This is fine-ish, except that the imported oranges get checked only seldomly (if that) and are given a lot of leeway, making it very hard to compete if you grow them locally. Last couple of years saw some profit for growing them locally, but it's been times where there was literally no profit at all for 5+ years.

Funny story: he requested a permit to build a well, and ofc it takes forever so he just waited. After 4-5 years waiting, having even forgotten about it, someone called him: "we're here to inspect the well". What well? You haven't given me permission yet. "yes, we know, but people build them anyway before getting permission so we thought you'd do the same".

This was just after the Gros Michel had gone basically extinct because of monocropping. The banana companies hired scientists to figure out what to do that almost universally recommended diversifying the crop. But they calculated that it'd actually be cheaper to just double down on pesticide application and start again with another monocrop.

There's an incredible documentary about the banana industry history (and practices that continue to this day like banana companies paying gangs to assassinate local labor leaders) called Bananaland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRmtQht8-E

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic

Shouldn't EU ban ideally exports of good that it bans internally?

It is amazing that we have regulations for everything and that when they cannot enforce it, they blame someone else.

Different way of dealing with people depending on who, not what.

Also one of my worries with the mercusour trade deal. And any deal that involves meat imports from the US, with specific laxer regulation requirements (at least what Trump would like).

So using these pesticides only on products for export makes utterly no sense!

I assume the MRL the lowest amount which could possibly cause harm? If so then why does it matter for the rest of the products where the levels are below that?

It could be for potential environmental harm, but then the fact that these are being exported at all should tell you that they're being used, you don't have to test consumer goods.

Their recommendations include this:

>2. Automatically lower all maximum residue levels (MRLs) of non-approved pesticides to the limit of detection to prevent these substances from making their way back onto European plates via a dangerous ‘boomerang effect

But is this scientifically supported?

> Although these chemicals are not allowed on the EU market, they can still be exported from European Member States to third countries. From there, they can return to Europe as residues in imported food — a “toxic pesticides boomerang” that puts consumers at risk.

In the UK, tea means tea bags and that normally means tea bags made of a plastic/paper mix. If I remember, the bag material is made and then they heat it up to get the plastic out, revealing the holes, needed for the bag.

Of late there has been criticism of microplastics in tea bags, and the posh organic bags have fared quite badly. Fancy sachets are not necessarily it.

As for chemicals, not one farmer spends any money than what is the bare minimum, no matter what they do. They might have to put all kinds of toxic chemicals on crops but they are not going to waste money over-doing it, because they are tight with the money, at all times, under all circumstances.

So the question has to be asked, is it worth worrying about the worrying levels of chemicals in tea when there are worrying levels of microplastics that the body really cannot get rid of with some liver-fu?

But, are there more toxins? The working class British way to have tea is with milk and two sugars. The milk is designed for baby cows, not grown men, they should be 'weaned off' because there are all kinds of things in dairy that might not be toxins, but could be considered to be. For example the cholesterol and saturated fat. Next the sugar, which is fine in moderation, so long as you don't care for your teeth, and, when combined with saturated fat, can contribute to type two diabetes.

Clearly opinions vary regarding the health aspects of milk and sugar in tea, my grandmother almost made it to a century, consuming plenty. However, you can reduce the toxic load from drinking tea by getting rid of the microplastics by using plant-based teabags (even LIDL have them), not having milk and sugar in the tea and, only then, getting concerned about buying organic.

Organic does not mean no nasty chemicals, it means no synthetic nasty chemicals. However, it is still a good nice-to-have, but, realistically, if you want to cut your exposure to toxins, there are these other huge areas that are under our control, but those things are going to be controversial lifestyle choices. Just not using cars 'could' reduce your toxic load far more than any organic teabag.

My country at least (and probably yours too) is producing more organic products than ever before. People are also consuming organic products more than before.

Of course, the legal limits are purposefully designed to be well below the LOAEL, and those companies that were found to contain levels above them should face consequences. But to claim they "poison the people" isn't true.

From safety regulations to baby toys with lead paint.

The EU will probably do nothing again.

The downvotes aren't surprising, people who have spent enough time on this orange site tend to lose the plot

Local variants exist. But supermarkets are convenient and cheap.

Ever been to Innisfail? Have you seen them fly small Cessna's over the banana fields and absolutely drench them with pesticides?

They do this with all the crop fields in Aus.

These do involve foods from China though..

Believe me, the majority of “The rest of the world” does not protect its citizens from harmful food contamination.

If anything, this OP demonstrates that the EU regulations are futile (though that may be an overstatement).