No. You'd be surprised. Those sorts of risks can't be easily insured.
The difficulty here is that if there were a legitimate tolerance put in place that was evidence-based and you were non-compliant with it, well, your non-compliance would be your own fault, so you would lose some money. That's not an easy thing to accept but that would be the reality.
If you're going to a country that is operating on a zero tolerance just because they're 18 months away, let's say, from when they will finally have a tolerance in place, and you have any detectable residue and you get a boatload of that value rejected for that reason, it would be hard to describe that as a science-based rejection. That's the risk we're describing.