Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:08:54.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Current situation regarding herbicide regulation and public perception in South America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2020

Edinalvo Rabaioli Camargo*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Maria Luz Zapiola
Affiliation:
Scientific Affairs Manager, ArgenBio, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Luis Antonio de Avila
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Milton Alejandro Garcia
Affiliation:
Adjunct Researcher, Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Programa de Pasturas y Forrajes, Colonia, Uruguay
Guido Plaza
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, National University of Colombia, Bogotá DC, Colombia
Dionísio Gazziero
Affiliation:
Researcher, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Londrina, PR, Brazil
Veronica Hoyos
Affiliation:
Temporary Professor, College of Engineering, Magdalena University, Santa Marta, Magdalena, Colombia
*
Author for correspondence: Edinalvo Rabaioli Camargo, Department of Crop Protection, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil96010-900. (Email: [email protected])

Abstract

South American countries are important agricultural players worldwide. Pesticides are key components of their production systems and, in some cases, complement environmentally sound systems, such as no-till, which contributes to preserving soil productivity. In this review, presented in the symposium Global Perspective on Herbicides Being Banned during the 2019 Weed Science Society of America meeting, we describe the regulatory framework and current situation of restricted and banned herbicides in South America. We also discuss where the pressure for herbicide bans is coming from and the opportunities for improving herbicide use and public perception. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay were chosen as representative countries of the region. They all have regulatory systems in place for pesticide registration and reevaluation based on science. Glyphosate, paraquat, and some 2,4-D formulations are in the spotlight. Glyphosate is being reevaluated in Brazil and, although banned within the city limits in some cities in Argentina and Uruguay, it can still be used in agriculture. Paraquat is prohibited for aerial applications in Colombia and is the only herbicide that needs a professional prescription in Uruguay. It was reevaluated in Brazil, resulting in a use-restriction phase in effect until 2020, when it will be permanently banned. Ester formulations of 2,4-D have been banned in Brazil since the early 2000s and have restrictions in some provinces in Argentina, where 2,4-D butyl and isobutyl esters will be prohibited starting April 2021. In Uruguay, atrazine is the only herbicide banned for agricultural use. The regulatory frameworks ensure that herbicides on the market are effective and safe. Reevaluation is an important part of the system and is conducted when there are reasonable concerns. There are opportunities to continue training pesticide handlers and applicators and to communicate the importance of adopting the best management practices where herbicides are part of the production system.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: William Vencill, University of Georgia

References

[ANVISA] Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (2008) Resolução da diretoria colegiado (RDC). RDC No 10 (February 22, 2008). http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/documents/10181/2718376/RDC_10_2008_COMP.pdf/66e1f910-c851-4530-a9c4-5ecd0c4c86b7. Accessed: March 19, 2020Google Scholar
[ANVISA] Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (2017) Voto nº 056. Brasilia: Diretoria de regulação sanitária. 22 pGoogle Scholar
Argentina (2016) Ley 27279 (October 6, 2016). Buenos Aires, ArgentinaGoogle Scholar
[Aapresid] Asociación Argentina de Productores en Siembra Directa (2018) Update: evolution of no till adoption in Argentina. Santa Fe, Argentina: Aapresid. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Banco Mundial (2019) Agricultura, valor agregado (% del PIB). https://datos.bancomundial.org. Accessed: November 15, 2019Google Scholar
Bolsa de Cereales de Buenos Aires (2018) Relevamiento de Tecnología Agrícola Aplicada, Informe ReTAA Nº 14, Maíz Campaña 2017/18. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Departamento de Investigación y Prospectiva, Bolsa de Cereales. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Bragachini, M, Vélez, JP, Casini, C, Sánchez, F, Méndez, A, Villarroel, D, Scaramuzza, F, Urrets Zavalía, G, Álvarez, C, Basanta, M (2017) No-till planting: a contribution to productivity and environmental sustainability. Buenos Aires, Argentina: INTA Ediciones. 23 pGoogle Scholar
Buenos Aires (2016) Resolución 167 (December 2016). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ministerio de Agroindustria de la Provincia de Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
Chubut (2019) Decreto 596 (June 4, 2019). Chubut, Argentina: Gobernador de Chubut, RawsonGoogle Scholar
Comunidad Andina (2002) Manual Técnico Andino para el Registro y Control de Plaguicidas Químicos de Uso Agrícola. Resolución 630 Secretaria General de la Comunidad Andina. Gaceta Oficial del Acuerdo de Cartagena. Año XVIII–Número 810. Lima, Perú: Comunidad Andina. 169 ppGoogle Scholar
[CREA] Consorcios Regionales de Experimentación Agrícola (2019) Mapa Legal. https://www.crea.org.ar/mapalegal/aplicaciones. Accessed: November 4, 2019Google Scholar
Córdoba (2016) Resolución 112 (August 29, 2016). Córdoba, Argentina: Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, CórdobaGoogle Scholar
[DANE] Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística (2019) Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria (ENA) 2017. Bogotá, Colombia: Departamento Administrativo Nacional de Estadística. www.dane.gov.co. Accessed: November 4, 2019Google Scholar
[DGSA] Dirección General de Servicios Agrícolas (1977) Decree 149/977 Reglamentación para el registro, contralor y venta de plaguicidas de uso agrícola. http://www.mgap.gub.uy/unidad-organizativa/direccion-general-de-servicios-agricolas/descarga/decreto-149-977. Accessed: November 4, 2019Google Scholar
[DIEA] Dirección de Estadísticas Agropecuarias (2015) Anuario estadístico. Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca, República Oriental del Uruguay. http://www2.mgap.gub.uy/portal/page.aspx?2,diea,diea-anuario-2015,O,es,0. Accessed: July 14, 2019Google Scholar
Duff, A, Padilla, A (2015) Latin America: agricultural perspectives. Utrecht, Netherlands: Rabobank/RaboResearch. 12 p. https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2015/september/latin-america-agricultural-perspectives. Accessed: November 22, 2019Google Scholar
Franzluebbers, AJ, Sawchik, J, Taboada, MA (2014) Agronomic and environmental impacts of pasture–crop rotations in temperate North and South America. Agric Ecosyst Environ 190:1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[IBGE] Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2017) Censo agropecuário 2017: resultados preliminares. https://censos.ibge.gov.br/agro/2017/resultados-censo-agro-2017.html. Accessed: November 2, 2019Google Scholar
[ICA] Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (2003) Resolución 03759 de 2003, por la cual se dictan disposiciones sobre el Registro y Control de los Plaguicidas Químicos de uso Agrícola, de 16 de diciembre de 2003. Bogotá, Colombia: Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario. 23 pGoogle Scholar
La Pampa (2019) Disposición 18/19 (May 10, 2019). Santa Rosa, La Pampa, Argentina: Ministerio de la Producción, Dirección de AgriculturaGoogle Scholar
Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca de la Nación (2013) Pautas sobre aplicaciones de productos fitosanitarios en áreas periurbanas. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca. 34 pGoogle Scholar
Planalto (2002) Decreto 4074 (January 4, 2002). http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2002/d4074.htm. Accessed: November 2, 2019Google Scholar
[Red BPA] Red de Buenas Prácticas Agropecuarias (2019) Home page. http://www.redbpa.org.ar. Accessed: November 6, 2019Google Scholar
Santa Fe (2015) Resolución 135, Ministerio de la Producción: prohibición y restricción del producto 2,4 D, Santa Fe (February 26, 2015–). Santa Fe, Argentina: Ministerio de la ProducciónGoogle Scholar
Schenzle, C (2014) El arrendamiento agropecuario en la Argentina. Historia y perspectivas. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Departamento de Economía, Universidad de San Andrés. 55 pGoogle Scholar
[SAGPyA] Secretaría de Agricultura , Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación (1999) Resolución 350/99. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación, Sanidad Vegetal http://www.senasa.gob.ar/normativas/resolucion-350-1999-senasa-servicio-nacional-de-sanidad-y-calidad-agroalimentaria. Accessed: November 6, 2019Google Scholar
[SENASA] Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (2019a) Resolución 32/2019, January 17, 2019, CABA, Argentina. https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/#!DetalleNorma/200417/20190121. Accessed: November 6, 2019Google Scholar
[SENASA] Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (2019b) Resolución 466/2019, April 26, 2019, CABA, Argentina. https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/211961/20190724?busqueda=1. Accessed: November 6, 2019Google Scholar
[SENASA] Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (2019c) Resolución 875/2019, July 22, 2019, CABA, Argentina. https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/211962/20190724?busqueda=1. Accessed: November 6, 2019Google Scholar
Trigo, EJ (2011) Fifteen Years of Genetically Modified Crops in Argentine Agriculture. Buenos Aires, Argentina: ArgenBio. 49 pGoogle Scholar
Tucumán (2017) Resolución 291/2017 (June 12, 2017). Tucumán, Argentina: Subsecretaría de Asuntos Agrarios y Alimentos, Provincia de TucumánGoogle Scholar
VanDorn, HM (1999) The Rotterdam Convention. Columbia J Environ Law Policy 10:281Google Scholar