Brazil Bans Endosulfan
Endosulfan Uses and Replacement Products | |||
Crops | Replacement Products |
Registered Brands |
Registrants |
Coffee | Chlorpyrifos EC | 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 |
Bayer Cheminova Dow Fersol Milenia Nufarm Sabero |
Cotton | Bifenthrin EC | 5 1 |
FMC Milenia |
Sugarcane | Fipronil WG | 1 | BASF |
Soybean |
Imidacloprid + Thiamethoxam + |
1 3 |
Bayer Syngenta |
On August 16, the government of Brazil published guidelines for the phasing out of endosulfan. The rule was issued by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) with support from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Farming and Supply (MAPA) and Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), which also have a role in regulating pesticides.
As an organophosphate banned in 45 countries, such as in Australia and in 27 countries of the European Community, endosulfan is associated the onset of cancer and hormonal disorders, it bioaccumulates in fatty tissues and is persistent in the environment. As of June, the US Environmental Protection Agency had announced that all uses will be terminated by 2016. In Brazil, endosulfan is a widely used pesticide in agriculture, and it is very important in cotton, sugarcane, coffee, soybeans and cocoa. Although it is an older technology, first registered in 1950 in the US, it has good efficacy against insect targets.
Good insecticide efficacy and inexpensive prices helped spur widespread adoption throughout the country. About 20 million liters of the formulation 35% EC was sold in 2009, predominantly from the main players: Bayer, DVA, Milenia (Makhteshim-Agan), Nufarm and Nortox. In 2009 about 2,370 tonnes of technical material was imported versus 1,840 tonnes in 2008.
A survey among the registered products that can replace endosulfan, based on their efficacy for same insect targets, identified predominantly products with very high prices in a very concentrated market with few players, except for chlorpyrifos.
But alternatives to endosulfan might not be available for much longer. In 2008, an ANVISA initiative that eventually involved MAPA and IBAMA began a pesticide re-evaluation process of 14 active ingredients, including methamidophos, methyl parathion, paraquat dichloride, abamectin, acephate and cyhexatin.
The new evaluations were based on toxicology hazards with the objective of protecting farm workers who handle the products, as well as food safety and residue for major crops. Cyhexatin was the first re-evaluation to be finalized and the decision was to ban it by 2011. The next scheduled re-evaluations definitions are of the active ingredients acephate, methamidophos, trichlorfon and phosmet, with high chances of phase out of acephate, methamidophos, trichlorfon and strong restrictions for phosmet.
Endosulfan’s Phase Out | |||
Restrictions | Deadline | ||
Mode of application | Backpack sprayer, pump and airplane applications |
Immediate prohibition | |
Formulation type | UL and SC: Milenia (M-Agan) DP: Nufarm |
Immediate registration cancelation |
|
Packing |
Smaller than 20 liters Metallic material |
Immediately and allowed sales Immediate and allowed sales |
|
Tolerance | Cocoa |
Immediately withdrawn |
|
Volume reduction of local formulation + formulation importation 35% EC formulation |
21 million liters
30% reduction 30% reduction |
July 31, 2009 – July 31, 2010
July 31, 2010 – July 31, 2011 July 31, 2011 – July 31, 2012 |
|
Manufacturing and formulation |
Prohibition | After July 31, 2012 | |
Sales | Prohibition | After July 31, 2013 | |
Product at distribution channels |
Registrants responsible to collect |
15 days after sales prohibition (July 31, 2013) |
|
Remain product at end-user level after tolerances withdrawn |
Registrants responsible to collect |
30 days after sales prohibition (July 31, 2013) |
Ahead of this scrutiny, imports of the raw actives could rise well ahead of any phase-out deadlines. Similarly, endosulfan’s drastic rise in imports in 2009 can be attributed to this strategy of filling the value chain before import restrictions are set formally. In Brazil where pesticides registrations are very complex and take at least two years to complete, this phase out of endosulfan is considered a bit drastic because there is no realistic way that businesses can provide farmers with alternatives before the first phase of the ban.
As a result of the new rules, farmers will be directly impacted and should have the production costs increased significantly. Companies that have endosulfan registrations as a significant part of their portfolio must consider other options to continue competing in this market, where cotton, soybeans and sugarcane are the three most important crops for pesticides, representing more than 65% of the total market. On the other hand, it opens a very important business opportunity for those who sell bifenthrin, fipronil, thiamethoxam, imidacloprid + beta-cyfluthrin and thiamethoxam + lambda-cyhalothrin, that, except for fipronil all others there are very few number of on-going equivalence registration applications. Considering the phase out schedule allows the sales of endosulfan for a couple years, there is some opportunity to market replacement products, including application of new registrations, since the priority of the pesticides regulatory authorities still are to speed up equivalent product registrations.
Regardless the difficulties and timing to obtain registration approval, most of the companies that were successful doing it, are now harvesting fruitful profits in the biggest pesticide market in the world.