I agree with your sentiment, but I think this is a bad example: presumably, the rotten food is no one's fault. Someone gets sick, there's uproar, rules and regulations are put in place, and next thing you know it's difficult or restrictive to even provide food at a food bank. Everyone is worse off. This isn't a stretch, we see it all the time.
We, the US, allow things to be imported to the US which are banned in The EU too. We ban but sell to them things they don't ban. It's up to each jurisdiction to make their own determination. All countries have access to the toxicity information on things they import and can do what they want with that information.
It’s more like your average lower income family eats more fast food than average high income families
We could ban fast food because it increases cancer risk and say the poor people don’t understand the risk so we need to save them from themselves. Meanwhile they just lost their main source of low cost food.
I don't think these companies are donating Chlorpyrifos, so this analogy is not quite right.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Poorer countries are a lot more vulnerable that richer ones. It's like blaming the homeless person eating rotten food he received at he food bank for lacking personal responsibility for his food poisoning.