巴西拟推高危害农药清单，在巴中资农化企业需关注间接风险

João Paulo Capobianco Ana Paula Paiva/Valor The federal government is considering creating a list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) based on international criteria for assessing human toxicity and environmental hazards. The intention is not to ban the listed active ingredients or make them harder to register. Nevertheless, the proposal has drawn criticism from farmers and pesticide manufacturers, who estimate that prohibiting the products could cause losses of up to R$125.5 billion in soybean and corn crops. According to the government, the idea is to establish parameters for the safe use of crop-protection products formulated with these “highly hazardous” substances and to “support the planning, coordination, and implementation of public policies to protect health and preserve and sustainably use natural resources.” Representatives of farmers, manufacturers, and the agricultural caucus, however, believe the measure could have indirect regulatory, economic, and reputational effects. Valor obtained a draft joint ordinance from the ministries of Environment and Health, Brazil’s environmental protection agency (Ibama), and the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa). It lists 42 active ingredients already prohibited in Brazil and another 39 substances that are registered and used by Brazilian farmers as “highly hazardous.” According to the National Association of Plant Protection Product Companies (Aenda), the 39 listed active ingredients are used in 864 finished products registered by 89 manufacturers. They account for 26.3% of all commercial herbicide, insecticide and fungicide formulations available in Brazil, according to a technical report reviewed by Valor. Many of the products are used to combat pests and treat diseases, including Asian soybean rust, the cotton boll weevil, anthracnose and white mold in beans, stink bugs, and the corn leafhopper. The draft was signed in April by Environment Minister João Paulo Capobianco and Ibama President Jair Schmitt. Agribusiness organizations lobbied to prevent its publication, but the issue remains under consideration in Brasília. The Chief of Staff Office said technical and legal reviews were continuing and that, because of “the complexity of the issue, the proposal remains under review by the federal government.” The Ministry of Environment stressed that the list would not prohibit use of the products and that the measure is advisory. “The categorization of active pesticide ingredients provides important support for developing and improving public policies aimed at reducing environmental and human-health exposure to highly hazardous pesticides in Brazil.” The Ministry of Health said it had not yet received the document. The measure is among the priority initiatives of the National Program to Reduce Pesticide Use (Pronara). The government believes that the criteria used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to identify and classify Highly Hazardous Pesticides can serve as a reference adapted to Brazil’s circumstances. Minutes from a recent meeting of Pronara’s management committee state that making substitute products available lies outside the scope of public policy and is a matter for research and the private sector. Creating the list, however, could provide “guidance” for prioritizing products and promoting technological innovation. The Brazilian Association of Soybean Farmers (Aprosoja Brasil) described the draft as a “disguised indirect ban.” In a technical report, the organization said linking the list to the implementation of public policies “could result in restrictions on rural credit, exclusion from certification programs, trade barriers, restrictions on agricultural insurance and barriers to public procurement, leading to discrimination in export supply chains, increased litigation and regulatory targeting by states and municipalities.” About 50 organizations belonging to Instituto Pensar Agropecuária (IPA) supported the position and presented it to the government. The sector criticized the Ministry of Agriculture’s absence from the debate and alleged violations of the institutional framework established by the new pesticide law, Law 14785 of 2023, which centralizes decisions on the issue within the ministry. CropLife Brasil presented the ministry with estimates showing a potential loss of 12.8 million tonnes of soybeans, causing R$23.5 billion in losses, if restrictions significantly reduced crop protection effectiveness. Corn output could fall by 92.9 million tonnes, causing R$102 billion in financial losses, according to the organization representing multinational pesticide manufacturers. CropLife Brasil told the ministry that the list would damage the reputation and commercial standing of Brazilian agribusiness among importers with more restrictive standards, such as the European Union. It said the list would also provide a basis for “new challenges regarding sustainable production and Brazilian agricultural production standards in trade negotiations and export supply chains.” The Ministry of Agriculture did not immediately reply to Valor’s requests for comment. In a June technical report sent to the Office of the Chief of Staff, the ministry said the draft “contains serious technical, legal and institutional inconsistencies, creating a risk to a consolidated regulatory system and threatening legal certainty and the competitiveness of Brazilian agribusiness.” The Ministry of Agrarian Development declined to comment. In its technical report in the proceeding, however, it supported publishing the ordinance. Farmers and pesticide manufacturers criticize proposal Organizations representing farmers and pesticide manufacturers said the draft ordinance establishing the list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides conflicts with the risk-analysis model provided for in the new pesticide law. They also argue that the measure exceeds the division of responsibilities established by the legislation by creating a national classification of active ingredients without the Ministry of Agriculture’s participation. Anvisa rejected the claim that the proposal would reinstate an approach based exclusively on hazard analysis. “Identifying intrinsic hazard characteristics relevant to human health and the environment is an element that can support risk assessment and management. It does not, by itself, constitute a conclusion that an unacceptable risk exists,” Anvisa told Valor. The agency added that the measure “does not constitute a decision to register, prohibit, cancel, or restrict use based exclusively on hazard.” The Ministry of Agriculture did not immediately reply to Valor’s requests for comment. Another criticism from the agricultural sector concerns the inclusion on the Highly Hazardous Pesticides list of products assessed as having low toxicity. A survey by Aenda shows that Anvisa classifies 88% of the listed active ingredients as “unlikely to cause acute harm, slightly toxic or moderately toxic,” while 95.9% fall outside Ibama’s highest environmental-hazard category. Farmers and pesticide manufacturers argue that this reveals a “technical inconsistency” in the draft. Anvisa explained that the comparison involves different subjects, purposes, and criteria. “While toxicological classification applies to the formulated product, the HHP list is a proposal to identify active ingredients with intrinsic hazard characteristics of serious concern,” the agency said. Ibama said, “The list under development is advisory and does not, by itself, impose restrictions or prohibitions on products containing the active ingredients it identifies.” Translation: Todd Harkin