Not all deregulation is good.
Yep. And we can debate the issue of proper regulation on such things all you want. But what this really shows is a great example of headline manipulation and how media presents things. They don't technically lie, but they also manipulate the lazy reader (99% of us) into thinking something that fits their agenda.
The Guardian, whom I'd be willing to bet was fully against Brexit says in the article's headline: "Revealed: Far higher pesticide residues allowed on food since Brexit"
Even the X says: "Pesticide residues . . . have soared since Brexit."
It's a false connection being used to dump on Brexit when they should be attacking the UK gov for lowering the standards on the singular issue of pesticides (if, indeed, that is a problem). It creates and suggests a causal connection between two things that aren't the issue and there are likely dozens upon dozens of good reasons supporting what's happened post Brexit. They might as well say "Pesticide levels have soared since DuPont invented blah, blah, blah." I mean, technically, they are related, but the reason for them going up is the way in which they are being used which the UK regulators have full control over.
This is no different then when they report on politician T and place it in big letters above the fold with a misleading headline and subheadline, but the article fully explains things at the very end. Then, when they report on poltician H, it's on page 5 and has a soft, apologetic headline and sub. Technically, they reported on both and no one can accuse them of being impartial as they "covered both stories." But did they, did they really?
Here, the take away is Brexit was bad. But wasn't that the real goal?