Global inequities in pesticide legislation: nearly half of pesticides approved in major crops in Latin America are not allowed in the European Union
Authors:
- Grecia Stefanía de GrootGGGrecia Stefanía de Groot
- Carolina Laura MoralesCMCarolina Laura Morales
- Patricia Aldea-SanchezPAPatricia Aldea-Sanchez
- Marcelo Adrián AizenMAMarcelo Adrián Aizen
- Karina AntúnezKAKarina Antúnez
- Natalia ArbuloNANatalia Arbulo
- Marina BasualdoMBMarina Basualdo
- Belén BranchiccelaBBBelén Branchiccela
- Adriana Correa BenitezAdriana Correa Benitez
- Eva Yolotzin Gutiérrez-GamiñoEGEva Yolotzin Gutiérrez-Gamiño
- Natalie Herrera SalazarNSNatalie Herrera Salazar
- Pablo JuriPJPablo Juri
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 28 January 2026
- journal article
- Published by The Royal Society in Proceedings Of The Royal Society B-Biological Sciences
- Vol. 293 (2063)
Abstract
Pesticide use is a core strategy to control agricultural pests. Although international treaties and health recommendations call for banning hazardous pesticides, globally harmonized pesticide governance remains elusive. In Latin America (LATAM), the main net food exporter worldwide, agricultural pesticide use has increased by approximately 500% since 1990, compared with only approximately 3% in Europe. To assess the environmental and health rigour of LATAM’s pesticide legislation, we reviewed active ingredients (AIs) approved for ten major crops, and AIs banned at national level, in eight LATAM countries, assessed their hazardousness according to international standards, and legal status in the European Union (EU) and explored sources of variation in the number of AIs approved in LATAM. We identified 523 AIs approved and 236 banned in LATAM; approximately 50% of the approved and approximately 85% of the banned AIs in LATAM were either not approved or prohibited in the EU. Higher crop production and, to a lesser extent, export value were linked to more AIs approved in LATAM. These findings imply weaker regulatory frameworks for hazardous pesticides in LATAM, reflecting more permissive environmental policies compared with the EU. This reinforces the urgency of addressing asymmetries in pesticide governance and rethinking the prevailing agricultural paradigm.Keywords
Funding Information
- Eva Crane Trust Fundation
- Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
- CYTED Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
This publication has 63 references indexed in Scilit:
- Between Regulation and Practice: Situated Pesticide Governance in ArgentinaStudies in Comparative International Development, 2024
- The regulatory current status of plant breeding technologies in some Latin American and the Caribbean countriesPlant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC), 2020
- Synthetic chemicals as agents of global changeFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2017
- Glyphosate: environmental contamination, toxicity and potential risks to human health via food contaminationEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research, 2016
- A review of the global pesticide legislation and the scale of challenge in reaching the global harmonization of food safety standardsIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2015
- Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebratesEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research, 2014
- AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisonsBehavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 2010
- Continuing Issues in the Limitations of Pesticide Use in Developing CountriesJournal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2010
- Green revolution agriculture and chemical hazardsScience of The Total Environment, 1996
- The extent of monoculture and its effects on insect pest populations with particular reference to wheat and cottonAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 1983