<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><AQE.QER VERSION="2"><QUESTION QID="E-005708-18" AIDREF="AE-005708-18" LEG.VAL="WQ"><HEAD.Q><TI1><P.WQ>Question for written answer<NO.WQ QID="Q-E-005708-18">E-005708-18</NO.WQ></P.WQ><P.WQ>to the<DEST.WQ ORG="COM"> Commission</DEST.WQ></P.WQ></TI1><TI2><P.WQ>Rule 130</P.WQ><P.WQ><AUTHOR.WQ PERSID="129164">Tom Vandenkendelaere</AUTHOR.WQ><POL.GROUP GR="PPE">(PPE)</POL.GROUP></P.WQ></TI2><P.WQ><DATE.WQ DATE.DOC="20181110">(10 November 2018)</DATE.WQ></P.WQ></HEAD.Q><OBJ.Q OBJID="O-E-005708-18"><INT.OBJ.Q>Subject:</INT.OBJ.Q><TXT> Trade with the United States of America — Residue levels and differences in approach</TXT></OBJ.Q><CONTENTS CTNID="QC-E-005708-18"><P>For exports of foodstuffs to the United States, authorisation from the Food &amp; Drug Administration is required. Pesticides and residues, however, fall within the competence of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), which is responsible for registrations and tolerances. </P><P>For example, for the following pesticides, residues are already tolerated in Europe, but there is no maximum residue limit (MRL) in the&#xa0;US, which means that the following are not authorised there: chlormequat: 65% chance of presence in oats; methidathion: &lt;&#xa0;10% chance; pirimiphos-methyl: 12% chance in wheat. </P><P>This creates an enormous barrier for export companies. In view of the above, can the Commission answer the following questions:</P><P>Does it intend to also raise the matter of non-‐tariff barriers in its trade negotiations with the United States?</P><P>Do pesticides and residues form part of such negotiations?</P></CONTENTS></QUESTION></AQE.QER>