Canada’s efforts to boost food exports could face a significant obstacle: the European Union is considering restricting food imports containing residues of certain pesticides banned for use within the bloc’s borders.
The proposed restrictions come as the Carney government loosens Canada’s own pesticide laws, raising questions about whether Canada is moving further out of step with its third-largest agricultural trading partner.
“Canada has a reputation for quality and reliability that doesn’t come out of thin air,” said Phil Mount, vice-president of policy for the National Farmers Union, which represents thousands of Canadian farmers nationwide.
“If we’re seen to be letting our standards slip — that is the trust that we have generated over decades, especially our farmers and farm products — that can evaporate quickly.”
Banned chemicals
The European Union is proposing tighter limits on residues of certain hazardous pesticides that are already banned for use within its borders.
If passed, the rules could sharply reduce how much of certain pesticides the EU allows in imported foods.
The restrictions would target pesticides that contain “certain particularly hazardous properties, have negative effects on honeybees or accumulate in unacceptable levels in groundwater,” the proposal states.
A European Commission study examined how such restrictions on 18 pesticides could affect international trade.
Three of the 18 are used in Canadian agriculture: the herbicide glufosinate and the fungicides mancozeb and metiram, which are used on crops such as canola, apples and potatoes.
The study identified $1.4 billion in annual Canadian agricultural exports involving potentially affected commodities. For context, Canada exported $6.7 billion in agri-food and seafood products to the bloc in 2025.
Glufosinate was Canada’s third highest-selling herbicide by weight of active ingredient in 2024, while mancozeb was its highest-selling fungicide, according to Health Canada.
Canada’s residue limit for glufosinate on canola is twice the EU’s published limit.
However, Canada’s higher permitted residue limits do not necessarily mean its agricultural exports exceed existing EU standards. Canadian products must comply with EU residue limits to be sold in the European market.
Trade concerns
Canadian officials have raised concerns about the EU’s proposed restrictions through Canada-EU trade committees.
A June 2026 briefing note by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada warned that the EU’s proposed restrictions could significantly affect Canadian exports of grains, oilseeds and pulses.
On Oct. 20, Agriculture Minister Heath MacDonald met with European officials in Brussels and Paris. His office is advocating for “science- and risk-based outcomes that are aligned with international standards and trade obligations,” MacDonald’s spokesperson told Canadian Affairs.
The spokesperson added that Canadian agricultural products consistently test well below internationally recognized pesticide residue limits and are safe for consumption.
A European Commission spokesperson told Canadian Affairs that existing EU rules already prohibit pesticide residues that pose risks to consumers. The new proposal would go further, seeking to ensure that particularly hazardous pesticides banned domestically for health or environmental reasons “should not be allowed back in through imported food.”
The spokesperson said tighter limits would be considered case-by-case, taking into account their potential impacts, EU food security and international commitments.
If the EU’s proposal is adopted, the regulation would apply directly across all 27 EU member states without requiring individual countries to pass their own laws.
Emerging science
Canadian environmental and health organizations note Canada and the European Union are already far apart on pesticide use: Canada continues to authorize 121 pesticides banned for use in the EU.
They also worry that recent changes to Canada’s pesticide laws could further exacerbate the divide.
In June, Parliament passed legislation allowing cabinet to authorize certain pesticides for emergency control of serious infestations on economic or food security grounds — even when Health Canada has concluded they pose unacceptable environmental risks..
Nearly two dozen scientists from 13 Canadian universities opposed this change, warning of potential adverse health consequences.
The government has also since proposed Bill C-31, which would replace mandatory, 15-year pesticide re-evaluations with continuous assessments to determine whether a product’s risks have increased enough to warrant a full review.
Health Canada says the current review process contributes to regulatory backlogs and that continuous assessments would better target emerging risks.
But a coalition of environmental, health and farming organizations, including Vigilance OGM, the National Farmers Union and the David Suzuki Foundation, has urged Ottawa to retain mandatory reviews.
Mount, of the National Farmers Union, says farmers and farm workers can provide evidence of risks not identified when pesticides are first approved.
“We don’t know today what research and re-evaluation is going to show us in five years, in 10 years on different pesticides,” he said.
Thibault Rehn, executive director of Vigilance OGM, a Quebec-based environmental advocacy organization, warns that the changes could widen the regulatory gap with Europe.
“If Canada stops [the mandatory re-evaluation of pesticides] and Europe continues doing [mandatory evaluations], the gap between Europe and Canada will grow,” he said.
Concerns about pesticide residues have already surfaced in Canadian agricultural exports.
In November 2025, a French television investigation revealed glyphosate and diquat residues in Canadian lentils sold in French supermarkets, prompting recalls of two brands. Canadian officials said the tested lentils complied with EU residue limits. (Neither pesticide was among the 18 examined in the European Commission’s trade impact study.)
Mount worries incidents like these, as well as changes to Canada’s pesticide standards, could damage Canada’s reputation abroad.
“This isn’t going to improve our reputation internationally,” Mount said. “Certainly, it’s going to raise big red flags for some of our largest potential new trading partners.”
