947. This fragmented and outdated system is simply not capable of managing modern chemical risks. In some cases, it even undermines the ability to implement more modern treaties to which South Africa is a party, such as the Rotterdam convention, as chemicals must already be banned substances in South Africa for them to allow the refusal of imports.
In the outcomes of the strategic dialogue on the future of EU agriculture initiated by Oslo van der Hayden, a recommendation was made that EU leadership must end the practice of unethical double standards. Member States should stop exports of EU-banned hazardous pesticides to countries with less stringent regulations. Second, the tribunal found widespread noncompliance and weak enforcement of existing pesticide laws, with farm workers and communities reporting lack of proper safety measures, training, or oversight. Responsibilities are spread across several government departments but remain poorly coordinated, leaving workers, especially women, exposed without adequate protection, sanitation, or medical monitoring. Thirdly, the expert testimony heard by the tribunal revealed severe health impacts from pesticide exposure, including respiratory illness, neurological damage, reproductive harms, and cancers.
Evidence showed extensive exposure of children in agricultural communities leading to impaired cognitive functioning and developmental risks, and linked to illegal street pesticides for hundreds of deaths, with children making a significant share of these victims. Finally, the tribunal identified patterns of corporate impunity and regulatory capture, concerns also raised by the UN special rapporteur, Mr. Oriana. These harms are not isolated incidents, but the predictable result of a system that prioritizes profit over human health. Taken together, these findings reveal a governance system that is failing to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. And so, in response, the tribunal made several key recommendations.
First, South Africa must undertake a comprehensive reform of its pesticide governance system. It must also end the unjust double standards that allow pesticides banned in Europe to continue to be exported and used in countries like South Africa. Second, far stronger protections are urgently needed for farm workers, including mandatory training, proper protective equipment, effective inspections, and safe housing, water, and sanitation. Third, the tribunal calls for the creation of a national reparations and redress fund for communities harmed by pesticide exposure. Pesticide manufacturers must be held accountable for the health, environmental, and social costs of their products.
Finally, the tribunal emphasizes the need for a transition towards a safer and more sustainable agricultural system such as agroecology. This is also consistent with the European Green Deal and specifically the Farm to Fork strategy, which proposes to reduce pesticide use by half by 2030, as well as other important global commitments such as the global biodiversity framework's target seven, which commits to the same. In closing, behind every statistic are real people, workers, families, and children living with the consequences of chemical exposure. The tribunal therefore calls on all governments, industry, and international partners to act decisively to end double standards and to ensure accountability and uphold the rights to health, dignity, and a safe environment for all people in South Africa. Thank you.
Thank.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you for those comments. I will now give the floor to you, Madam Salmon. You have the floor. Seven minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, chair. I'd like to start by thanking the members of the human rights subcommittee of the European Parliament for this opportunity to engage with you this afternoon. I am Colette Solomon, and I work for an organization called Women on Farms Project, an organization that has been working with women farm workers and dwellers since 1996. In 2024, European pesticides producers issued plans to export 122,000 tons of banned pesticides to third countries, an increase of 50% compared to 2018. In addition to increased volumes, there was also an increase in the number of banned pesticides exported.
So the increase was 83%, moving from 41 pesticides to 75. In 2024, the EU exported 36 banned chemicals to South Africa. And in 2025, this number had risen to 47 banned chemicals exported to South Africa. It's important to note that these chemicals are shipped to farms where most women farm workers have no protective clothes and equipment, where pesticides are sprayed while women are working in the vineyards, where women are forced to reenter the vineyards just after they've been sprayed, where there are no toilets for women to relieve themselves, so they are also exposed to pesticides in that way. And there's no clean water or soap for women to wash their hands after handling vineyards that have been sprayed with pesticides.
But it's also important to note that the issue of pesticide exposure extends beyond the farm workers. In South Africa, many farm workers live on farms, and their homes and houses are situated either in the vineyards or very close to the vineyards. So when pesticides are sprayed, children, their families, and their homes are also contaminated by the drift of these pesticides. The European Parliament might ask, why are you not at the door of the South African Parliament? And I wish to assure members that we are.
Since 2019, we have been engaging as the Women on Farms Project with our government, holding them accountable for their primary responsibility to protect their own citizens. Over the years, increasing numbers of activists, farm worker organizations, trade unions, academics, and researchers have also been lobbying our government. And last year, we were part of the South African People's Tribunal which organized the tribunal last year, and where judge Pile was one of the jurors. So I want to assure you that the lobbying and the consistent work with our government and with our parliament has continued and will continue. However, we do believe that the European Parliament has an intrinsic and moral role and responsibility in this regard.
This is reflected in the European Commission's adoption in 2020 of the EU chemical strategy for sustainability, part of the European Green Deal, which in addition to aiming for a toxic-free environment within its own borders, actually and significantly went a step further. And it undertook to lead by example and to ensure that chemicals banned in the European Union are not produced for export to third countries. Sadly, more than five years have passed, and there's been very little tangible movement and progress on this commitment. Five years might seem like a very short span of time for the European Parliament and the European Commission, but for farm workers during these five years, thousands of farm workers and dwellers have continued to be exposed and harmed and poisoned by these banned pesticides. We are therefore calling on the European Parliament, and more specifically, this human rights subcommittee, to listen to the pleas, the cries, and the experiences of farm workers and to ensure that the European Commission, as a matter of great urgency, operationalizes its 2020 undertaking.
And for example, by releasing the impact assessment, which it has been involved in for a number of years, and which could then lead to the enactment of strong legislation that would end the export of banned pesticides. Again, we are calling on this subcommittee, human rights subcommittee, to end and to act on these gross human rights violations, end the racist double standard, stop the export of banned chemicals to South Africa. This human rights subcommittee will agree that the human rights and health and lives of South African farm workers have the same intrinsic and human value as the lives of European farmers and workers. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Thank you very much indeed. I will now give the floor to Madam Manfredi, who is a director from DGNV. From the commission, you have the floor.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's indeed also for me an honor to represent the European Commission a little bit last minute, and also with the clear explanation of the fact that in my capacities as director for zero pollution and water resilience, I oversee mainly the implementation of our relevant key inside the European Union. But nonetheless, work hand in hand, of course, with relevant colleagues that are overseeing more the impact of our intra-EU regulations on the international scene. Much has been said, and it's difficult not to agree. I fully agree with everything which has been stated by the eminent speakers before me.
It is a fact that today, the European Union has put in place a set of policy frameworks and laws that afford a rather good level of protection of our own consumers vis-à-vis the harms of pesticides. I must say that on top of the promises and statement made in the chemical strategy for sustainability, adopted in May 2021, a zero pollution action plan that contains a chapter eight with a clear commitment of the European Union to continue limit the export of pollution. This commitment is indeed very much uptaken in the global framework for biodiversity that has been agreed in Kunming, Montreal, some years ago. So the zero pollution driver of the European Union has also an international, I would say, ambition. The area of pesticides, as you know, is regulated very strictly inside our countries with sector-specific legislation on pesticides, which has enabled so far the EU to progressively ban those pesticides that have proven to be particularly harmful.
Speaker 8
Of course, this is always scope for further discussion, but even the second Zero Evolution Monitoring and Outlook report has proven that inside the European Union, there is an encouraging trend to the diminution of the use of particularly harmful and toxic pesticides. And I think these encouraging results inside the EU is due to the combination of the implementation of the regulatory framework, intra EU regulatory framework, and also, I would say, a change, at least a growing changing demand by consumers. Our consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the need to avoid harmful pesticides and are looking for a pesticide-free or, let's say, low pesticide content in our food chain. So these two elements have really proven very important when it comes to the intra U dimension. Yet when we look at what happens outside, essentially, it's fair to say that we are regulated by the prior informed consent regulation to which other speakers have made allusion, also pointing to the fact that, of course, if you have a regulation that essentially allows to export a pesticide provided that the other country says yes, you never know whether that yes is the result of a truly well thought through analysis or indeed this result also of poor governance. Actually, the evaluation of the prior informed consent regulation that we are about to publish is pointing to significant, let's say, undercapacity in many of the third countries vis a vis which we are exporting.
Speaker 7
So there could be also issues linked to poor resources, lack of appropriate coordination across different departments. So sometimes, we are, let's say, legally exporting pesticides that possibly have not even been thoroughly understood by the importing third countries. The other framework where we act together with third countries is indeed the Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention, and I just heard from the honorable judge who spoke before me that South Africa is a party to the Rotterdam convention in particular. This is very important because there we have a forum where we could more prominently bring forward particularly harmful substances such as the one that the South African parliament has recently banned on its territory for global banning. And this is something on which, of course, as European Union, you could count on your determinant support to drive global bans of your air measures.
Another important development that I would like to highlight is the fact that we have recently agreed at the United Nations level, and I consider this a very, very important development, to set up an intergovernmental panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution prevention. This intergovernment panel is in its infancy. It's being really literally set up. There have been a couple of institutional meetings to promote its establishment, but I would say it represents the third pillar that was so far lacking in tackling the triple planetary crisis because we know we have since long, as you know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We have a fantastic Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity.
We didn't have the one on pollution. And this is now being set up, and I think it is for our countries like South Africa and others to help in identifying the most harmful substances. Again, as European Union, what we can offer is the fact that internally, we are trying to become stronger in understanding and prioritizing also the need for action by pulling together the best scientific expertise of our many European agencies that are working on these files. As we have heard, there are contaminations that go through food, and yet we have the European Food Safety Agency that plays an important role. There is Diazardos Nest Test as such.
In the European Union, we are helped by the European Chemicals Agency. We are looking at the impact across air, water, and soil. Here, we have the scientific expertise of the European Environment Agency that can help us. So we could provide the support in order to come up with an agenda of international activities that really prioritize action there where it is needed. The underlying question that the panel is raising today is outcomes that after having announced something back in 2020, a total export ban kind of in 2020, the commission has not yet acted.
Let's face it. We are in very changed geopolitical times, with trade wars going on around us. And I think as the European Union, we also are hesitant to go towards measures that may signify that we stop a certain type of export of pesticides, which are paradoxically more controlled than pesticides that could continue to be exported by other parts of the world to those same third countries that end up being the victim thereof. If the purpose of the export ban is to protect the environment and the health of the importing countries, well, we really must create a level playing field and deepen the efforts that we are leading in an event under our wider agenda for more bilateral and relevant multilateral trade agreements with countries that also see that environmental, social, and economic sustainability is the way forward. European Union is trying to become more strategic in this sector, precisely to reach those goals, but to reach them in the different geopolitical context in which we have to operate.
Many thanks, and also count on our support under the water angle. You know that this is the year of the United Nations Water Conference. I've heard a lot about even the lack of clean access to water and sanitation, and impacts of pesticide in water. This is an area where we also work very strongly within the United Nations. Thank you again.
Udo Bullmann
Well, I do not intend to stand in the way of our colleagues here, and I'm looking forward to having a very fruitful communication with the members. But if you ask me, never ask a member of the European Parliament to speak, because that is dangerous. They will do. This is what we are here for. So very quickly, thanks to our guests. Thanks to the expertise that was brought into our conversation by Marcus Orellana, the special rapporteur of the United Nations by Navi Pillay, and her juridical expertise and the reference to the tribunal results in last March in South Africa.
Many thanks to Colette for enlightening our debate with the very concrete situations on the ground, the situation of workers, of communities, of families, especially also, and the danger that goes along with the current practices. And also, many thanks to madam Manfredi jumping into the representation role for the commission. What I think is that we do not have a lack of evidence. Evidence is on the table. Evidence is on the table from the reports of today.
Evidence is on the table by the studies that have been undertaken. I'm always a friend of scientific research. So if there is more to be done, we will welcome it. But we do not have a lack of information. We know about the figures.
What we lack is that the European institutions walk the talk. And I would say, yes. I understand the idea of some actors, entrepreneurs, business people, sometimes also of the commission, to say, well, if we ban dangerous stuff and will not export it anymore. Others may do. Okay.
Put this argument on the table. But I honor very much all arguments, but let us not talk. This is my only point where I would like to criticize today, the input. Let us not talk about the level playing field. Let us not use these words.
A level playing field is terminology which is appropriate if we are talking about sound economic competition. But we should not go for a level playing field to kill. This is not an appropriate language. And I would suggest that we are looking with all due respect to all stakeholders in that game. It's not a game, but in that field, policy field, let us creatively look for solutions, strategic solutions.
Yes. If the commission is ready to go globally, we welcome it. Let's do it. Rotterdam Convention. Let's do it.
Let's try it. And if we are successful, wonderful, but this is not enough. We cannot afford a situation where Europe goes for double standards, protecting our workers, protecting our consumers, and allows dangerous stuff to endanger the livelihoods, the lives, the health, and the environment in our partner countries. And here, we are looking for a legislative initiative. Legislative initiative has to be put on the table.
And if it was on us, if it was on me, we will call for that. And we called for it already several times. So it's on the commission to react to that, and we are waiting for it. And we are demanding that, full stop. We are in collaboration with South Africa, I would say, in a privileged situation.
We are talking about South Africa today, but we are in a privileged situation because especially last year, we very much intensified the collaboration, and I welcome that between our top representatives. We had five important meetings between Costa, Josef van der Leyen, president Ramaphosa, very successful ones, strategic partnerships. We have found agreements on two new contracts, very important ones, the CTIP, the memorandum of understanding on minerals, two major achievements in last November. And we have, of course, also done our very best to intensify the parliamentary collaboration. This is an exception that South African parliamentarians and European parliaments representatives had not only met once, they had met twice last year to prepare for the ongoing meetings.
And I found a whole lot of common ground with the representatives, with our colleagues of the South African Parliament. We had an excellent resolution, and this resolution that was passed last November here with honorable Mahoma Pelo from the South African parliament and his colleagues in the delegation was founded on the idea that what we are out for is the collaboration of our people in the best interest of our people, with the idea that drives our efforts and the collaboration, the bilateral one, the well-being of all. And what could be better for the well-being of all than to protect the environment and the health of our citizens? So I promise that we will take that on in our next delegation conversations, that is foreseen already for the summer. We will have two parliamentary delegations to South Africa, one of the foreign affairs committee in May.
Also in May, the trade committee is going to South Africa, and we will do our very best to include that in the agenda.
Mounir Satouri
Merci. Thank you, Houdon. Well, I was living dangerously, but I don't regret asking you to take the floor. I'll now ask those coordinates in the room to take the floor. Catarina Vieira, first of all.
Catarina Vieira
Thanking the panelists for your expertise, for what you brought in today, and start also with something quite clear. The fact that we continue to export pesticides that are banned for use in the European Union because they are not safe, because of the damage that they do to people and to the environment, is absolutely without defense. It's a completely indefensible policy, and I think most of us in this room can agree on this. Because, also, we know that this has is having devastating human rights impacts in many countries around the world, not just in South Africa, and it's contributing to extreme harm to health, to clean water, to the environment, to soil, all sorts of pollution, and for human health, importantly. And I think it's also good to put names to what we mean.
We mean pregnant women who live in neighboring communities whose children are born with neurodevelopmental delays, with behavioral issues, with lower cognitive scores. There's plenty of research on that. We're talking about farmers who don't have good access to protective equipment, and even with that, farmers who developed Parkinson's, who developed infertility. We're talking about numerous health issues that honestly should shame us all for the fact that this continues to happen. And let's also be honest, it is also European companies who don't seem to have enough money to take their responsibility in, for example, collecting the empty pesticide containers after they've sold them there, and to make sure that farmers don't have to throw them on the ground or on the water or burn them and inhale the fumes.
Companies that don't pay the price to take care of that trash are the same companies paying for dinners in Brussels to speak at their lobbying meetings. So let's make that all very clear before we kick off the discussion. And the evidence is there. It was presented by the experts. There's lots of research online as well.
And so I really want to take this as an opportunity to speak with the commission, and I really appreciate Miss Manfredi being here today. And I understand that it is not specifically your concern within the commission, these matters, and then I'm sorry for that. And then I wonder, where are your colleagues? Why couldn't they make it? Why weren't they interested or available for this exchange?
And I want to touch on a couple of things you said. You said, and it's true that European consumers really care about pesticide-free products, but there's research from last year from the Pesticide Action Network that shows 69 EU-banned hazardous pesticides available in food sold here in the European Union. So this goes against the policies that the commission is very well doing in terms of internal consumption, protection of consumers, it's all coming back because, you know, we're exporting and it's being used and it's coming back to us as well to our health in Europe. And I agree with you. Global networks and intergovernmental panels on pollution are very important and welcome.
But as the previous speaker said, there is a concrete legislative opportunity here, a ban on exports of things that aren't good enough to use in Europe, and they're not good enough to use elsewhere. And I ask, why has that not been delivered? And you already started to answer that with geopolitical times, and trade wars. But how would you plan to create a level playing field if no one takes the first step? If we don't set our standards, which is what we are as European Union as well, standard setters in environmental policy, in health policy.
If we don't take the first step, how are we ever going to get other countries to join us in what we want to achieve? And, also, I know you're not here from DG Trade, but because you mentioned trade agreements, I agree again. Multilateralism is very important. But in which of the many FTAs that we've been negotiating until now, do we have a credible, concrete, time bound response to the issue of pesticides? Because I'm afraid I don't see it.
But if you see it otherwise, I would like to hear it. So my call is very clear. This is an extremely important issue. We've had a commitment from the Commission. It's the same commission that is now ahead.
I know the times have changed, but the data, the facts, and the human lives impacted by this, that has not changed, and we really need to see action on this now.
Firstly,
Speaker 12
I'd like to thank all of our panelists here today. That has just confirmed how pressing and important the situation is, the issues we're discussing here today. And I would like to fully agree with Mister Bullman and the previous speakers as well. Madam Manfredi, I'm delighted to see you here today, but I'm also aware that this is in your area of one of your specialties, so it would be great if your colleagues who were dealing with the matter could also be here, I think, because this is something which is important on a global level. And, there are many similar cases when it comes to, for example, financial transactions and many other topics where we've often tried to find a solution on a global level.
We've tried to take the necessary steps forward. So I do think that doing one, you could do both at the same time. We could act on both fronts. So I would ask the commission to take concrete measures on an EU level dealing with the EU companies. I think that's a would be an important step.
But nevertheless, Madam Freddy, thank you very much indeed for joining us today. You accepted to join us, and I am very grateful that we did have a representative from the European Commission here with us today.
Mounir Satouri
I've got a brief question, or rather, comment. I'm not entirely convinced, Miss Manfredi, by your argumentation. You're saying that the EU believes that pesticides are dangerous for humans, for the environment, can cause serious diseases, and that they are problematic when it comes to fertility, can harm babies, and that others will continue to export them. And we're hiding by the argument that we said we have ruled for our exports, so that's better. But it's about people and making them sick, making the environment sick.
So I'm not convinced. Four years ago, the commission committed to an impact assessment. I know that there are economic factors which are relevant to a lot of businesses, but we need to know when this impact assessment will come out, because we need to start making decisions on this matter. And then this is also tied in with what farmers in Europe are saying. European farmers are complaining.
We had them out here outside Parliament a couple of weeks ago, and we're debating. They're complaining about two things. They want mirror clauses. They don't want to have an, or they want a level playing field and the same standards to apply for both sides. And then it's about imports.
We're banned from using certain inputs on food, but we're importing these same substances. And that's harming everyone apart from the lobbies who are making a killing on our backs, on the backs of our farmers, and first and foremost, on the back of the health of farmers abroad, in partner countries and the environment in these countries. This is the logic of an industrial minority. How much longer do we want to follow that and sacrifice health and the environment here and abroad? We need this impact assessment.
It needs to be objective, and then we need to think about the legislation. This cannot continue. I've got a question for you. Well, you're a great judge, and you've been a great advocate of this cause. I was wondering why it is so difficult to find an agreement on this matter?
Why is it so hard to get a clear political commitment? Why are politicians not courageous enough? And why can't we legislate on this matter? And, well, with that, I would hand it back. We've got a bit of a problem with the online connection, so I'll let Miss Salomon start maybe.
Speaker 6
With respect to political commitment, I think one of the biggest challenges is the power of corporate interests, corporate capture, corporate lobbying with respective governments. We know that they have a lot of economic clout, a lot of economic power. There's always the threat of food security being affected and so on, despite the fact that there are increasing numbers of studies that show that there are alternatives, there are bio alternatives, and that food security is not necessarily threatened. So I really do think that it is around corporate capture and corporate power, and I suppose prioritizing profits above lives and prioritizing profits of the powerful against the lives and health of marginalized groups like farm workers. And I think, therefore, it's imperative that the European Parliament, the European Commission. So I am very encouraged by what mister Bullman has said about the increased collaboration between South Africa and the European Parliament about the upcoming delegations visits to South Africa because I think what would also add to our cause and to our own lobbying with our own government and parliament is if the European Parliament and if the European Commission also indicates and leads by example by implementing and supporting our government to indeed ban the icides that have been banned in the EU, and that has been our consistent call and the pressure we have put on our own government.
And I think it just will be bolstered by similar pressure and sentiments from the European Parliament. Thank you.
Speaker 7
So first of all, maybe to clarify also in terms of division of political responsibilities that, clearly, this is an area where, in particular, commissioner Vareilli was responsible for legislation, specific set of specific legislation on pesticides and commissioner Safkovich when it comes to vice president Safkovich when it comes to trade agreements, a primary responsibility, but commissioner Roswell, so the commissioner that is with whom I'm more directly working as overarching responsibility for, let's say, the sound implementation of our zero pollution ambition and, of course, legislation on chemicals, so the hazardousness of the substances that are also exported. So as you see, in terms of political implication, it's important that there is a coordinated action between different commission services and different political actors. So I can only encourage the European Parliament to continue deepening the dialogue with all relevant colleagues. I can only restate, of course, the commitment in principle from our side to continue working towards more effective rules, also to protect our borders and to prevent harmful exports. On the other hand, it is important indeed that additional clarity is made on the typology of these exported pesticides, their level of hazardousness.
And I must say that all this market data really needs indeed further analysis. I have taken note of the wish of this parliament to have access to an impact assessment, which was never finalized, to the best of my understanding. Typically, the commission publishes when it has decided to issue a legislative proposal. This has not yet been the case. So I take note of your position.
And I've really been listening very carefully to all the arguments which have been brought by all the parties. Of course, sympathize, fully agree on the need to, you know, secure further action, and this will be brought to the appropriate levels. Thank you.
Mounir Satouri
Still an issue with the connection. Regrettably, we're going to have to conclude without giving the floor to our guest, which I regret, but there's a technical problem with the connection. I feel like grief, I say, that today's exchange will help us in making the victims' voices heard and fuel thought on how to best legislate. The most efficient thing, I think, would be to send a letter to the commissioner to express the positions and concerns we've expressed. We could maybe co-sign this letter to the commissioner.
That would be one step among many, which I think would express the principles we defend. In this house, we defend the general interest and not the interest of a few businesses or lobbies. And I do hope that we'll get to a point where we have legislation that's in the interest of our citizens, farmers, and also people in third countries. So we'll do our best. I didn't get any concrete information on the impact assessment, but we're impatiently waiting for it.
Okay. Now I would encourage you to go to Spinelli 302, where we've got a meeting association with the democracy support and election group. Future democracy to support a battle of stories session. Okay. I've got other responsibilities.
So Martha will be representing this committee, and I would like to thank you all for your participation. Have a nice rest of the day.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.