> First of all, they can't import their goods, if they contain residues of those banned pesticides.
You are implying, but aren't saying directly, that using those pesticides would automatically mean the produce would contain them above the EU limits. But if that was the case, then why not appease France and write into the agreement that food from crops sprayed with them can't be imported? So clearly it's possible to use those pesticides and still pass EU food safety checks. You're also assuming those safety checks are and will continue to be rigorously enforced on imports.
> Also European Farmers are heavily subsidized (up to 50% of their total income).
"Up to" is meaningless. The average was 33% [1]. And they are also the most stringently regulated, with the highest labor costs. They also probably don't want to rely on those subsidies too much to stay competitive, as there's no telling how long they'll last, or if e.g. Brazil might increase its own subsidies. Regardless, the complaint was completely factual - they're forbidden farming practices that their competitors are allowed. Ad hominems are not a reason to dismiss them.
[1] https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/financing...
Edit as reply because HN "posting too fast" makes it impossible to carry on a conversation:
"No it wasn't. The post claimed doesn't require those imports to meet the same standards EU farmers are held to"
Yes. Those imports may be produced in ways EU food may not.
"It's a common fraud, also used by many "organic" food exporters from outside the EU. Why write something into an agreement you probably can't enforce anyway?"
I was very clear on the "why" - because it would put them on paper on equal footing with EU farmers, which would appease France, that asked for it. The fact they refused tells me they expect some advantage from it. Which I was also clear on. Please don't make me re-state my post a 3rd time.