This month, my head was turned by a panel session organised by the Global Coalition of Fresh Produce on solutions for improving transparency, fairness and efficiency in global fresh produce shipping. The discussion, held in Madrid, Spain, culminated in plans for a voluntary charter to address supply chain issues under the auspices of the Global Coalition of Fresh Produce.
For those not already familiar, the Global Coalition of Fresh Produce’s raison d’être is to support food security and public health by voicing “solutions to disruptions of global fresh produce supply chains” and demonstrating the need to recognise this sector as a public good. They do this through open dialogue channels, whether it’s with the WTO, UN FAO, World Shipping Council or industry players from retail to shipping lines.
The Madrid panel, which brought together voices from the entire fresh produce chain, highlighted the importance of communication and collaboration among all actors to reduce inefficiencies – and crucially, costs – for all those involved. They also emphasised the need for stronger ‘community-building’ across the supply chain and greater transparency through shared data, clear terminology and performance reporting.
However, if we are going to talk about reducing inefficiencies for the laudable aim of cost reduction, then that discussion absolutely must include phytosanitary treatments. We’ve seen growing momentum behind new product registrations in recent months, with new, well-evidenced and more efficient treatments coming to market. It’s great to see both regulators and industry having an ever-increasing focus on these issues, clearly of the same mind as the Madrid panel.
If we’re serious about reducing inefficiencies and ensuring a level playing field, then we also need to confront a longstanding imbalance in the way products are regulated. Many of the legacy fumigants and phytosanitary products still in use today were approved decades ago under far less rigorous standards. They continue to operate under outdated risk assessments that would never withstand the scrutiny applied to modern products. These legacy chemicals often carry well-documented environmental and human-health drawbacks, yet they remain widely used simply because they were ‘grandfathered’ into the system.
By contrast, any new entrant today must meet an extraordinary level of regulatory proof—comprehensive toxicological data, occupational safety validation and detailed environmental impact assessments. The disparity is striking. The result is that older, more hazardous chemistries can remain entrenched in the market while safer, innovative alternatives face years of testing and red tape before reaching customers.
The safety of the consumer is a critical consideration. We’re fortunate that there are now new and innovative alternative solutions on the market which can be used to protect core commodities like grain without leaving any residues at all. Some solutions may even qualify as organic where they are made up of naturally-occurring substances, such as ethyl formate.
But if regulators are committed to transparency and fairness across the supply chain, then it is time to apply the same scientific and safety standards to all products, not just new ones. Modernisation of risk assessments should be viewed as an opportunity to phase out obsolete chemistries and accelerate the transition toward cleaner, safer and more sustainable solutions.
Until next time!
