1. Introduction
The global modernization of agriculture was significantly influenced by the Green Revolution, which integrated technological innovations into agricultural production to boost food output [1]. In Brazil, government incentives introduced these techniques in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in the expansion of agricultural frontiers into the Cerrado regions [2]. Key technologies included improved seeds, advanced machinery, and chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides [1].
The adoption of pesticides has been important in managing pests that hinder agricultural production [3]. However, large-scale pesticide use in Brazil has led to several legislative changes to balance production demands with environmental and human health concerns. Expanding pesticide options aids in rotating action mechanisms to prevent resistance in pest populations [4,5]. Yet, excessive or inappropriate use poses significant risks, including environmental contamination, residues in food, and health hazards [6].
A sustainable approach to pesticide management is fundamental for ensuring long-term agricultural productivity while preserving natural resources. In this context, integrated pest management and phytoremediation techniques are viable alternatives to mitigate pesticide dependence and reduce environmental contamination [7,8]. Implementing policies that encourage the responsible use of agrochemicals, promote safer alternatives, and enhance waste management aligns agricultural practices with sustainability principles [9]. Strengthening legislation on pesticide residues contributes to environmental conservation and fosters a balance between economic growth and ecological integrity, supporting food security and human health in the long term [10].
Effective oversight by specialized agencies is essential to enforcing limits on pesticide use, production, marketing, and registration to safeguard health and the environment. Although Brazil has comprehensive environmental legislation, the absence of a specific law on pesticide residues hinders more effective environmental management. We hypothesize that the new provisions introduced in the New Pesticides Law [11] may enable significant advances in pesticide residue management in Brazil. This study aimed to analyse the impact of Brazilian environmental laws on pesticide residue management.
2. Use of Pesticides and Related Problems
The increasing demand for food production has intensified the reliance on pesticides, raising critical concerns regarding their long-term sustainability. While these chemical inputs play a crucial role in modern agriculture by enhancing productivity and controlling pests, their excessive and inappropriate use threatens environmental integrity, biodiversity, and human health. Sustainable agricultural practices must balance productivity with ecological preservation, incorporating strategies such as integrated pest management, biological control agents, and the development of safer agrochemicals. Strengthening pesticide regulations and monitoring residue levels in soil, water, and food systems are essential to mitigating contamination risks and promoting sustainable food production, ensuring environmental and public health protection.
Modern agriculture contributes to numerous environmental problems, particularly due to the extensive use of chemicals in crop production. It is estimated that 64% of agricultural land globally is at risk of pesticide pollution, with 2.5 billion hectares contaminated by multiple pesticide molecules [12,13]. Brazil is one of the largest consumers of pesticides worldwide, with approximately 719,507 tonnes used in 2021, averaging 10.9 kg/ha [14]. Herbicides account for 61.49% of this usage, followed by fungicides (16.05%), insecticides (11.09%), and other categories (11.37%) [15]. The ten most widely commercialized products in Brazil include glyphosate, 2,4-D, atrazine, mancozeb, chlorothalonil, acephate, diquat, chlorpyrifos, methomyl, and malathion [15].
There is considerable scientific debate concerning the increased application of glyphosate and other molecules in transgenic crops [16]. While the introduction of genetically modified crops has reduced the variety of herbicides used, it has also resulted in a significant increase in glyphosate usage [17]. This has contributed to the emergence of new biotypes of glyphosate-resistant weeds [18], necessitating a return to traditional pre-emergent herbicides [19,20]. Due to their chemical properties, pre-emergent and residual herbicides typically persist in the soil for extended periods [21]. However, there is little regulation regarding the quantities of these products in the soil, nor are there technological systems in place to contain residues within the environment [8].
Glyphosate is currently under restriction in the European Union (EU) following studies by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organisation (WHO), which suggest a potential link to cancer [22]. Despite this, glyphosate remains Brazil’s most widely used herbicide, with most of its products classified as unlikely to cause acute harm (category 5), according to Brazilian regulations [23]. Other pesticides, such as mancozeb, atrazine, acephate, chlorothalonil, and chlorpyrifos, are banned in the EU but remain registered for use in Brazil and the United States [24,25].
Mancozeb is a fungicide with significant environmental persistence, capable of bioaccumulation in biological tissues and posing health risks to mammals, including reproductive and developmental disorders [26,27]. Chlorothalonil, another widely used fungicide, has high environmental residues and multiple potential exposure routes for animals and humans, affecting metabolic, endocrine, genetic, and reproductive pathways, particularly in aquatic organisms and amphibians [28]. Atrazine, an herbicide with a half-life exceeding 60 days, is frequently detected in surface waters and has been associated with neural and reproductive system disorders [29]. Acephate and chlorpyrifos are organophosphate insecticides that pose significant risks to human and environmental health due to their long-term effects, necessitating rigorous monitoring in soil, food, water, and air [30,31]. The toxicity of insecticides to non-target pollinators is also a critical concern, as these chemicals can severely impact sustainable food production [32].
Even before these products were banned in the EU, the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) in food was considerably lower than in Brazil, where limits can be up to ten times higher, as in the case of acephate applied to citrus [33,34]. The MRL, measured in milligrams of pesticide residues per kilogram of agricultural produce, ensures that residues do not risk human and animal health [33,34]. The Codex Alimentarius, a joint commission of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the WHO, establishes MRLs for pesticides in agricultural products, but each country has the discretion to adopt or modify these values [33,34]. The Codex does not directly define MRLs in Brazil; instead, they are determined by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), although the Codex Alimentarius guidelines are taken into consideration in the regulatory process, particularly when a pesticide does not yet have a nationally established MRL [33]. The method of defining the MRL considers the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), Consumer Exposure Level, and good agricultural practices (GAPs) [33].
Another important aspect is the withdrawal period of a pesticide, which is the minimum time interval that must be respected between the last application of the product and the harvest of the crop to ensure that the residues remain within the MRL, established by ANVISA [35]. The definition of the withdrawal period takes into account several key factors, including the persistence of the pesticide in the environment and the plant, climatic conditions, crop type, method of application, and dosage used [35]. The ANVISA, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA), and the Brazilian Institute of Environmental and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) regulate and monitor compliance with withdrawal periods [35]. Failure to comply may result in the rejection of production for commercialization and risks to public health [35]. Farmers must adhere to good agricultural practices (GAP) to ensure that the pesticides residues in the crops remain within the permitted limits at time of harvest [35].
The National Plan for Residue and Contaminant Control (PNCRC/Animal) is a risk management tool implemented by the MAPA to ensure the chemical safety of foods of animal origin in Brazil [36]. Established by SDA Normative Instruction No. 42 of 20 December 1999, and currently regulated by ANVISA Ordinance No. 1081 of 27 September 2023, this programme involves annual sampling and testing plans for eggs, milk, honey, and animals intended for slaughter in establishments under Federal Inspection [36].
The implementation of the PNCRC/Animal is coordinated by the Secretariat of Agricultural Defence (SDA/MAPA). It involves the Department of Inspection of Animal Products (DIPOA), the Department of Inspection of Livestock Inputs (DFIP), the General Coordination of Laboratory Support (CGAL), and the General Coordination of Intelligence and Strategy (CGIE) [36]. The Federal Inspection Service is responsible for collecting samples, ensuring traceability to the rural origin of the batches [36]. In cases where limits are exceeded, investigation sub-programmes are established to identify the causes, enforce sanctions, and manage the risks of further violations. Properties found to be in violation of these limits are subjected to a special testing regime until five consecutive batches are compliant, ensuring food safety [36].
In Brazil, pesticide residue limits in plant-based foods are monitored by the PNCRC/Vegetal and the Food Pesticide Residue Analysis Programme (PARA). The PNCRC/Vegetal was established by SDA Ordinance No. 574 of 9 May 2022, and involves actions related to the official control of residues and contaminants in plant-based products for the domestic, imported, and export markets [37]. MAPA Normative Instruction No. 31 of 15 August 2013, outlines the procedures for detecting pesticide residues and chemical, physical, and biological contaminants in plant products, by-products, and residues of economic value, in accordance with ANVISA regulations [38].
The PARA, coordinated by the ANVISA, in partnership with state and municipal health surveillance agencies and state public health laboratories, aims to evaluate and promote food safety regarding pesticide residues. It utilizes control measures from the United States and the EU as references [33]. The results obtained by the PARA provide a diagnosis of pesticide use in plant-based foods and inform the implementation of regulatory, inspection, and educational measures. In Brazil, the registration of pesticides differs from other products regulated by ANVISA, as there is no legal provision for renewal. Once granted, the registration is indefinite, despite the continuous evolution of scientific knowledge, which may reveal new risks over time [39]. Toxicological re-evaluation is a crucial process for reassessing the safety of pesticides based on new scientific data or monitoring information [39]. This process is essential for reducing the toxicity of approved active ingredients, phasing out more hazardous products, and preventing the registration of new, more dangerous pesticides [39]. Re-evaluation may result in the maintenance, modification, restriction, or cancellation of the registration of active ingredients [40].
Another key contribution of the PARA is the identification of unauthorized pesticide residues in specific crops. Insecticides and fungicides are particularly problematic, with some exceeding permitted limits or involving unauthorized active ingredients [39]. Herbicide residues are seldom found above limits in food [39]; however, environmental contamination by herbicides is a significant concern [41,42]. These residues can lead to subsequent crop or non-target organism poisoning and cause substantial ecological damage, particularly in aquatic ecosystems [21,43]. In Brazil, incidents have been reported of hormonal herbicide drift affecting neighbouring crops [44], and atrazine, 2,4-D and glyphosate residues have been detected in freshwater and native species [45,46]. Despite the biodegradation of herbicides in tropical environments, many products remain toxic to microorganisms responsible for degradation and have long half-lives, persisting in the environment [47,48].
In recent years, the registration of pesticides has accelerated, with a significant increase in the number of products since 2015/2016, reaching 652 formulated products in 2022, including biological and organic products [49]. Of the chemical products registered in 2022, 35 are based on new active ingredients, and 168 are formulated from equivalent technical products [49]. Although there has been progress in the safety of these products, with lower dosages per hectare and higher LD50 (lethal dose that causes 50% mortality in a test population) values indicating reduced toxicity, the rapid registration of new products raises concerns about their long-term environmental impact [11] (Figure 1).
Regarding toxicity to human health, of the total number of products registered in 2022—the year with the highest number of registrations to date—two products were classified as extremely toxic, ten as highly toxic, 25 as moderately toxic, 81 as slightly toxic, 210 as unlikely to cause acute harm, and 324 as unclassified [49]. And in terms of environmental hazards, in 2022, 20 products were classified as highly hazardous to the environment, 254 as very hazardous, 226 as hazardous, and 152 as slightly hazardous [49].
The significant increase in the number of product registrations observed in recent years may be mainly related to political factors in the country. Several leadership changes have occurred within the agencies responsible for the pesticide registration process (ANVISA, IBAMA, and the MAPA), leading to a shift towards deregulation and a streamlined registration process.
One potential solution for the environmental decontamination of pesticide residues, particularly for herbicides, is phytoremediation—a sustainable and low-cost technique, that utilises herbaceous, arboreal, and aquatic plants to extract and degrade contaminants—and its incorporation into Brazilian legislation could contribute to improving environmental quality [8]. For pesticide residues in food, stricter control and monitoring of the products used, their dosages, and withdrawal periods are necessary to reduce the risk of residues in food and enhance consumer safety [39].
3. The Pesticide Legislation in Brazil
3.1. Historical Overview
The regulatory framework for pesticides in Brazil began in 1934, with Decree No. 24114 from the Plant Health Defence Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, establishing initial guidelines for production, use, and sale [50]. However, it was only in 1977 that a toxicological classification system was introduced through Ordinance 749, though it was revoked within the same year, leading to the adoption of new classifications in 1980, via Ordinances No. 04 and No. 05 by the National Division of Health Surveillance of the Ministry of Health [51].
In 1981, Ordinance No. 2 mandated agronomic prescriptions for the sale of highly toxic pesticides, but subsequent industry pressure led to a reclassification under Ordinance No. 7, downgrading 80% of previously high-toxicity pesticides to medium toxicity, thus removing the prescription requirement—a measure reversed in 1985 with Ordinance No. 10 of the Health Surveillance Agency [51].
A major regulatory milestone came with Law 7802 enacted on 11 June 1989, commonly referred to as the “Pesticide Law” [52], and lately amended by Law No. 9974 on 6 June 2000 [53]. The Pesticide Law comprehensively addressed the research, experimentation, production, packaging, labelling, transportation, storage, marketing, commercial advertising, use, importation, disposal of waste and packaging, registration, classification, control, inspection, and supervision of pesticides, their components, and similar substances [54]. Law No. 7802/89 was regulated by Decree No. 4074 on 4 January 2002 [55] and later amended by Decree No. 10,833 on 7 October 2021, solidifying a command-and-control regulatory approach involving the MAPA for phytosanitary assessments, ANVISA for toxicological evaluations, and IBAMA for environmental impact analysis [55,56,57]. This tripartite analysis and regulation system aims to ensure that pesticides registered in Brazil meet safety criteria for human health and the environment, as well as agronomic efficacy [57].
Over the years, several amendments followed Law No. 7802 of 11 July 1989, including Bill No. 6299 of 2002, which proposed changes to the registration procedures for pesticides and their components, which sought to streamline the registration process. Initially, this bill suggested the prior registration of only the active ingredient, recognizing the similarity of equivalent products in their physical, chemical, and toxicological characteristics. It also proposed that legislation regarding the disposal of pesticide packaging and components could be exclusively under the responsibility of the Union. This bill was later expanded with other similar proposals over the years [55].
In 2023, the new Pesticide Law was enacted, Law 14785 of 27 December 2023, which replaced the prior regulations with an updated framework governing pesticide registration and control [11].
3.2. New Regulatory Framework for Pesticides in Brazil
Law 14785 of 27 December 2023, along with its predecessor Law No. 7802 of 11 July, mandates that pesticides can only be used in Brazil if registered with a competent federal agency, ensuring compliance with sector-specific guidelines for environmental hazard assessments, toxicological classification, and crop evaluations [13,52].
The National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) is linked to the Ministry of Health, established under Law No. 9782/1999, and was created to institutionalise and standardise the parameters for assessing the toxicity of agricultural chemicals and their risks to human health and the environment [58]. ANVISA responsibilities encompass the regulation, analysis, control, and monitoring of products and services that pose health risks, including pesticides, their components, and other toxicologically relevant chemical substances [58].
In 2019, ANVISA approved Brazil’s new regulatory framework for pesticides [23], following a series of public consultations held in 2011, 2015, 2016, and 2018, as well as a public hearing in 2018. The primary aim of this framework was to align with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) reinforcing international efforts to manage chemical products safely for the environment [23]. The GHS provides classification criteria for product labelling based on results from acute toxicological studies [23]. Brazil’s adoption of the GHS was motivated by its potential to facilitate the evaluation of pesticides by comparing new formulas to already approved products, streamlining the registration process. Additionally, 53 countries have fully implemented the GHS, and 12 countries have partially adopted it.
The proposals from these public consultations led to the creation of three Collegiate Board Resolutions (RDCs) and a Normative Instruction (IN), which together constitute the New Regulatory Framework for Pesticides. The first resolution, RDC No. 294 enacted on 29 July 2019, sets “criteria for toxicological evaluation and classification, prioritisation of analysis, and comparison of the toxicological action of pesticides, components, similar products, and wood preservatives, among other provisions” [59]. The second resolution, RDC No. 295 also enacted on 29 July 2019, addresses “criteria for evaluating dietary risk resulting from human exposure and pesticide residues within ANVISA’s scope, and other provisions” [60]. The third resolution, RDC No. 296 likewise passed on 29 July 2019, defines “toxicological information for labels and leaflets of pesticides, similar products, and wood preservatives” [61]. Additionally, Normative Instruction No. 34 of 29 July 2019, which is also part of the New Regulatory Framework, “establishes and publicizes the list of components not authorized for use in pesticides and similar products” [62]. The new regulatory framework was enacted on 31 July 2019, giving companies a one-year period to comply with the updated regulations [23].
The pesticide risk assessment conducted by ANVISA examines whether a pesticide poses a threat to human health. This evaluation considers various studies on acute and chronic toxicity, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and foetal development, neurotoxicity, and effects on the immune system [59,60,61]. Once the potential risk of the pesticide is understood, ANVISA assesses consumer exposure by evaluating potential contamination through food consumption, environmental exposure, and occupational exposure [59,60,61]. Based on these assessments, ANVISA defines several key parameters: Acceptable Daily Dose (ADD), which refers to the amount of pesticide that a person can ingest daily without health risk; Maximum Residue Limit (MRL), which indicates the permissible level of pesticide residue in food without causing adverse effects; Theoretical Maximum Daily Intake (IDMT), which estimates the daily intake of pesticide, based on the Brazilian diet; and Withdrawal Period (WP), which is the minimum interval between the last pesticide application and harvest to ensure that the residues remain within the MRL [59,60,61].
As a result of these evaluations, the toxicity classifications for pesticides were expanded from four to five categories, with updated names and colours on modified product labels. A new “unclassified” category was introduced for products with minimal potential for harm, such as those of biological origin. A comparison between the old and new classifications is presented in Table 1.
There are several types of classification related to human health poisoning that inform toxicological classifications and standards for pesticide leaflets and labelling: acute poisoning, which causes severe, corrosive, or fatal effects; subacute poisoning, which causes symptoms such as headache, weakness, vomiting, and others emerging within a few days; and chronic poisoning, which results in long-term damage due to continuous exposure to the pesticide, direct or indirect, leading to symptoms like insomnia, infertility, congenital malformations, miscarriages, depression, and other adverse effects [63].
Although toxicity classifications have expanded, the scope of effects analysed for “Category 1” have been restricted to mortality alone. As a result, products previously classified as highly toxic have been reclassified to lower toxicity categories, despite their potential to cause serious harm. For example, products that were once considered “Highly toxic” are now labelled as “Moderately toxic”, based on reversible skin irritation, no longer evaluating the potential for these effects to reverse. A similar shift occurred for “Category 3”, where products formerly considered as “Slightly toxic” due to mild irritation are now classified as “Have no significant risks or recommendations”. Consequently, information on dermal, ocular, and inhalation irritation and sensitivity, is now communicated solely through product labels to inform users of the hazards. After reclassification, more than 90% of pesticides in class I (Extremely toxic) were downgraded to Class IV or V, indicating “Slight toxicity” or are unlikely to cause acute harm [59].
Regarding risk communication, pesticides are now classified as harmful only if ingested, inhaled, or in contact with the skin (classes IV and V), and they will no longer display the skull and crossbones symbol, traditionally used to indicate danger. Instead, they will feature an exclamation mark with the word “CAUTION”, as a warning. Furthermore, pesticides that may be dangerous if ingested, inhaled, or in contact with skin, will no longer display any warning symbol and will be classified as “unlikely to cause acute harm”.
Before the approval of the New Regulatory Framework, one of the regulations used to classify pesticides was Ordinance No. 3 of 16 January 1992, which provided guidelines and requirements, from the Ministry of Health, regarding the authorization for the registration, renewal of registration, and extension of use of pesticides and similar products [64]. This ordinance, like RDC No. 294 of 29 July 2019, presented the LD50 values for each category. A notable difference between the two regulations is the decrease in LD50 values over time. For example, for “Category 1—Extremely Toxic”, the 1992 ordinance set the LD50 for oral exposure at ≤20 mg/kg, while the current RDC No. 294 sets this value at ≤5 mg/kg. The reduction of the LD50 values means that more toxic products can be registered compared to the previous classification, as a lower LD50 indicates higher toxicity. This change facilitates the import, production, and use of highly toxic pesticides, which could increase the risk to consumers and lead to adverse health impacts [65].
Another critical issue is the potential for synergic effects when pesticides are mixed. Many workers and end consumers are exposed to multiple pesticide products applied to crops, which may amplify toxic effects. The studies referenced in RDC No. 294 focus on calculating exposure doses for individual products, but they do not fully address the cumulative impact of pesticide mixture.
While adherence to the GHS could ease the import and export of agricultural products between countries that follow this system, a significant scientific debate has emerged around the new regulatory framework. One concern is that reclassification mainly considers mortality in non-target organisms as a severe acute effect through inhalation, oral, or dermal exposure, thus potentially overlooking other ecological and health risks [66].
3.3. New Pesticides Law
Law 14785 enacted on 27 December 2023, regulates various aspects related to the research, experimentation, production, packaging, labelling, transportation, storage, marketing, use, import, export, disposal of waste and packaging, registration, classification, control, inspection, and supervision of pesticides, environmental control products, their technical products, and similar products [11]. This law supersedes Laws No. 7802 of 11 July 1989, and 9974 of 6 June 2000, as well as sections of annexes from Laws No. 6938 of 31 August 1981, and 9782 of 26 January 1999 [11].
Chapter 1 of the New Pesticides Law outlines the preliminary provisions, including: (a) the regulation of pesticides and environmental control products under this law, while products and agents for urban and industrial environments are governed by Law No. 6360 of 1976, with adjuvant products being regulated separately; (b) definitions of essential terms and concepts; (c) the requirement for pesticides and environmental control products to be registered or authorized by a federal agency before use; (d) deadlines for completing registrations and modifications, ranging from 24 months for new products to 30 days for Temporary Special Registration (RET); (e) the creation of RET for products intended for research and experimentation; (f) authorisation for educational, technical assistance, and research entities to conduct experiments and provide technical reports; (g) criteria for use authorization based on maximum residue limits established by federal or international agencies; and (h) the requirement for risk analysis when new registrations or use changes involve increased dosage or new crops [11].
In Brazil, the registration of pesticides, technical products, and similar substances is managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA) [11], while the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MMAMC) is responsible for the registration of ecological control products, technical products, and similar substances [11]. The distinction between these products lies primarily in their intended use: products registered by the MAPA are applied to crops, pastures, planted forests, and during agricultural product storage, while those registered by the MMAMC are used in native forests, natural ecosystems, and aquatic environments to protect these areas from pests and harmful organisms [11]. Nevertheless, all of these products aim to control harmful pests, diseases, and plants in their respective environments.
Registration requirements for pesticides, environmental control products, and similar substances in Brazil must comply with the Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), and the Codex Alimentarius [11]. The decision-making process for risk management will rely on comprehensive risk analysis. Pesticides and environmental products that present unacceptable risks to humans or the environment are prohibited from being registered, even if risk management measures are implemented [11]. Furthermore, risk analysis is mandatory for gaining the registration of pesticides and environmental control products [11].
Brazil’s pesticide registration procedures are regarded as more rigorous than those of countries like the USA. These procedures are based on phytosanitary (MAPA), toxicological (ANVISA), and environmental (IBAMA) assessments [57]. ANVISA also monitors pesticide residues in plant-based products [11]. This tripartite analytical and regulatory system aims to ensure that registered pesticides meet safety standards for human health, the environment and agronomic effectiveness [57].
In addition to federal regulations, states, the Federal District, and municipalities are responsible for supplementary legislation concerning the use, production, consumption, trade, and storage of pesticides and environmental control products, their components, and similar substances, as well as for monitoring their use, consumption, trade, storage, and domestic transport [11].
Pesticide prescriptions must be issued by qualified professionals and must include specific details such as the crop and area or volumes treated, the location of application, the commercial name of the product, the quantity used, and safety precautions regarding human health, domestic animals, and the environment [11]. These measures aim to ensure the safe use of pesticides and minimize associated risks. Additionally, users are required to return empty packaging, lids, and any post-consumer residues to the commercial establishments where the products were purchased, in accordance with the instructions on the product leaflets [11]. Returns are to be managed through designated collection points or centres and mobile collection operations, provided they are authorized and inspected by the relevant agency [11]. Companies that manufacture and sell pesticides, environmental control products, and similar products are responsible for the disposal of empty packaging and post-consumer waste, with an emphasis on reuse, recycling, or destruction after collection, in compliance with regulations set by the competent authorities [11].
Those responsible for marketing, prescribing, and applying pesticides, environmental control products, and similar substances may be held liable for environmental damage and third-party harm, particularly regarding the proper disposal of products and packaging [11]. Individuals involved in the production, importation, sale, transport, application, service provision, or disposal of pesticides residues and empty packaging in violation of the relevant legislation are subject to penalties outlined in the law, including warnings, fines, suspension of registrations, product seizures, and potential imprisonment for 3 to 9 years, along with fines [11].
Although this law addresses the disposal of packaging and waste, it lacks specific provisions for a comprehensive waste management plan and its monitoring. Additionally, the law does not provide clear guidelines on how to control and monitor environmental waste, such as contamination in water or native vegetation areas. Compared to Law No. 7802/1989, Law 14785/2023 shows minimal advancements in addressing these concerns.
Main Changes Between Laws 7802/1989 and 14785/2023
The primary changes between the 1989 and 2023 Laws concern deadlines and marketing regulations.
The new legislation (Law 14785/2023) establishes varying deadlines, ranging from 30 days to 2 years, for the inclusion and modification of registrations of pesticides, environmental control products, and similar products, depending on the nature of the request [11]. This adjustment addresses the prolonged waiting times, which currently extend to seven years, whereas in European countries, the process is completed within a few months [11]. New products require a maximum period of 24 months for registration, while those intended for research and experimentation can obtain a Special Temporary Registration (RET), with the request being analysed within 30 days by the MAPA [11]. Generic products, formulated exclusively from an equivalent technical product, have a maximum registration period of 12 months [11].
The President of the Republic vetoed some provisions in the Bill that would have assigned the MAPA a leading role in the reanalysis of pesticides and the environmental sector, and responsibility for reanalysing ecological control products. However, Congress overturned some of those vetoes. Among the overturned vetoes were Subparagraph V of §5 of Article 4 and the Caput and sole paragraph of Article 28, which had exclusively assigned the MAPA and the environmental sector, respectively, the function of coordinating the reanalysis of pesticide and environmental control product risks [67]. The Bill also proposed the creation of an assessment and registration fee to finance the Federal Agricultural Fund (FFAP), but this provision was vetoed due to its unconstitutionality as it did not specify bases and rates [11]. The legislation mentions several sources of funding for the FFAP, including donations and resources from the Union [11].
The new law revises the explicit prohibition on registering products containing carcinogenic substances or substances that cause deformities and hormonal disorders, replacing it with a ban on registering products that present an “unacceptable risk” to human health or the environment [11]. Additionally, the possibility of challenging or cancelling a registration by trade associations, consumer protection organizations, environmentalists, and political parties has been removed [11].
Fines for violations related to non-compliance with the legislation have been significantly increased, ranging from BRL 2000 to BRL 2 million. These fines may be cumulative and doubled in the event of repeat offences [11]). Inspections may be conducted in partnership with state agencies, which will receive part of the revenue from the fines [11]. The law also establishes prison sentences for various offences, including the production, storage, and sale of unregistered or unauthorized pesticides, with aggravating factors for environmental or public health damage [11].
The new law establishes the Unified System of Information, Petition, and Electronic Assessment (SISPA), coordinated by the MAPA. Its objectives include the following: adopting a unified system for evaluating applications for pesticide registration and modifications to registrations; providing information on the progress of pesticide-related processes; facilitating the submission, registration, and data and information assessment provided by registering companies; receiving data and information related to pesticide sales and similar products; ensuring the security of confidential information and industrial secrets under penalty of liability; implementing, maintaining, and making available data and information on the total quantities of products, by category, that are imported, produced, exported, and sold in the country, as well as unsold products; maintaining a registry and providing information on companies and areas authorised for the research and experimentation of pesticides and similar products; allowing electronic interaction with companies registering pesticides and similar products; and enforcing the mandatory electronic submission of all registration applications and modifications of pesticides and similar products [11].
The new law also establishes the Unified System for the Registration and Use of Computerised Pesticides and Environmental Control Products, which operates on a national scale. The registering agencies will be responsible for implementing, maintaining, and updating this system within their respective competencies [11]. Establishments involved in the production, handling, import, and export of pesticides, research and experimentation institutions, distributors, legally qualified professionals, farmers, and pesticide application service providers must be registered in this system [11]. The registering agencies will regulate the system within their competencies, structuring it by electronically capturing data from agronomic prescriptions issued by legally qualified professionals [11].
4. Other Laws and Regulations on Pesticide Residues
Brazil has a comprehensive and intricate framework of environmental legislation. One of the foundational laws in this context is the 1988 Federal Constitution, specifically Article 225, which guarantees the right of all citizens to an ecologically balanced environment. It imposes a duty on the government and the community to protect and preserve this environment for current and future generations [68].
Previously and in addition to the Federal Constitution, Law No. 6938/1981 represents a significant milestone in Brazilian environmental regulation, establishing the National Environmental Policy, its objectives, and the mechanisms for its formulation and implementation, including the creation of the National Environmental System (SISNAMA) and the National Environmental Council (CONAMA) [69].
Law No. 6938/1981 outlines Brazil’s principles, objectives, instruments, and mechanisms for protecting and improving environmental quality [69]. The law aims to preserve, enhance, and restore environmental quality to sustain life, ensure conditions conducive to socio-economic development, safeguard national security interests, and protect human dignity [69]. Among the instruments established are environmental licensing, environmental impact assessments, and environmental control and zoning, all of which are relevant to the use and management of pesticides and their residues [69]. Although the law does not explicitly address pesticide residues, its mechanisms can be employed to regulate and control pesticide use, thereby preventing ecological contamination.
More recently, Law No. 12651/2012, known as the New Forest Code, was enacted to protect natural resources [70]. This law establishes standards for the protection of native vegetation in permanent preservation areas (APPs), legal reserves, and other protected areas [70]. It prohibits the use of pesticides in APPs and imposes restrictions on their use in legal reserve areas, thereby contributing to the reduction of environmental contamination by pesticide residues [70]. Additionally, the New Forest Code promotes the conservation of soil and water resources, indirectly aiding in protecting the environment from the impacts of pesticide residues.
Law No. 13123/2015 (Biodiversity Law) regulates access to genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge, along with sharing benefits derived from the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity [71]. Although this law primarily focuses on biodiversity and traditional knowledge, biodiversity conservation can be adversely affected by environmental contamination from pesticide residues [71]. Therefore, the effective implementation of this law necessitates sustainable agricultural practices that minimize pesticide use and its impacts.
Regarding pesticide residues in drinking water, Consolidation Ordinance No. 5 of 28 September 2017, specifically Annex XX, addresses this issue. This ordinance consolidates standards for the actions and services of the Unified Health System (SUS) and, among other provisions, establishes potable water standards for human consumption [72]. Annex XX specifies parameters and maximum permissible limits for various contaminants in drinking water, including chemical and biological substances such as pesticides [72]. It also delineates the responsibilities of the relevant authorities for monitoring and inspecting the quality of water intended for human consumption, ensuring the safety and health of the population [72].
Furthermore, regulations concerning the use of biological products in organic agriculture contribute to reducing pesticide residues by governing the use of less toxic, environmentally friendly products. The principal regulations include MAPA Normative Instruction No. 27/2006, which establishes procedures for registering microbiological products used in pest control; MAPA Normative Instruction No. 19/2013, which sets criteria and procedures for registering phytosanitary products approved for organic agriculture, including biological products; and Joint Normative Instruction ANVISA/IBAMA/MAPA No. 5/2021, which regulates the registration of biological products for agricultural use, detailing procedures and requirements for their toxicological, ecotoxicological, and agronomic evaluation [73,74,75].
Other regulations addressing pesticide residues include Law No. 9605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Law), CONAMA Resolution No. 465/2014, and CONAMA Resolution No. 420/2009.
4.1. Environmental Crimes Law
In addition to Law 14785 of 27 December 2023, Law No. 9605/1998 (Environmental Crimes Law) establishes criminal and administrative sanctions for conduct and activities harmful to the environment [76]. This law is among Brazil’s most significant environmental protection laws, covering a broad spectrum of ecological offences, including those related to the use and disposal of pesticides.
The Environmental Crimes Law is structured into five main chapters: general provisions, crimes against the environment, administrative offences, criminal and administrative sanctions, and final provisions [76]. Concerning pesticide residues, the most pertinent articles address crimes against flora and pollution.
Regarding crimes against flora, the law stipulates that the production, processing, packaging, import, export, commercialization, supply, transportation, storage, safekeeping, or use of products or substances that are toxic, hazardous, or harmful to human health or the environment, in violation of established legal or regulatory requirements, may result in imprisonment for 1 to 4 years and a fine [76]. This provision applies to the improper use of pesticides, including the incorrect disposal of their residues.
Regarding pollution crimes, the law specifies that causing pollution of any kind at levels that could harm human health or lead to the death of animals or significant destruction of flora may also result in imprisonment for 1 to 4 years and a fine [76]. Environmental contamination by pesticide residues falls under the purview of this law.
The responsibility for enforcing the sanctions provided for in Law No. 9605/1998 lies with environmental agencies and law enforcement authorities [76]. Monitoring compliance with standards concerning pesticide use and residue disposal is carried out by agencies such as the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), State and Municipal Environmental Secretariats, and other regulatory bodies [76].
4.2. CONAMA Resolution No. 465/2014
The National Environmental Council (CONAMA) serves as the advisory and deliberative body within the National Environmental System (SISNAMA). It was established by Law 6938/81, which sets forth the National Environmental Policy, regulated by Decree 99274/90 [69,77]. CONAMA Resolution No. 465 of 5 December 2014 establishes criteria and procedures for the disposal of empty pesticide containers and pesticide residues to protect the environment and public health [78]. This resolution is one of the regulations that complement Brazilian pesticide use and management legislation.
The resolution’s primary objectives include establishing criteria and procedures for the environmentally appropriate final disposal of empty pesticide containers and residues and promoting reverse logistics, which entails the return of empty packaging to manufacturers for recycling, reuse, or safe destruction [78].
The responsibility for the proper disposal of packaging and residues is shared among four stakeholders: users, traders and cooperatives, manufacturers, and environmental agencies [78]. Farmers are required to triple-rinse or pressure-wash rigid packaging immediately after use, store empty packaging safely until it is returned, and deliver empty packaging and residues to authorized collection points within one year of purchase [78]. Traders and cooperatives must inform users of the obligation to return empty packaging, maintain authorized and operational collection points, and ensure these points are adequately serviced [78]. Manufacturers are responsible for implementing reverse logistics systems, organizing collection, transportation, and appropriate final disposal, and ensuring the existence of sufficient collection points to meet user demand [78]. Environmental agencies are tasked with monitoring compliance with the resolution’s standards and promoting educational and awareness initiatives regarding the correct disposal of empty packaging and pesticide residues [78].
Final disposal procedures include recycling, which is prioritized for rinsed rigid packaging, with such packaging sent to authorized recycling facilities. Non-recyclable packaging must be incinerated or disposed of in licensed industrial landfills [78].
CONAMA Resolution No. 465/2014 is crucial for Brazil’s environmentally sound management of pesticide residues. It seeks to minimize adverse environmental impacts and protect public health by promoting sustainable practices in packaging and pesticide waste [78]. By regulating reverse logistics and holding all stakeholders accountable, the resolution contributes to sustainability and preserving natural resources.
4.3. CONAMA Resolution No. 420/2009
CONAMA Resolution No. 420 of 28 December 2009 establishes criteria and guideline values for soil quality concerning the presence of chemical substances, including pesticides [79]. The resolution’s primary objective is to protect soil quality, prevent contamination, and promote the remediation of areas already impacted by harmful substances [79].
The resolution sets forth criteria for assessing soil quality concerning chemical substances, defines guideline values for the prevention, investigation, and remediation of soil contamination, and promotes the environmentally appropriate management of contaminated areas to safeguard human health and the environment [79].
The resolution delineates three types of guideline values for the concentration of chemical substances in the soil: the Quality Reference Value (VRQ), Prevention Value (VP), and Investigation Value (VI) [79]. The VRQ represents the natural concentration of a chemical substance in the soil based on areas unaffected.
5. Final Considerations
The analysis of Brazilian pesticide waste management regulations reveals a robust legal framework aimed at safeguarding environmental quality and public health. The enactment of the Pesticide Law (Law 14785/2023) marks a pivotal development by consolidating multiple facets of pesticide management, from research to the final disposal of waste. This law’s focus on reducing bureaucratic hurdles and establishing precise deadlines for various registration types exemplifies an effort to streamline processes while ensuring heightened safety standards for pesticide usage.
Complementary to this, foundational laws such as the Federal Constitution of 1988, the National Environmental Policy Law (Law 6938/1981), the New Forest Code (Law 12651/2012), and the Biodiversity Law (Law 13123/2015) provide a broad framework for environmental protection and sustainable resource management. These laws collectively advocate for the preservation of natural resources and the minimization of environmental impacts through stringent regulations and conservation efforts.
The Environmental Crimes Act (Law 9605/1998) and CONAMA Resolutions No. 465/2014 and No. 420/2009 further reinforce the importance of responsible waste management and soil protection. These regulations impose legal repercussions for non-compliance and promote sustainable waste disposal practices, underscoring the necessity for effective environmental stewardship.
Nevertheless, challenges persist in the practical implementation of these regulations. Key issues include the need for robust monitoring mechanisms and enhanced stakeholder awareness. Future efforts should strengthen educational initiatives, refine monitoring systems, and adapt regulatory frameworks to accommodate evolving technologies and agricultural practices. Fostering greater integration and collaboration across public policies and between the agricultural, environmental, and health sectors is crucial for advancing pesticide waste management. This integrated approach will be vital to ensuring the long-term protection of the environment and public health for the present and the future generations, as well as the sustainability of agricultural production in Brazil.
Furthermore, the effective implementation of pesticide residue management legislation in Brazil faces significant challenges, particularly concerning inspection and monitoring. Regulatory agencies, such as ANVISA, IBAMA, and the MAPA, often contend with technological limitations that hinder the accurate detection and tracking of pesticide residues, especially in soil and water. Outdated equipment and insufficiently advanced methodologies compromise the effectiveness of environmental analyses. Additionally, financial constraints impact the ability to expand monitoring networks and invest in technical training for inspectors and laboratories. The lack of resources for ongoing inspection programs reduces the frequency of inspections, enabling irregular practices and making it difficult to enforce the penalties provided for in the legislation. To overcome these barriers, fostering public–private partnerships, allocating greater investment in technological innovation, strengthening professional training policies, and ensuring a more efficient monitoring system aligned with the country’s environmental and production demands are essential.
Conceptualization, G.M.B., M.A.S. and J.B.d.S.; methodology, G.M.B., C.E.B. and I.G.C.; software, T.A.A.P.; validation, E.A.d.S., M.A.S. and J.B.d.S.; formal analysis, G.M.B., T.S.D. and C.M.d.A.; investigation, G.M.B., I.G.C. and C.E.B.; resources, J.B.d.S.; data curation, G.M.B., I.G.C., C.E.B., T.A.A.P., T.S.D. and C.M.d.A.; writing—original draft preparation, G.M.B., I.G.C. and C.E.B.; writing—review and editing, G.M.B., M.A.S., E.A.d.S., T.A.A.P. and J.B.d.S.; visualization, G.M.B., I.G.C., C.E.B., E.A.d.S., T.A.A.P., M.A.S., T.S.D., C.M.d.A. and J.B.d.S.; supervision, M.A.S. and J.B.d.S.; project administration, J.B.d.S.; funding acquisition, J.B.d.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
No new data were created or analyzed in this study.
The authors acknowledge “Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)”, “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)”, and “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)”.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Total number of pesticides, components, and similar products registered in Brazil in recent years (A). Total number of pesticides, components and similar products registered in Brazil in recent years, categorized into Product Formulated Based on New Ingredient (PFBNAI) and Technical Product Formulated Based on Equivalent Technical Product (TPFBETP) (B). Prepared based on data from the MAPA, 2023.
Changes in the designation of toxicological classes of pesticides.
| Old | Current |
| Category 1 | |
| Extremely toxic; red band: Causes skin corrosion. In the eyes, it causes corneal opacity that may or may not be reversible within seven days, in addition to causing persistent irritation in the area. |
|
| Category 2 | |
| Highly toxic; yellow band: Causes severe skin irritation. In the eyes, it does not cause corneal opacity; it only causes irritation reversible in 7 days. |
|
| Category 3 | |
| Moderately toxic; blue band: Causes moderate skin irritation. It does not cause corneal opacity in the eyes, only irritation that is reversible within 72 h. |
|
| Category 4 | |
| Slightly toxic; green band: May cause mild skin irritation. In the eyes, it does not cause corneal opacity, only irritation reversible within 24 h. |
|
Table prepared by the authors with data from [
References
1. Serra, L.S.; Mendes, M.R.F.; Soares, M.; Monteiro, I.P. Revolução Verde: Reflexões acerca da questão dos agrotóxicos. Rev. Científica Cent. Estud. Desenvolv. Sustentável UNDB; 2016; 1, pp. 2-25.
2. Dutra, R.M.S.; De Souza, M.M.O. Cerrado, Revolução Verde e a Evolução no Consumo de Agrotóxicos. Soc. Nat.; 2017; 29, pp. 469-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14393/SN-v29n3-2017-8]
3. Sharifzadeh, M.S.; Abdollahzadeh, G.; Damalas, C.A.; Rezaei, R. Farmers’ Criteria for Pesticide Selection and Use in the Pest Control Process. Agriculture; 2018; 8, 24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8020024]
4. Madgwick, P.G.; Kanitz, R. What Is the Value of Rotations to Insecticide Resistance Management?. Pest Manag. Sci.; 2024; 80, pp. 1671-1680. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.7939] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38173134]
5. Ofosu, R.; Agyemang, E.D.; Márton, A.; Pásztor, G.; Taller, J.; Kazinczi, G. Herbicide Resistance: Managing Weeds in a Changing World. Agronomy; 2023; 13, 1595. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061595]
6. Carvalho, F.P. Pesticides, Environment, and Food Safety. Food Energy Secur.; 2017; 6, pp. 48-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/fes3.108]
7. Khan, B.A.; Nadeem, M.A.; Nawaz, H.; Amin, M.M.; Abbasi, G.H.; Nadeem, M.; Ayub, M.A. Pesticides: Impacts on Agriculture Productivity, Environment, and Management Strategies. Emerging Contaminants and Plants: Interactions, Adaptations and Remediation Technologies; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 109-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22269-6_5]
8. Barroso, G.M.; Dos Santos, E.A.; Pires, F.R.; Galon, L.; Cabral, C.M.; Dos Santos, J.B. Phytoremediation: A Green and Low-Cost Technology to Remediate Herbicides in the Environment. Chemosphere; 2023; 334, 138943. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.138943]
9. Mei, L.C.; Chen, H.M.; Dong, A.Y.; Huang, G.Y.; Liu, Y.W.; Zhang, X.; Yang, G.F. Pesticide Informatics Platform (PIP): An International Platform for Pesticide Discovery, Residue, and Risk Evaluation. J. Agric. Food Chem.; 2022; 70, pp. 6617-6623. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.2c02141] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35617526]
10. Kubiak-Hardiman, P.; Haughey, S.A.; Meneely, J.; Miller, S.; Banerjee, K.; Elliott, C.T. Identifying Gaps and Challenges in Global Pesticide Legislation That Impact the Protection of Consumer Health: Rice as a Case Study. Expo. Health; 2023; 15, pp. 597-618. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12403-022-00508-x]
11. Brasil. Lei Nº 14.785, de 27 de dezembro de 2023. Lei que dispõe sobre a pesquisa, a experimentação, a produção, a embalagem, a rotulagem, o transporte, o armazenamento, a comercialização, a utilização, a importação, a exportação, o destino final dos resíduos e das embalagens, o registro, a classificação, o controle, a inspeção e a fiscalização de agrotóxicos, de produtos de controle ambiental, de seus produtos técnicos e afins. Diário Oficial da União; 27 December 2023.
12. Tang, F.H.; Lenzen, M.; McBratney, A.; Maggi, F. Risk of Pesticide Pollution at the Global Scale. Nat. Geosci.; 2021; 14, pp. 206-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00712-5]
13. Hough, R.L. A World View of Pesticides. Nat. Geosci.; 2021; 14, pp. 183-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00723-2]
14. FAO. FAOSTAT: Pesticides Indicators. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RP/visualize (accessed on 20 June 2024).
15. IBAMA. Relatórios de Comercialização de Agrotóxicos. Available online: https://www.gov.br/ibama/pt-br/assuntos/quimicos-e-biologicos/agrotoxicos/relatorios-de-comercializacao-de-agrotoxicos/relatorios-de-comercializacao-de-agrotoxicos#sobreosrelatorios (accessed on 20 June 2024).
16. Kniss, A.R. Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use. Nat. Commun.; 2017; 8, 14865. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14865] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28393866]
17. Benbrook, C.M. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ. Sci. Eur.; 2016; 28, 3. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0]
18. Bain, C.; Selfa, T.; Dandachi, T.; Velardi, S. ‘Superweeds’ or ‘survivors’? Framing the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds and genetically engineered crops. J. Rural Stud.; 2017; 51, pp. 211-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.03.003]
19. Fogliatto, S.; Ferrero, A.; Vidotto, F. Current and future scenarios of glyphosate use in Europe: Are there alternatives?. Adv. Agron.; 2020; 163, pp. 219-278.
20. Ribeiro, V.H.; Oliveira, M.C.; Smith, D.H.; Santos, J.B.; Werle, R. Evaluating efficacy of preemergence soybean herbicides using field treated soil in greenhouse bioassays. Weed Technol.; 2021; 35, pp. 830-837. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/wet.2021.22]
21. Da Silva, C.T.; Barroso, G.M.; Silva, D.V.; Galon, L.; Holz, C.M.; Santos, M.V.; Dos Santos, J.B. Remedial capacity of diclosulam by cover plants in different edaphoclimatic conditions. Int. J. Phytoremediat.; 2021; 23, pp. 609-618.
22. Davoren, M.J.; Schiestl, R.H. Glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer risk: A post-IARC decision review of potential mechanisms, policy and avenues of research. Carcinogenesis; 2018; 39, pp. 1207-1215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgy105]
23. ANVISA. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Publicada Reclassificação Toxicológica de Agrotóxicos. Available online: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/assuntos/noticias-anvisa/2019/publicada-reclassificacao-toxicologica-de-agrotoxicos (accessed on 19 June 2024).
24. FIOCRUZ. Brasil é um dos Principais Receptores de Agrotóxicos Proibidos na União Europeia. Available online: https://cee.fiocruz.br/?q=brasil-e-um-dos-principais-receptores-de-agrotoxicos-proibidos-na-uniao-europeia#:~:text=No%20Brasil%2C%20os%20campe%C3%B5es%20em,aqueles%20permitidos%20na%20Uni%C3%A3o%20Europeia (accessed on 20 June 2024).
25. EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:1 (accessed on 20 June 2024).
26. Bianchi, S.; Nottola, S.A.; Torge, D.; Palmerini, M.G.; Necozione, S.; Macchiarelli, G. Associação entre saúde reprodutiva feminina e mancozebe: Revisão sistemática de modelos experimentais. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 2580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072580]
27. Runkle, J.; Flocks, J.; Economos, J.; Dunlop, A.L. A systematic review of Mancozeb as a reproductive and developmental hazard. Environ. Int.; 2017; 99, pp. 29-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.006]
28. Tao, H.; Fang, C.; Xiao, Y.; Jin, Y. The toxicity and health risk of chlorothalonil to non-target animals and humans: A systematic review. Chemosphere; 2024; 358, 142241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142241]
29. Sadeghnia, H.; Shahba, S.; Ebrahimzadeh-Bideskan, A.; Mohammadi, S.; Malvandi, A.M.; Mohammadipour, A. Atrazine Neural and Reproductive Toxicity. Toxin Rev.; 2022; 41, pp. 1290-1303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2021.1966637]
30. Carneiro, F.F.; Rigotto, R.M.; Augusto, L.G.D.S.; Friedrich, K.; Búrigo, A.C. Dossiê ABRASCO: Um Alerta Sobre os Impactos dos Agrotóxicos na Saúde; ABRASCO: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2015.
31. da Cunha Júnior, J.L.; Ulhôa, J.L.R.; Oliveira, J.A.U. Avaliação da Toxidade de Inseticidas para as Abelhas Europa (Apis mellifera): Evaluation of the Toxicity of Insecticides for Europa Bees (Apis mellifera). Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res.; 2023; 6, pp. 3035-3047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34188/bjaerv6n4-001]
32. Ara, Z.G.; Haque, A.R. A Comprehensive Review on Synthetic Insecticides: Toxicity to Pollinators, Associated Risk to Food Security, and Management Approaches. J. Biosyst. Eng.; 2021; 46, pp. 254-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42853-021-00104-y]
33. PARA—Programa de Análise de Resíduos de Agrotóxicos em Alimentos. Available online: https://antigo.anvisa.gov.br/informacoes-tecnicas13?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_R6VaZWsQDDzS&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_101_INSTANCE_R6VaZWsQDDzS_groupId=111215&_101_INSTANCE_R6VaZWsQDDzS_urlTitle=programa-de-analise-de-residuos-de-agrotoxicos-em-alimentos&_101_INSTANCE_R6VaZWsQDDzS_struts_action=%2Fasset_publisher%2Fview_content&_101_INSTANCE_R6VaZWsQDDzS_assetEntryId=123559&_101_INSTANCE_R6VaZWsQDDzS_type=content#:~:text=Programa%20de%20An%C3%A1lise%20de%20Res%C3%ADduos%20de%20Agrot%C3%B3xicos%20em%20Alimentos%20 (accessed on 20 June 2024).
34. EFSA—European Food Safety Authority. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/pesticides (accessed on 20 June 2024).
35. Brasil. Decreto Nº 4.074, de 4 de Janeiro de 2002. Regulamenta a Lei No 7.802, de 11 de Julho de 1989, que Dispõe sobre a Pesquisa, a Experimentação, a Produção, a Embalagem e Rotulagem, o Transporte, o Armazenamento, a Comercialização, a Propaganda Comercial, a Utilização, a Importação, a Exportação, o Destino Final dos Resíduos e Embalagens, o Registro, a Classificação, o Controle, a Inspeção e a Fiscalização de Agrotóxicos, seus Componentes e Afins, e Dá Outras Providências. Diário Oficial da União; 4 January 2002.
36. PNCRC. Resultados do Plano Nacional de Controle de Resíduos e Contaminantes. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inspecao/produtos-animal/plano-de-nacional-de-controle-de-residuos-e-contaminantes/para-o-sitio-pncrc-2023-portugues.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2024).
37. Brasil. 2022a. Portaria SDA Nº 574, de 9 de Maio de 2022. Institui o Programa Nacional de Controle de Resíduos e Contaminantes em Produtos de Origem Vegetal (PNCRC/Vegetal), Definindo o Alcance, os Objetivos, os Critérios e os Procedimentos para a Realização dos Controles Oficiais. Diário Oficial da União; 9 May 2024.
38. Brasil. 2013a. Instrução Normativa MAPA nº 31/2013. Estabelece os Procedimentos a Serem Adotados no Âmbito do Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária (MAPA), na Constatação de Resíduos de Agrotóxicos e Contaminantes Químicos, Físicos e Biológicos, Conforme Estabelecido em Legislação Específica da ANVISA, em Produtos Vegetais, seus Subprodutos e Resíduos de Valor Econômico, Padronizados. Diário Oficial da União; 15 August 2013.
39. PARA—Programa de Análise de Resíduos de Agrotóxicos em Alimentos. 2019; Available online: https://antigo.anvisa.gov.br/documents/111215/0/Relat%C3%B3rio+%E2%80%93+PARA+2017-2018_Final.pdf/e1d0c988-1e69-4054-9a31-70355109acc9 (accessed on 21 June 2024).
40. Brasil. Resolução Da Diretoria Colegiada—RDC Nº 221, De 28 De Março De 2018. Dispõe sobre os critérios e os procedimentos para o processo de reavaliação toxicológica de ingredientes ativos de agrotóxicos no âmbito da Anvisa. Diário Oficial da União; 28 March 2018.
41. Li, H.; Feng, Y.; Li, X.; Zeng, D. Analytical Confirmation of Various Herbicides in Drinking Water Resources in Sugarcane Production Regions of Guangxi, China. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.; 2018; 100, pp. 815-820. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-018-2324-6]
42. Parven, A.; Meftaul, I.M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Herbicides in Modern Sustainable Agriculture: Environmental Fate, Ecological Implications, and Human Health Concerns. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2024; 22, pp. 1181-1202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-024-05818-y]
43. Yang, C.; Lim, W.; Song, G. Reproductive Toxicity Due to Herbicide Exposure in Freshwater Organisms. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C Toxicol. Pharmacol.; 2021; 248, 109103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109103]
44. Brochado, M.G.D.S.; Guidi, Y.M.; Lima, A.D.C.; Medeiros, B.A.D.P.; D’Angieri, R.; Mendes, K.F. Can Herbicides of Different Mode of Action Cause Injury Symptoms in Non-Herbicide-Tolerant Young Soybean Due to Simulated Drift?. J. Environ. Sci. Health B; 2023; 58, pp. 726-743. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2023.2275512]
45. Brovini, E.M.; de Deus, B.C.T.; Vilas-Boas, J.A.; Quadra, G.R.; Carvalho, L.; Mendonça, R.F.; Cardoso, S.J. Three-Bestseller Pesticides in Brazil: Freshwater Concentrations and Potential Environmental Risks. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 771, 144754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144754]
46. Generoso Ferreira, M.; Madureira Barroso, G.; da Costa, V.A.M.; de Castro e Castro, B.M.; Cola Zanuncio, J.; Marinho Pereira, I.; Barbosa dos Santos, J. Development of Native Forest Species of the Atlantic Forest in Soil Contaminated with Hormonal Herbicides. Int. J. Phytoremediat.; 2019; 21, pp. 921-927. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2019.1583636]
47. Barroso, G.M.; dos Santos, J.B.; de Oliveira, I.T.; Nunes, T.K.M.R.; Ferreira, E.A.; Pereira, I.M.; de Freitas Souza, M. Tolerance of Bradyrhizobium sp. BR 3901 to Herbicides and Their Ability to Use These Pesticides as a Nutritional Source. Ecol. Indic.; 2020; 119, 106783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106783]
48. Paula, D.F.D.; Ferreira, G.A.D.P.; Guimarães, T.; Brochado, M.G.D.S.; Hahn, L.; Mendes, K.F. Oxyfluorfen and Linuron: Residual Effect of Pre-Emergence Herbicides in Three Tropical Soils. Agrochemicals; 2023; 2, pp. 18-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals2010003]
49. MAPA—Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. 2023; Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/insumos-agropecuarios/insumos-agricolas/agrotoxicos/informacoes-tecnicas (accessed on 20 June 2024).
50. Brasil. Decreto nº 24.114, de 12 de Abril de 1934. Aprova o regulamento da Sanitária da Defesa Vegetal. Diário Oficial da União; 12 April 1934.
51. Terra, F.H.B.; Pelaez, V. A história da indústria de agrotóxicos no Brasil: Das primeiras fábricas na década de 1940 aos anos 2000. Anais do 47º Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administração e Sociologia Rural; Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administração e Sociologia Rural: Porto Alegre, Brasil, 2009.
52. Brasil. Lei nº 7.802, de 11 de julho de 1989. Dispõe sobre a pesquisa, a experimentação, a produção, a embalagem e rotulagem, o transporte, o armazenamento, a comercialização, a propaganda comercial, a utilização, a importação, o destino, a classificação, o controle, a inspeção e a fiscalização de agrotóxicos, seus componentes e afins, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 11 July 1989.
53. Brasil. Lei n° 9.974 de 06 de junho de 2000. Altera a Lei nº 7.802, de 11 de julho de 1989, que dispõe sobre a pesquisa, a experimentação, a produção, a embalagem e rotulagem, o transporte, o armazenamento, a comercialização, a propaganda comercial, a utilização, a importação, a exportação, o destino final dos resíduos e embalagens, o registro, a classificação, o controle, a inspeção e a fiscalização de agrotóxicos, seus componentes e afins, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 6 June 2000.
54. Brasil. Projeto de Lei do Senado nº 6.299, de 2002. Altera os arts 3º e 9º da Lei nº 7.802, de 11 de julho de 1989. 2002; Available online: https://static.poder360.com.br/2018/05/PL-6299_2002.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2024).
55. Brasil. Projeto de Lei do Senado nº 1.459, de 2022. Dispõe sobre a pesquisa, a experimentação, a produção, a embalagem e a rotulagem, o transporte, o armazenamento, a comercialização, a utilização, a importação, a exportação, o destino final dos resíduos e das embalagens, o registro, a classificação, o controle, a inspeção e a fiscalização de pesticidas, de produtos de controle ambiental e afins; altera a Lei Delegada nº 8, de 11 de outubro de 1962; revoga as Leis nºs 7.802, de 11 de julho de 1989, e 9.974, de 6 de junho de 2000, partes de anexos das Leis nºs 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981, e 9.782, de 26 de janeiro de 1999, e dispositivo da Lei nº 12.873, de 24 de outubro de 2013; e dá outras providências. 2022; Available online: https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/153396 (accessed on 20 June 2024).
56. Brasil. Decreto Nº 10.833, de 7 de Outubro de 2021. Altera o Decreto nº 4.074, de 4 de janeiro de 2002, que regulamenta a Lei nº 7.802, de 11 de julho de 1989, que dispõe sobre a pesquisa, a experimentação, a produção, a embalagem e rotulagem, o transporte, o armazenamento, a comercialização, a propaganda comercial, a utilização, a importação, a exportação, o destino final dos resíduos e embalagens, o registro, a classificação, o controle, a inspeção e a fiscalização de agrotóxicos, seus componentes e afins. Diário Oficial da União; 7 October 2021.
57. Camargo, E.R.; Zapiola, M.L.; de Avila, L.A.; Garcia, M.A.; Plaza, G.; Gazziero, D.; Hoyos, V. Current situation regarding herbicide regulation and public perception in South America. Weed Sci.; 2020; 68, pp. 232-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2020.14]
58. Brasil. Lei n.º 9.782, de 26 de janeiro de 1999. Lei que define o Sistema Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, cria a Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 26 January 1999.
59. Brasil. Resolução Da Diretoria Colegiada—RDC Nº 294, de 29 de Julho de 2019. Dispõe sobre os critérios para avaliação e classificação toxicológica, priorização da análise e comparação da ação toxicológica de agrotóxicos, componentes, afins e preservativos de madeira, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 29 July 2019.
60. Brasil. Resolução Da Diretoria Colegiada—RDC Nº 295, de 29 de Julho de 2019. Trata dos critérios para avaliação do risco dietético decorrente da exposição humana e resíduos de agrotóxicos, no âmbito da Anvisa, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 29 July 2019.
61. Brasil. Resolução Da Diretoria Colegiada—RDC Nº 295, de 29 de Julho de 2019. 2019c. Estabelece as informações toxicológicas para rótulos e bulas de agrotóxicos, afins e preservativos de madeira. Diário Oficial da União; 29 July 2019.
62. Brasil. Instrução Normativa nº 34, de 29 de julho de 2019. 2019d. Estabelece e dá publicidade à lista de componentes não autorizados para uso em agrotóxicos e afins. Diário Oficial da União; 29 July 2019.
63. Londres, F. Agrotóxicos no Brasil: Um Guia para ação em Defesa da Vida. Rede Brasileira de Justiça Ambiental, 2012 Available online: https://br.boell.org/pt-br/2011/10/31/agrotoxicos-no-brasil-um-guia-para-acao-em-defesa-da-vida-0 (accessed on 20 June 2024).
64. Brasil. Portaria nº 3, de 16 de Janeiro de 1992 da Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. 1992; Available online: https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/svs1/1992/prt0003_16_01_1992.html (accessed on 20 June 2024).
65. Silva Ferreira, E.M.; Moreira da Silva, J.F.; do Nascimento, G.N.L.; Pimenta, R.S. Re: New Brazilian law may put food production safety in check. Public Health; 2019; 167, pp. 159-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.11.008]
66. Lima, M.B.S.; Valverde, T.d.S. Aspectos Sóciobiodiversos do Novo Marco Regulatório para Agrotóxicos Publicado pela Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA). 2020; Available online: https://ri.ucsal.br/server/api/core/bitstreams/8cd95831-a1ff-486c-ba48-47b1155675de/content (accessed on 20 June 2024).
67. Portal da Câmara. Portal da Câmara dos Deputados do Brasil. Available online: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/2023/lei-14785-27-dezembro-2023-795170-norma-pl.html (accessed on 7 July 2024).
68. Brasil. Constituição Federal. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm (accessed on 24 June 2024).
69. Brasil. Lei Lei nº 6.938 de 31 de Agosto de 1981. Dispõe sobre a Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente, seus fins e mecanismos de formulação e aplicação, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 31 November 1981.
70. Brasil. Lei 12.651 de 25 de Maio de 2012. Dispõe sobre a proteção da vegetação nativa; altera as Leis nºs 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981, 9.393, de 19 de dezembro de 1996, e 11.428, de 22 de dezembro de 2006; revoga as Leis nºs 4.771, de 15 de setembro de 1965, e 7.754, de 14 de abril de 1989, e a Medida Provisória nº 2.166-67, de 24 de agosto de 2001; e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 25 May 2012.
71. Brasil. Lei n°13.123 de 20 de Maio de 2015. Regulamenta o inciso II do § 1º e o § 4º do art. 225 da Constituição Federal, o Artigo 1, a alínea j do Artigo 8, a alínea c do Artigo 10, o Artigo 15 e os §§ 3º e 4º do Artigo 16 da Convenção sobre Diversidade Biológica, promulgada pelo Decreto nº 2.519, de 16 de março de 1998; dispõe sobre o acesso ao patrimônio genético, sobre a proteção e o acesso ao conhecimento tradicional associado e sobre a repartição de benefícios para conservação e uso sustentável da biodiversidade; revoga a Medida Provisória nº 2.186-16, de 23 de agosto de 2001; e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 20 May 2015.
72. Brasil. Portaria de Consolidação Nº 5, de 28 de Setembro de 2017. Dispõe sobre consolidação das normas sobre as ações e os serviços de saúde do Sistema Único de Saúde. Diário Oficial da União; 28 September 2017.
73. Brasil. Instrução Normativa MAPA nº 27/2006. Estabelece procedimentos para o registro de produtos microbiológicos utilizados no controle de pragas agrícolas. Diário Oficial da União; 5 June 2006.
74. Brasil. Instrução Normativa MAPA nº 19/2013. Estabelece os critérios e procedimentos para o registro de produtos fitossanitários com uso aprovado para a agricultura orgânica, incluindo produtos biológicos. Diário Oficial da União; 8 July 2013.
75. Brasil. Instrução Normativa Conjunta ANVISA/IBAMA/MAPA nº 5/2021. Regulamenta o registro de produtos biológicos para uso agrícola, detalhando os procedimentos e requisitos para a avaliação toxicológica, ecotoxicológica e agronômica desses produtos. Diário Oficial da União; 13 May 2021.
76. Brasil. Lei nº 9.605 de 12 de Fevereiro de 1998. Dispõe sobre as sanções penais e administrativas derivadas de condutas e atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 12 February 1998.
77. Brasil. Decreto N° 99.274 de 06 de Junho de 1990. Regulamenta a Lei nº 6.902, de 27 de abril de 1981, e a Lei nº 6.938, de 31 de agosto de 1981, que dispõem, respectivamente sobre a criação de Estações Ecológicas e Áreas de Proteção Ambiental e sobre a Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União; 6 June 1990.
78. Brasil. Resolução CONAMA n° 465 de 5 de Dezembro de 2014. Dispõe sobre os requisitos e critérios técnicos mínimos necessários para o licenciamento ambiental de estabelecimentos destinados ao recebimento de embalagens de agrotóxicos e afins, vazias ou contendo resíduos. Diário Oficial da União; 5 December 2014.
79. Brasil. Resolução CONAMA n° 420 de 28 de Dezembro de 2009. Dispõe sobre critérios e valores orientadores de qualidade do solo quanto à presença de substâncias químicas e estabelece diretrizes para o gerenciamento ambiental de áreas contaminadas por essas substâncias em decorrência de atividades antrópicas. Diário Oficial da União; 28 December 2009.
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Isabela Goulart Custódio 1
; Borges, Cláudia Eduarda 1
; Elizângela Aparecida dos Santos 2
; Thiago Almeida Andrade Pinto 1
; Marcus Alvarenga Soares 1
; Tayna Sousa Duque 1
; Caique Menezes de Abreu 1
; José Barbosa dos Santos 1
1 Department of Agronomy, Federal University of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Diamantina 39100-000, MG, Brazil;
2 Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Unaí 38610-000, MG, Brazil;