Across many European Union countries, Spain included, a number of pesticide-using devices remain in use even after formal bans. The debate centers on health and environmental risks tied to these substances, a concern raised by PAN Europe, an alliance of organizations focused on reducing pesticide harm.
The document describes this as a regulatory loophole that lets governments issue so-called emergency exemptions. These exemptions can keep banned chemicals on the market under urgent or default conditions, a practice that critics say invites widespread abuse. The result is that prohibited pesticides may still appear in the food chain and threaten ecosystems, according to Carlos de Prada, a leading advocate within PAN Europe.
Carlos de Prada argues that continuing to permit banned pesticides jeopardizes human health and the environment. He calls for an end to what some countries label emergency exemptions, noting that many of these chemicals are toxic and carry risks such as cancer, mutagenicity, genetic harm, or serious damage to pollinators, among other concerns.
13 permits in Spain
PAN Europe reports indicate there were 236 emergency permits issued for 14 pesticide active ingredients across the EU from 2019 through 2022, covering 24 of the substances studied. While most EU states allow these exemptions, Austria led with 20 approvals, followed by Finland with 18, Denmark with 17, and Romania with 16. Spain ranked eighth in approvals, tied with Belgium and Poland, at 13 permits.
Farmers applying pesticides, agencies, and other stakeholders are often cited in discussions about these exemptions. The report argues that what should have remained a narrow exception has been used as a de facto permission slip for restricted chemicals.
PAN Europe notes that in many cases, member states authorize exemptions without clearly signaling an emergency, and there is frequently a lack of viable non-chemical alternatives. The organization asserts that both the member states and the European Commission have allowed practices that do not align with agricultural best practices, effectively granting the industry a loose license to keep toxic pesticides on the market.
The report cites an example from Spain in which the national Ombudsman questioned the Ministry of Agriculture’s practice of granting certain exemptions without solid factual justification, labeling those decisions as emergency in name only.
Nearly half of the derogations involve neonicotinoid insecticides, a group known for harming pollinators. Diquat, a herbicide used in grain drying, appears in a large portion of exemptions as well. Critics point out that its use can raise residue levels and does not align with harvest-time needs, raising questions about the normal farming rationale behind these permissions.
Concentration of powers in Murcia
The 1,3-dichloropropene case shows how emergency permits have been issued to pesticide companies and, in Spain, even to a public authority, the Directorate of Agriculture for the Region of Murcia. That body represents a notable share of EU exemptions and has defended its actions by citing pressure from intensive farming that favors certain pests, while arguing that alternative farming methods were not feasible.
PAN Europe contends that many exemptions do not meet EU law criteria because they lack a genuine emergency justification. It also emphasizes that non-chemical or less toxic alternatives exist, challenging the legitimacy of the exemptions themselves.
For further context, PAN Europe published a detailed report describing these irregularities and urging policymakers to revisit how exemptions are granted and monitored. The document is available as a public resource for stakeholders seeking transparency in pesticide regulation .
The overarching message from PAN Europe is clear: the current framework has allowed practices that skirt rigorous safety standards and environmental safeguards, effectively enabling continued use of banned pesticides in some EU markets .
In closing, the report highlights that certain substances have drawn particular attention due to their pronounced risks—whether through direct health effects or ecological disruption. The discussion underscores the need for stronger governance, more robust evaluation of emergency exemptions, and a push toward safer, non-chemical alternatives where feasible.
Reference work: PAN Europe report on banned pesticides still widely used in 2023 .
……….
The environmental department notes remain part of the public record, with ongoing calls for greater transparency and stricter adherence to EU pesticide regulations.