Argentina challenged European agricultural protectionism at the World Trade Organization

The European Union is moving forward with the creation of regulatory obstacles to block the entry of imported agricultural and food products by eliminating pesticide tolerance levels for imports and not allowing pesticide residues whose use is not authorized in the European Union in products imported into the European Union, which Argentina challenged at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Argentina also expressed its strong concern over the recent measure adopted by France on January 8, 2026 (which anticipates the EU regulation about to enter into force), suspending imports of food containing residues of the substances glufosinate, mancozeb, thiophanate-methyl, carbendazim and benomyl, and stated that the measure lacked scientific justification. These measures are in line with the EU proposal entitled "Vision for Agriculture and Food" (2025), successor to the "Farm to Fork" strategy, which seeks to "Ensure that all products meet the same standards: harmonize the rules for imported products to ensure that the EU's ambitious standards do not create a competitive disadvantage, and fully enforce food security, as it remains a non-negotiable priority."

The nature of the conflict: from food safety to sectoral competitiveness

The European argument rests on the supposed internal consistency of its agricultural policy: having restricted the use of certain agrochemicals within EU territory, the EU seeks to extend that requirement to imported products. Argentina objected to this logic with technical precision before the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) on March 11, 2026, pointing out that maximum residue limits (MRLs) are instruments designed to ensure food safety, that is, to protect consumer health, and not to level the playing field for European farmers. This distinction is not semantic, as it has direct legal consequences under WTO law. The SPS Agreement requires that every measure of this kind be established on the basis of a scientific risk assessment, guided by recognized international standards, chiefly those of the Codex Alimentarius, and proportionate to the level of protection that the importing member legitimately pursues. When a measure is based exclusively on the intrinsic hazard properties of a substance, without considering actual consumer exposure or toxicological dose-response evidence, it abandons the realm of risk assessment and becomes a disguised restriction on trade. Argentina's position before the SPS Committee warned precisely about this deviation, since setting MRLs for reasons other than consumer safety is consistent neither with the principles of the SPS Agreement nor with Codex standards.

Sectoral impact: exports from Argentina and other agriculturally efficient countries in the line of fire

For Argentina, the reasoning is not abstract. Agricultural products make up the value chains with the greatest potential for integration into the European market and are, precisely, the sectors most sensitive to changes in MRLs. A tightening of residue limits, especially if set at zero or at the analytical limit of detection for substances whose use is permitted in third countries, has an immediate effect on trade predictability: exporters cannot plan crop seasons or guarantee compliance with quality protocols without certainty about the regulatory parameters that will govern the destination market. This point was highlighted by the Argentine delegation to the WTO: "MRLs must provide predictability in the supply of agri-food chains". Predictability is not a regulatory luxury but a necessary condition in international trade in agricultural and processed products, whose planning requires horizons of at least one crop season. Abrupt or discretionary changes to MRLs, especially when they respond not to new scientific evidence but to European domestic policy objectives, destroy that predictability and raise compliance costs to levels that, in practice, function as non-tariff barriers. Argentina stated that the fact that the mere detection of a substance determined the rejection of shipments, without a full risk assessment that took dietary exposure into account, lacked scientific justification and became an arbitrary measure, incompatible with the obligations assumed by WTO members under the SPS Agreement. Argentina further indicated that the imposition of measures of this kind generated regulatory fragmentation and legal and commercial uncertainty, and affected both trade within the EU and the multilateral trading system. Canada, for its part, also stressed that the EU approach did not reflect the diversity of agricultural production systems among WTO member states, which would create unnecessary barriers to trade. The European contradictions were aptly pointed out by Paraguay, which also recalled the Declaration of March 3, 2026 of the Southern Agricultural Council, which warned that the initial unilateral measure adopted by France lacked a scientific basis, was incompatible with the EU import tolerances (in force at the time) and the standards adopted by the Codex, and could disproportionately affect developing countries by reducing their market access, increasing compliance costs and undermining predictability.

The MERCOSUR-EU Agreement: the risk of an implementation stripped of substance

The trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union, whose definitive parliamentary ratification is advancing unevenly across European capitals during 2026, includes sanitary and phytosanitary provisions that seek to promote regulatory convergence and transparency. However, the proliferation of SPS measures whose scientific basis is questionable creates a scenario in which the formal agreement may coexist with operational obstacles that strip it of real commercial substance. The European Union must not wall off access to its market with sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade that prevent market access. We have already seen how it acted on the issue of honey packaging, establishing new requirements that jeopardize Argentine exports from July 2026, and now with this measure. European regulatory creativity, fueled by a highly active European Commission and Parliament, should serve trade integration and not the opposite.

Argentina's position in the SPS Committee: systemic coherence and defense of multilateralism

Argentina's intervention before the WTO SPS Committee regarding the European initiative cannot be read solely as the defense of a sectoral export interest. It has a systemic dimension: challenging the use of MRLs as instruments of domestic agricultural policy means defending the integrity of the multilateral trading system and the role the SPS Agreement plays within it. If the practice of invoking health objectives to disguise protectionist measures becomes entrenched, the SPS Agreement loses its effectiveness as a multilateral discipline and becomes a regulatory cover for discretionary restrictions. Argentina's position coincides with that of other agricultural exporting members, Brazil, Australia, the United States, Canada, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile and Bolivia, which have expressed similar concerns on SPS matters before the WTO and before the Southern Agricultural Council. This convergence of positions forms a de facto coalition whose formal articulation within the WTO framework is strategically important to amplify the challenge to the European initiative.

Setting maximum residue limits for reasons other than protecting consumer safety, or based solely on the hazard properties of the product without a risk assessment that considers actual exposure, departs from the principles of the SPS Agreement and constitutes a distortion of the multilateral trading system that Argentina, and MERCOSUR as a whole, has the strategic obligation to challenge with consistency, data and technical coordination in every available forum.

Outlook and considerations for the agri-export sector

Given this scenario, it is essential that the Argentine private sector, particularly the agricultural chambers, food exporting companies and technical bodies such as SENASA, put together a strategy of systematic regulatory monitoring that identifies, sufficiently in advance, changes in European MRLs and assesses their compatibility with Codex Alimentarius standards. A reactive, company-by-company response is insufficient in the face of a European regulatory process that operates on its own timelines and logic. Argentina's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Mercosur's representation to the EU must maintain a coherent technical position in the WTO SPS Committee, precisely documenting every initiative that departs from the scientific foundations required by the SPS Agreement and building case files that would allow, if necessary, the dispute settlement mechanisms to be triggered both at the WTO and under the Mercosur-EU Agreement itself. The implementation process of the Mercosur-EU Agreement requires both parties to fulfill their market access commitments coherently and without tricks. Tolerating scientifically unfounded SPS measures in the name of European agricultural policy constitutes a systemic risk that calls for a response that goes beyond short-term diplomatic management and rests on a long-term strategy.

Sources

• WTO — SPS Committee documentation. ID 621
• According to the FAO: "A maximum residue limit (MRL) is the highest level of a pesticide residue that is legally tolerated in or on food or feed when pesticides are applied correctly in accordance with Good Agricultural Practice" fao.org
• EU - MRLs: Maximum Residue Limits for pesticides established by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, consolidated version of 3/7/2026 (ART. 7)