See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273464766

A review of the global pesticide legislation and

the scale of challenge in reaching the global
harmonization of food...

Article in Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management · March 2015

DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1635 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

22 1,377

3 authors:

Caroline Handford Christopher Elliott

Queen's University Belfast Queen's University Belfast
7 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS 440 PUBLICATIONS 7,199 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Katrina Campbell
Queen's University Belfast
85 PUBLICATIONS 1,214 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PROTECTED: PROTECTion against Endocrine Disruptors; Detection, mixtures, health effects, risk
assessment and communication. View project

ReMAinE - REIMS Meat Authenticity in Europe View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Katrina Campbell on 02 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 9999, Number 9999—pp. 1–12
© 2015 SETAC 1

A Review of the Global Pesticide Legislation and the Scale

of Challenge in Reaching the Global Harmonization of Food
Safety Standards
Caroline E Handford,y Christopher T Elliott,y and Katrina Campbell*y
yInstitute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom

(Submitted 20 October 2014; Returned for Revision 20 January 2015; Accepted 23 February 2015)

ABSTRACT
Pesticide use is important in agriculture to protect crops and improve productivity. However, pesticides have the potential

Critical Review
to cause adverse human health or environmental effects, depending on exposure levels. This review examines existing
pesticide legislation worldwide, focusing on the level of harmonization and impacts of differing legislation on food safety
and trade. Pesticide legislation varies greatly worldwide, because countries have different requirements, guidelines, and legal
limits for plant protection. Developed nations have more stringent regulations than developing countries, which lack the
resources and expertise to adequately implement and enforce legislation. Global differences in pesticide legislation act as a
technical barrier to trade. International parties such as the European Union (EU), Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex),
and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have attempted to harmonize pesticide legislation by providing
maximum residue limits (MRLs), but globally these limits remain variable. Globally harmonized pesticide standards would
serve to increase productivity, profits, and trade and also enhance the ability to protect public health and the environment.
Integr Environ Assess Manag 2015;9999:1–12. © 2015 SETAC

Keywords: Food safety Global harmonization Legislation Maximum residue limits Pesticides

INTRODUCTION workers are particularly vulnerable to pesticide poisoning. This

Pesticides have a longstanding and particularly important
role in agriculture by protecting crops and improving
productivity. “First generation” pesticides such as S, As, and
nicotine were predominantly applied to crops before the
chemical age, when their use was mostly discontinued because
of toxicity or ineffectiveness because of pest resistance. After
World War II, a more effective group of synthetic pesticides,
known as “second generation” pesticides, emerged. These
included organochlorine pesticides such as DDT and dieldrin.
Organochlorines were popular because of their low cost, easy
application, and efficacy. The introduction of other synthetic
pesticides such as organophosphates and phenoxy acids shortly
followed (Fishel 2009a).
Improper pesticide application, including incorrect selection,
overuse of pesticides on agricultural commodities, or harvesting
crops before the residues have washed off after application, can
lead to a high amount of residues on produce that consumers are
eating (Chen et al. 2011). Human exposure to pesticides can
occur through ingestion of contaminated foods, drinking water,
and animal products because of bioaccumulation, inhalation, or
skin contact (Bakirci et al. 2014). The Pesticide Action Network
UK (PAN UK) (2013) reported that nearly two thirds (63%) of
supermarket own-brand loaves and top brand-name loaves
analyzed in 2013 contained traces of 1 or more pesticides.
Individuals in high exposure risk occupations such as farm
* Address correspondence to: katrina.campbell@qub.ac.uk
Published online 12 March 2015 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.1635
risk is further heightened in developing countries because a
larger percentage of the population work in agriculture and are
exposed to more toxic pesticides that are banned or restricted in
developed countries. Additional means of increased exposure
are incorrect application techniques, poorly maintained or
inappropriate spraying equipment, and insufficient storage
practices (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos 2011). Pesticides,
selected for their biological activity, therefore have the ability to
cause adverse health effects in humans, ranging from acute
impacts, such as nausea, headaches, and skin and eye irritation,
to chronic impacts, such as cancer, neurological and develop-
ment defects, diabetes, reproductive disorders, birth defects,
and cardiovascular disease (Mostafalou and Abdollahi 2013).
Pesticide application also may cause harm to other nontarget
organisms, including birds, bees, and fish, environmental
damage through contaminating soil, water, turf, and other
plants, and increased resistance in the target pest organisms
(K€ohler and Triebskorn 2013). Recent studies have implicated
pesticides in changes in bee behavior and declines in colony
queen production (Gill et al. 2012).
Pesticides must be regulated to ensure that they do not
present unacceptable risks to humans, animals, or the
environment. This article reviews current global pesticide
legislation and focuses on the level of harmonization in
regulations and policies employed worldwide, as well as the
implications of differing legislation on food safety and
trade.
DEVELOPMENT OF PESTICIDE LEGISLATION
The development of pesticide legislation in 8 key regions—
the US, Europe, China, India, Australia, Japan, Brazil, and
2 Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015—CE Handford et al.

Figure 1. Parallel timelines of the development of pesticide legislation worldwide.

 Global Harmonization of Pesticide Legislation—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015 3

South Africa—is presented in Figure 1. These regions were
selected to illustrate the advancements in pesticide legislation in
both developed and developing regions. Pesticide regulation was
given little attention until the 1940s, when the use of synthetic
pesticides such as DDT became more widespread in agriculture,
with application on major field crops (Figure 1). In 1962, the
publication of Silent Spring substantially heightened public
concern regarding the environmental damage caused by
synthetic pesticides (Carson 1962). DDT was banned for all
agriculture uses in developed nations by the 1980s, and the need
for improved pesticide legislation was recognized. The United
Nations Environment Programme also was established to
protect the global environment for present and future
generations. In association with the World Health Organisation
(WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
the United Nations Environment Programme works to
encourage integrated pest management (IPM), techniques to
hinder pest population development, promoting safer sustain-
able alternative strategies to the use of persistent organic
pollutants.
Significant changes have been made to US pesticide
legislation in recent years (Figure 1), with the US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) establishing the tolerance reassess-
ment and reregistration review program. This has allowed for
the implementation of new standards for dietary pesticide
safety, changing the standard for tolerance for pesticide residues
to “reasonable certainty of no harm,” and making considerations
for aggregate and cumulative risk assessment and safety for the
general population and sensitive subpopulations, including
infants and children (USEPA 2014a).
In the EU, previously fragmented legislation was replaced
with harmonized pesticide standards for all member states
(Figure 1). National maximum residue limits (MRLs),
otherwise known as tolerances in the US, are no longer in
use, and only European limits apply. A major focus of current
EU legislation, along with harmonizing the pesticide registra-
tion process in Europe, is the future sustainable use of
pesticides and adoption of IPM techniques. The use of
pesticides is reviewed in new scientific findings exemplified
by the European Commission (EC) imposing a restriction on
certain nicotinamides for use in 2013, because of uncertainties
in the link to pollinator population declines. The EC have
committed to initiate a review of the conditions of approval,
within 2 years at the latest, to take into account new scientific
and technical developments (Gill et al. 2012; Regulation [EU]
No 485/2013).
Numerous developed and developing nations have progressed
in the same direction, thus resulting in different national
pesticide standards worldwide (Figure 1). In Australia, pesticide
legislation has also moved toward national harmonization
(Figure 1), although further work is required to apply
modifications that improve consistency in pesticide regulatory
approaches across jurisdictions. In developing countries, such as
China and India, which have implemented their own pesticide
regulatory systems, highly toxic pesticides are still used because
of legislation being inadequate or poorly enforced.

Table 1. Apple maximum residue limits as parts per million (ppm) for selected pesticides in different global regions
(values from the USDA MRL Database)

Type of Codex EU US Canada China Japan India Australia South Africa

pesticide MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL

Acetamiprid 0.8 0.8 1 1 0.8 2 0.8a — 0.8a

Captan 15 3 25 5 15 5 15 10 15a

Chlorantraniliprole 0.4 0.5 1.2 0.4 — 1 0.4a 0.3 0.5b

Deltamethrin 0.2 0.2 0.2 — 0.1 0.5 0.2a — 0.2a

Fenbutatin-oxide 5 2 15 3 5 5 5a 3 5ab

Fludioxonil 5 5 5 5 — 5 5a 5 5a

Hexythiazox 0.4 1 0.4 — 0.5 1 0.4a 1 1b

Malathion 0.5 0.02 8 2 2 0.5 4 2 0.5b

Oxamyl — 0.01 2 — — 2 — — 0.01b

Permethrin 2 0.05 0.05 1 2 2 2a — 2a

Pyrethrins — 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1b

Spinosad 0.1 1 0.2 0.1 — 0.5 0.1a 0.5 1b

Thiacloprid 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 — 2 0.7a 1 0.7a

Thiram 5 5 7 7 5 5 5a 3 5a

Ziram 5 0.1 7 7 — 5 5a 3 5a

MRL ¼ maximum residue limit.

—Means no MRL was established.
a
Codex MRLs are applied.
b
EU MRLs are applied.
4 Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015—CE Handford et al.

Table 2. Grain corn maximum residue limits as parts per million (ppm) for selected pesticides in different global regions
(values from the USDA MRL Database)

Type of Codex EU US Canada China Japan India Australia South Africa

pesticide MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL MRL

2,4-D 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 0.01 0.2 0.05a

Atrazine — — 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.2 0 0.1 0.05

Carboxin — 0.01 0.2 — 0.2 0.2 — 0.1 0.01b

Chlorpyrifos 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.05a

Deltamethrin 2 2 1 — 0.5 1 0.5 2 2a

EPTC — 0.01 0.08 0.1 — 0.1 — 0.04 0.01b

Fluoride — 2 10 — — — — — 2b

Glyphosate 5 1 5 3 1 1 5a 5 5a

Malathion 0.05 8 8 8 8 2 4 8 8b

Piperonyl Butoxide 30 — 20 20 — 24 30a 20 30a

Prothioconazole — 0.02 0.35 0.35 — — — 0.3 0.02b

Spinosad 1 1 1.5 1.5 — 2 1a 1 1a

Sulfuryl fluoride 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 — 0.05 0.05a 0.05 0.05a

Tefluthrin — 0.05 0.06 0.06 — 0.1 — — 0.05b

Zeta-Cypermethrin 0.3 0.3 0.05 — — 0.2 0.3a 1 0.3a

MRL ¼ maximum residue limit.

—Means no MRL was established.
a
Codex MRLs are applied.
b
EU MRLs are applied.

Maximum residue limits
Most countries use MRLs to regulate pesticides. Maximum
residue limits are defined as “the upper legal levels of a
concentration for pesticide residues (expressed in mg/kg) in or
on food or feed based on good agricultural practices (GAP) and
to ensure the lowest possible consumer exposure” (European
Food Safety Authority [EFSA] 2011). These must be safe for
all consumers and protect vulnerable groups such as children.
The MRLs are derivatives of statistical calculations from field
trials. An acute reference dose and acceptable daily intake are
determined from the toxicological data (EFSA 2011). These
are compared with food consumption patterns, obtained from
dietary intake surveys and residue data from rotational crop
studies, supervised field trials, and, if available, monitoring
data, to ensure that exposure does not exceed specified safety
limits (FAO 2009). Tables 1 and 2 provide illustrative
examples of global commodities and the set MRLs for
randomly selected pesticides, to show how these differ
between countries.
In some cases, these differences can be minor, as shown for
acetamiprid on apple or spinosad on corn. Although for other
pesticides, MRLs can vary enormously; the US limits for captan
and fenbutatin-oxide on apple are approximately 8 times
higher than the European limits. The EU has the strongest
standards (the lowest MRL) for most of the pesticides
examined, and the United States has the weakest standards
(highest MRL) in several cases. Internationally, many
exporters defer to pesticide MRLs devised by the EU or
Codex, although variations in standards still cause disruptions
in trade.
International position on pesticide standards
International parties have attempted to harmonize pesticide
standards worldwide to facilitate trade. In 1985, FAO adopted
an International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use
of Pesticides; this was updated in 2014. The code is a set of
voluntary standards that are especially useful where national
pesticide legislation is inadequate or absent. The standards
encourage responsible and generally accepted trade practices,
ensure effective and efficient use of pesticides, and promote
risk reduction in handling pesticides (FAO 2014). Several
other international instruments, which any country can adopt,
have come into force to aid with pesticide management,
including the Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-
boundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their
Disposals, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals
and Pesticides in International Trade, and the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was
created in 1947 to provide rules for international trade; this was
a provisional agreement and organization. The Uruguay round
of the GATT negotiations took place between 1986 and 1994
and led to the establishment of the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) in 1995. The WTO has superseded GATT and deals
with regulations of trade between participating nations. The
 Global Harmonization of Pesticide Legislation—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015
WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement aims “to
harmonise sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a
basis as possible; members shall base their sanitary or
phytosanitary measures on international standards, guidelines
or recommendations” (WTO 2013). This agreement encour-
ages compliance with the Codex standards on pesticide residues.
Codex sets nonbinding consensus-based MRLs, which are
particularly useful for countries without or having a limited level
of pesticide residue standards for international trade.
Since 1992, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) pesticide program has enabled
wider international harmonization of pesticide registration
procedures. The OECD pesticide and testing projects work to
harmonize the test methods and, as a result, the mutual
acceptance of data among member countries. The process
includes developing test guidelines for the tests used to fulfill
the pesticide registration data requirements and harmonizing
exposure, hazard, and risk assessment methods to interpret the
test results and to assess a pesticide’s risk. This harmonization
enables a producer to register a pesticide in a number of
countries with the same safety dossier, which will save a
considerable amount of time and expenses. The OECD has
also developed an MRL calculator to harmonize pesticide
MRLs across OECD countries (OECD 2014).
The Globally Harmonised System of Classification and
Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) was created to promote the
sound management of chemicals worldwide through the
provision of an internationally comprehensible system for
hazard communication on labels and safety data sheets,
creating classification processes that use available data on
chemicals for comparison with hazard criteria, and to facilitate
international trade in chemicals whose hazards have been
identified and properly assessed on an international basis
(United Nations 2011).
In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) came into force, which led to cooperative efforts
to harmonize pesticide regulatory requirements between
Canada, the US, and Mexico. In 1997, a Technical Working
Group on pesticides was established to develop more
effective and less expensive pesticide regulation and trade
among the 3 nations. The NAFTA MRL/Tolerance Harmo-
nisation Workgroup developed a spreadsheet to calculate
pesticide MRLs to coordinate the pesticide regulatory
framework among NAFTA countries. However, the US
and Canada joined the OECD in their use of the OECD
MRL calculator in 2011, which has since replaced the
NAFTA MRL calculator (USEPA 2014b).
CURRENT GLOBAL PESTICIDE LEGISLATION
Although a vast increase has been seen in the enactment of
pesticide legislation worldwide, it remains absent in approx-
imately a quarter of countries in Africa and the Southeast Asian
region (Matthews et al. 2011). Where present, regulations
often lack comprehensiveness and the capacity to enforce these
effectively; developed nations, conversely, are increasingly
implementing more stringent legislation.
Europe
The EU pesticide legislative framework has evolved consid-
erably over the years (Figure 1), with the current “thematic
strategy for pesticides” comprising 4 elements (Stark 2011).
The EC is responsible for the approval of active substances
(SANCO/10181/2013), and member states authorize the use
5
of these products on their territory and abide by EU rules. In
brief, manufacturers of an active substance must submit an
application to the rapporteur member state in which they
intend to place the new product on the market. Applications
must include a complete safety dossier, which is a highly
extensive, costly procedure, with the provision of scientific
data regarding mainly physical and chemical properties of the
substance, and toxicology and exposure information based on
laboratory experiments and epidemiological studies. Evalua-
tion by the rapporteur member state leads to their recom-
mendation on the active substance.
Authorized substances are included in a positive list; Table 3
summarizes and compares EU legislation on selected pesticides
with that of India to illustrate differences between developed
and developing nations. Those included are illustrative
examples of substances that are authorized, restricted for
use, or banned in the EU. To date 459 active substances have
been approved, 781 substances were not approved, and 52
substances are pending approval. Due to the nature of plant
protection required in Europe, herbicides tend to be more
predominantly used for weed control.
Pesticide MRLs for agricultural commodities are applicable
in all member states. The EU laws set a default lowest limit of
analytical determination value of 0.01 mg/kg for when a
pesticide is not specifically mentioned or for crops on which
the pesticide has not been used, or when its use has not left
detectable residues. Methods of sampling for the determi-
nation of pesticide residues for compliance with MRLs are
outlined in SANCO/12571/2013. Foods imported to EU
countries are sampled to ensure that they do not contain any
illegal substances or pesticides above the set MRLs.
The EFSA is also working with regulatory bodies, scientists,
and policy makers worldwide to refine methodologies and
provide risk assessors with new tools to determine possible
combined effects derived from exposure to multiple chemicals
through consumers’ diets (EFSA 2013).
United States
In recent years, tougher legislation has been implemented to
ensure better control of pesticides (Figure 1). The USEPA is
charged with pesticide registration, which involves the
submission of a comprehensive application by manufacturers
of new substances and new uses for currently registered
pesticides. Registration specifies the crops and sites on which
the pesticide may be applied and is supported by extensive
data, comprising environmental, health, and safety documents
regarding physical and chemical properties of the substance,
toxic hazards, residue chemistry, and product performance.
The USEPA routinely requires efficacy data to be submitted for
review for those pesticide applications in which public health
claims are being made; however, efficacy data can be requested
for all pesticides. Approximately 2 years are needed to obtain
registration approval from the USEPA. After a pesticide has
been licensed, states can register pesticides for use under
specific state pesticide registration laws. Pesticides that are not
approved or registered in the US may still be manufactured in
the US and exported.
The USEPA also establishes tolerance limits; child health
and the risks of pesticide exposure in numerous products must
be considered (USC 2014c). Tolerance exemptions are
occasionally granted for a pesticide ingredient where the
exemption is found to be safe. The US Department of
Agriculture enforces tolerances for meat and certain egg
 6
Table 3. Comparison of EU and Indian legislation for selected pesticides (Data from EU Pesticides Database and CIBRC)

European Union India

Current
status
Current (Section 9
status (Reg. (3)
Active (EC) No Date of Insecticides
substance 1107/2009) approval Expiry date Legislation Notes MRL Act, 1968) Notes MRL

2,4-D Approved 01/10/2002 31/12/2015 01/103/EC Reg. (EU) Extension of Yes Approved — Yes
No 540/2011 expiry date for
inclusion (2010/77)

2,4,5-T Not — — 2002/2076 — — Not Refused —

Approved approved registration

Aldrin Not — — 850/2004 Banned — Not Banned for —

Approved approved manufacture,
import, and use

Atrazine Not — — 2004/248/EC — — Approved — Yes

Approved

Captan Approved 01/10/2007 30/09/2017 07/5/ECReg. — Yes Approved — Yes

(EU) No 540/2011

DDT Not — — 850/2004 Banned — Approved Restricted for Yes

Approved use in India

Deltamethrin Approved 01/11/2003 31/10/2016 03/5/ECReg. — Yes Approved — Yes

(EU) No 540/2011
Reg. (EU)
No 823/2012

Ethoxysulfuron Approved 01/07/2003 31/03/2014 03/23/ECReg. — Yes Approved —

(EU) No 186/2014
Reg. (EU)
No 540/2011
(Reg. [EU] No 823/2012)

Heptachlor Not — — 850/2004 Banned — Not Banned for —

approved approved manufacture,
import and use

Lindane Not — — 00/801/EC — — Approved Banned for —

approved manufacture,
import and use
Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015—CE Handford et al.
 European Union India
Current
status
Current (Section 9
status (Reg. (3)
Active (EC) No Date of Insecticides
substance 1107/2009) approval Expiry date Legislation Notes MRL Act, 1968) Notes MRL

Malathion Approved 01/05/2010 30/04/2020 2010/17/EUReg. Included after Yes Approved — Yes
(EU) No 540/2011 resubmission for
inclusion according
to Reg. 33/2008

Methyl Parathion Not — — 03/166/EC — — Approved Restricted for Yes

approved use in India

Phorate Not — — 2002/2076 — — Approved — Yes

approved

Pyrethrins Approved 01/09/2009 31/08/2019 2008/127Reg. Substance Yes Approved — Yes

(EU) No 540/2011 satisfying criteria
Reg. (EU) Annex VI
No 798/2013 Reg. 2229/2004

Simazine Not — — 04/247/EC Essential — Not Pesticide —

approved use 835/2004 approved withdrawn

Triazophos Not — — 2002/2076 Essential use — Approved — Yes

approved

EU ¼ European Union; CIBRC ¼ Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee; MRL ¼ maximum residue limit.
Global Harmonization of Pesticide Legislation—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015
7
8 Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015—CE Handford et al.
products, and the US Food and Drug Administration imple-
ments tolerances specified for other foods.
Australia
Pesticide regulation (Figure 1) is the shared responsibility of
the Commonwealth and the States and Territories through the
National Registration Scheme. Manufacturers seeking regis-
tration for a pesticide are required to go through the Australian
Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and
provide a dossier with information on toxicology, environment
fate and effects, residue data, occupational health and safety,
and chemistry (including production methods). Applications
must be accompanied by a prescribed fee. The APVMA
collaborates with other Commonwealth agencies during the
registration process of pesticides. The APVMA also establishes
pesticide MRLs during the evaluation process before their
registration. Evaluators consider submissions on the use of the
pesticide and other information, including recommendations
made by other governments and internationally recognized
organizations. The MRLs set by the APVMA for human foods
are advanced to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand for
incorporation into Standard 1.4.2 of the Food Standards Code.
For MRLs in animal feeds, the entries in the MRL are usually
adopted into the appropriate state legislation. The MRLs are
monitored by national programs such as the Food Standards
Australia New Zealand’s Australian Total Diet Survey
(APVMA 2014).
Japan
Pesticides are primarily regulated by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, who specifies standards
for the required amount of active ingredients, the maximum
permitted amount of hazardous chemical ingredients, and
other requirements specific to each type of pesticide (Figure 1).
Applicants seeking registration must provide scientific data
regarding the physical and chemical properties, types of active
ingredients, phytotoxicity, toxicity, and efficacy of the
substance along with the provision of samples.
The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare is authorized
to establish pesticide MRLs. Because Japan is one of the
world’s largest users of pesticides (Zhang et al. 2011), a
positive list system was introduced in 2006 (Figure 1). At that
time the Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare established
new MRLs for some food commodities and comprehensively
reviewed existing MRLs. Codex MRLs have been adopted as
Japanese MRLs, where in existence. Since its introduction, all
Japanese agricultural products and imports have had to comply
with the positive list. For substances with no established MRL,
a uniform default level of 0.01 ppm is set as the maximum limit
(Hayashi et al. 2009).
China
The Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of
Agriculture, established under the Ministry of Agriculture
(MOA), regulates pesticides in China (Figure 1). Registration
of a new pesticide involves the submission of a dossier
containing a summary of the product, production process,
chemical data, safety data, labeling, an illustration manual, a
business license, and study reports.
Before 2009, scientific data to support MRL setting was
lacking, and standards were based on unsound risk assessment.
Consequently, approximately 30% of China’s pesticide market
comprised acutely toxic, fake, and illegal pesticides (Fishel
2009b). Because China is currently one of the largest
manufacturers of pesticides worldwide (Sola et al. 2014),
stricter legislation has since been implemented (Figure 1). In
2009, the MOA became responsible for specifying residue limits
for pesticides in China; these standards are jointly published by
the MOA and the Ministry of Health. The national pesticide
residue standard committee was created to aid with setting
MRLs. As a result, existing MRLs have been re-evaluated and
new MRLs issued; Codex MRLs have also been adopted.
India
Pesticide registration in India is through the Central
Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, who evaluate
the data concerning the product’s chemistry, bio-efficacy, and
toxicity. Authorized pesticides are listed on a schedule of
approved substances; the board sporadically reviews all
pesticides and can ban or consign any pesticide to restricted
use (Table 3). Insecticides, such as DDT, which are highly
effective against various pests, are restricted for use in India,
because they have been banned in many other countries due to
their acute toxicity (Abhilash and Singh 2009). There are 248
approved pesticides; 28 pesticides banned from manufacture,
import and use; 2 pesticides banned for use but their
manufacture allowed for export; 4 pesticide formulations
banned for import, manufacture, and use; 7 pesticides
withdrawn; 18 pesticides refused registration; and 13 pesti-
cides restricted for use in India.
In previous years, India’s pesticide legislation (Figure 1)
exposed loopholes and lacked adequate enforcement, thus
resulting in persisting problems relating to the environment
and public health. Consequently, new legislation was intro-
duced in 2008 (Figure 1) in a bid to control pests, ensure
availability of quality pesticides, improve training of pesticide
application, and minimize contamination of agricultural
commodities with pesticide residues. However, this legislation
has also been greatly scrutinized and has yet to be passed by
parliament (Sola et al. 2014).
Africa
Pesticide use in Africa is mostly targeted at high-value cash
crops for export (Sola et al. 2014). Although many African
states have developed pesticide laws to a greater or lesser
extent, member states present various challenges to sound
pesticide management, because national regulatory agencies
are often underfunded and lack resources to enforce regu-
lations, and some countries do not have a pesticide registry
system. Further problems include a lack of guidelines for
pesticide control, insufficient knowledge about pesticides,
poorly equipped laboratories, and inadequate storage of
pesticides (Matthews et al. 2011; WHO 2011).
South Africa is one of the largest consumers of pesticides in
Africa (Sola et al. 2014), making adequate legislation funda-
mental. Even so, the country (Figure 1) has been criticized for
lacking in key areas, including the establishment of pesticide-use
surveillance and monitoring systems; the necessary education,
training, and certification to apply pesticides; and research into
alternative nonchemical approaches to pesticides (Joemat-
Pettersson 2010). Furthermore, of the thousands of pesticide
products authorized in South Africa, several may not have been
re-evaluated for many years and so may not meet the current
stricter criteria of risk assessment. The approval of pesticide
MRLs for agricultural products is the responsibility of the
Department of Health (DOH), though this list is limited. Codex
 Global Harmonization of Pesticide Legislation—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015
values are the principal default values when no South African
MRL has been established. The DOH inspection services monitor
pesticide residues to ensure compliance with the set MRLs.
Other parts of Africa have shown similar problems with
poorly implemented pesticide legislation, leading to a high use
of highly toxic, illegal pesticides. In Ghana, an estimated 10%
to 15% of imported pesticides are illegal (Northern
Presbyterian Agricultural Services and Partners 2012). In
2011, the FAO Regional Office in Ghana held a workshop to
harmonize pesticide legislation across West and Central Africa,
and it has since developed tools to aid these countries with
regional schemes and pesticide registration. Likewise, in East
Africa the Treaty for the establishment of the East African
Community was signed in November 1999 by Kenya, Uganda,
and Tanzania. Article 108 on Plant and Animal Disease
Control specifies that member states shall harmonize policies
and legislation for enforcement of pest and disease control,
harmonize and strengthen regulatory initiatives, and adopt a
common mechanism to ensure safety, efficacy, and potency of
agricultural chemicals.
South America
Brazil is the third leading agricultural exporter in the world,
after the EU and the US (EC 2014). Agricultural activities
within this country have therefore required an increasing
reliance on pesticides and the subsequent need for pesticide
legislation (Figure 1). Pesticide registration is the shared
responsibility of 3 agencies: The Ministry of Agriculture
evaluates the product’s effectiveness and issues the certificate
of registration; the Ministry of Health is in charge of
toxicological assessments, classification of pesticides, and
specifying MRLs; and the Ministry of Environment deals
with the environmental assessment. Currently in place are 2
monitoring programs for pesticide residues in food in Brazil,
which seek to ensure compliance with national MRLs: the
Programme on Pesticide Residue Analysis, which is coordi-
nated by the Ministry of Health, and the National Residue and
Contaminant Control Programme, coordinated by the Minis-
try of Agriculture (Jardim and Caldas 2012).
Other South American countries have developed standards
similar to those implemented in Brazil. Nevertheless, as in
other developing regions, many countries have struggled to
enforce their pesticide legislation. To assist in the management
of pesticides, many countries have become members of
international bodies such as GHS. Uruguay became the first
country in South America to adopt GHS in 2009, followed by
Brazil. Other countries in South America are expected to also
adopt the GHS.
IMPACTS OF DIFFERING LEGISLATION ON FOOD
SAFETY AND TRADE
International trade in foodstuffs has grown rapidly and
changed profoundly over recent decades, in response to a
growing global population with changing diets. The EU is by far
the leading importer of agricultural commodities, with imports
reaching an all-time high of s102 billion in 2013 (EC 2014).
This indicates why it has the most advanced regulatory system
worldwide, because the setting of high food safety standards is
paramount in the protection of human health. However, that
standards are implemented to protect domestic consumers from
harmful residues in food from their own country, and for
domestic trade, is equally important. Developing countries are
becoming increasingly dependent on food imports, because of
9
crop loss caused by climate changes. The highest losses in global
food production are in arid and subhumid tropics in Africa and
South Asia (Hanjra and Qureshi 2010). With food security
vulnerability already rife among these nations, this is expected to
increase further, which could result in lower standards for food
safety and quality being applied.
Global differences in pesticide regulations act as a technical
barrier to trade, impeding trade of both pesticides and
agricultural commodities. Legislation affects trade competive-
ness, because nontariff measures can constitute entry barriers
in the form of additional compliance costs for producers, which
in turn increases food prices. Furthermore, those exporting
their produce to numerous foreign markets are faced with even
greater costs, because they have to abide by several standards
according to the export destination. Importing countries with
stricter regulations can cause significant losses in trade for
exporting countries. A nation that already enforces stringent
pesticide residue standards is therefore likely to encounter
fewer difficulties in complying with the provisions of the
importing nation, considering its producers have already
satisfied the costs associated with maintaining low residue
levels (Drogue and DeMaria 2012). Developing countries are
particularly affected by the more stringent food safety stand-
ards of developed nations.
Global differences in regulated pesticides (Table 3) cause
further problems in the course of international trade, especially
for countries in the developing world, which still may use
hazardous pesticides that are not authorized in developed
nations. The PIC is used to control the export of certain
hazardous pesticides through notifying and providing adequate
data to the importing nation. Nevertheless, the system fails to
support developing countries in the establishment of a
regulatory framework to help them assess pesticides for
import. Furthermore, no obligatory mechanism exists for
compliance with the PIC; therefore, producers may regularly
violate the PIC provisions in the channel of pesticide trade,
thus potentially affecting the safety of food.
Countries routinely reject crops containing pesticide residue
levels above their national MRL values or when MRLs are
absent, even if Codex MRLs have been established. Accord-
ingly, monitoring is generally intensified for agricultural
products from the country where the original violation
happened, and if the problem perseveres, a ban may be
permanently implemented on imports from that country. For
example, in the EU, a 2010 survey found 8 samples of okra
from India that contained pesticide residues exceeding
specified MRLs. An import restriction was therefore placed
on okra from India, meaning that it can only enter the EU
through certain listed ports and airports, where a proportion of
the consignments are to be tested for pesticide residues. The
consignment is not permitted to enter the EU if it is
noncompliant with MRLs (Expert Committee on Pesticide
Residues in Food 2012).
Many countries may comply with standards in the countries
they predominantly export to and apply lower standards
elsewhere. Violative shipments with foods containing banned
or restricted substances, or with residues exceeding legal limits,
may be exported to countries with an inadequate sampling
program and lower inspection rates, therefore increasing risks
to food safety (Neff et al. 2012). Bakirci et al. (2014)
investigated the presence of pesticide residues in a total of 1423
samples of different fresh fruit and vegetables collected from a
market in the Aegean region of Turkey from 2010 to 2012.
10
These samples were taken in accordance with the Turkish
regulation. In 2010, 68 (14%) samples contained pesticide
residues above MRLs, whereas in 2011, 42 (10%) samples
exceeded the MRLs, and in 2012, only 21 (4%) of samples
were above the MRLs. This study highlights the importance of
regularly monitoring pesticide residues on agricultural com-
modities to avoid risks to human health. However, a slight
decline has been seen in the percentage of samples exceeding
pesticide residue MRLs in recent years, which may be
attributable to the implementation of more stringent legis-
lation and IPM strategies.
GLOBAL HARMONIZATION
Worldwide, each country has different pesticide standards,
most of which are complex and multidimensional; these are
not easily harmonized. The key drivers of legislation identified
include culture, politics, economy, science (i.e., differing test
standards and food consumption patterns), health, food
sustainability and security, safety, trade, pest management,
and the development of the country. For instance, the differing
needs for pesticides worldwide (Table 3) can cause discrep-
ancies in authorized products or uses in different countries,
with a common example being DDT, which remains
important in India for malaria control (Abhilash and Singh
2009). The MRLs can vary because of different GAPs in
countries with differing application rates for control of various
pests (FAO 2009). Therefore, residue limits for commodities
will differ for different pesticides and markets, although these
MRLs are still safe (Tables 1 and 2), and pesticides or products
in the channel of trade must comply with pesticide regulations
from both importing and exporting countries. The EU is
renowned for having one of the strictest regulatory systems in
the world and is considered a key player internationally with its
harmonized approach to pesticide standards among member
states, thus making it a good model for global harmonization
(Erlacher and Wang 2011). Currently, in its efforts to compete
in the global markets, EFSA consults with the WTO before
establishing MRLs. However, since the establishment of the
EU’s harmonized MRL system, many countries (especially
developing countries) have struggled to meet the very low
MRLs that are specified (Froman 2014). By contrast,
important deficiencies exist in legislation, registration, and
enforcement of pesticides in developing nations (Matthews
et al. 2011; WHO 2011), because of a limited awareness and
understanding of the risks of pesticides (particularly public
health pesticides), as well as limited resources (funding and
facilities) and expertise to develop and enforce legislation.
Legislation is often lacking basic elements such as labeling,
storage, transport, and the disposal of pesticides. Pesticide
registration systems are often underdeveloped and lack
published guidelines of pesticide requirements, as well as the
necessary registration requirements such as the requirement to
reregister a pesticide periodically. Therefore, many hazardous
or substandard pesticides remain available for use in develop-
ing nations. Where legislation is sufficient, compliance
monitoring and enforcement is often inadequate because of
a lack of pest control inspectors.
Global harmonization of pesticide legislation and conform-
ance tests is desirable for all 4 parties involved—pesticide
manufacturers, consumers, farm workers, and regulators (Don
Wauchope 2008). For consumers, this would result in
increased confidence in the regulatory system and the science
applied, safer pesticides being introduced, a greater variety of
Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015—CE Handford et al.
foods available at a lower price, and thus enhanced food
security. For farmers, the benefits would be new, safer
technologies for crop protection and increased productivity,
profits, and trade. For manufacturers, this would result in a
simplified and more efficient risk assessment and registration
process, and prospects of quicker access to global markets with
new pesticides and uses, with lower costs for new pesticide
development. For regulators, this would be a cost-effective
way of devising regulations for governments with limited
resources, improve global working relationships with shared
expert knowledge, enable additional expert support to address
key problems, and increase trust in regulatory decisions if
considerable differences do not exist between these countries.
Of course, challenges to global harmonization must be
considered, such as the high costs and time associated with
changing regulatory systems that are already in place. In
addition, pesticide regulations in a particular country are
specifically geared toward its own pesticide needs; global
standards cannot address the individual needs of each country.
Finally, harmonization moves the decision making away from
easily accessed and accountable national regulatory bodies to
international bodies, which are largely unavailable and more
obscure to citizens. As local groups have more involvement in
the process of establishing national regulations, they may be
more compliant with these as opposed to those set interna-
tionally (Badulescu and Baylis 2006).
A number of attempts have been made to harmonize
pesticide standards worldwide by international parties such as
the Codex, NAFTA, and the OECD. Although progress has
been made in some areas of regulatory harmonization, it has
been slow. The main reasons for this are that the members
involved work within their own country and are in charge of
their nation and its concerns; scientists have different inter-
pretations and opinions, which leads to disagreements and the
need to compromise; the main developed countries (EU and the
US) have their own internal priorities, and developing countries
often lack the resources and expertise to manage the reviews on
their own. Nonetheless, some progress has been made in the
establishment of global pesticide MRLs to allow agricultural
produce to move more freely across borders. However, the
number of pesticides with Codex MRLs is limited. Updates to
Codex procedures have been proposed and are outlined in
Verger and Boobis (2013). The OECD has been successful in
speeding up the process of harmonizing pesticide standards
through their work share program (OECD 2011). The OECD
MRL calculator, as discussed previously, harmonizes EU and
NAFTA procedures as much as possible. The OECD is also
currently working toward harmonizing pesticide registration
systems. By the end of 2014, the OECD also envisages all data
submissions for pesticides to be prepared globally whenever
possible, and dossiers in the OECD format will be accepted by
all member countries. Global reviews of new pesticides can help
greatly with the harmonization process and can also save
countries considerable time and resources through work sharing
(OECD 2011). In developing regions, a number of pesticide
collaborations also have been established to help strengthen
regulatory programs, including the association of Southeast
Asian Nations, the African Union, the Community of Andean
Nations, and the Central American Customs Union.
While global harmonization is underway, the following key
recommendations are made for its success: Knowledge gaps
regarding the risks of pesticides need to be addressed by
research programs; key drivers of pesticide legislation should
 Global Harmonization of Pesticide Legislation—Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015
be ranked in order of their importance by each country to
establish which to prioritize; the current regulatory systems in
place should each be critically evaluated in terms of their
strengths and weaknesses to establish a system that fits all; the
benefits and risks of a harmonized system for all parties
concerned should be examined; considerations should be made
regarding the individual needs of different countries to
implement a harmonized system; and improvements should
be made to the knowledge base of concerned parties so that
legislation is sufficiently implemented and enforced.
CONCLUSIONS
Pesticide legislation is mostly developed and enforced on a
regional, as in the EU, or national basis, which causes major
complications in international trade. Developing countries are
particularly affected by the stringency of pesticide legislation in
developed nations. Pesticide MRLs are not harmonized on a
global scale, although international instruments such as Codex
have provided MRLs to assist in international trade. Further-
more, international parties have done little to support
developing countries in the development of an enforcement
and regulatory framework. Disharmonized national and
regional standards act as a technical barrier to trade with
additional high compliance costs to producers, which in turn
increases food prices. Therefore, single, globally harmonized
pesticide standards would be beneficial in increasing produc-
tivity, profits, and trade, and in protecting public health and
the environment.
Acknowledgment—This research was made possible through
funding by the Department for Education and Learning for
Northern Ireland.
REFERENCES
Abhilash PC, Singh N. 2009. Pesticide use and application: An Indian scenario.
J Hazard Mater 165:1–12.
[APVMA] Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. 2014. Setting
of maximum residue limits. [cited 2014 June 27]. Available from: http://www.
apvma.gov.au/residues/setting.php
Badulescu D, Baylis K. 2006. Pesticide regulation under NAFTA: Harmonisation in
process? Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network (CATPRN)
Commissioned Paper. p 1–27.
Bakirci GT, Acay DBY, Bakirci F, Otles S. 2014. Pesticide residues in fruits and
vegetables from the Aegean region, Turkey. Food Chem 160:379–392.
Bhushan C, Bhardwaj A, Misra SS. 2013. State of Pesticide Regulations in India.
New Delhi (IN): Centre for Science and Environment. p 1–72.
Carson R. 1962. Silent spring. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin. 368 p.
Chen C, Qian T, Tao C, Li C, Li Y. 2011. Evaluation of pesticide residues in fruits and
vegetables from Xiamen, China. Food Control 22:1114–1120.
[CIBRC] Central Insecticides Board & Registration Committee. 20th May 2014.
Registered, banned and restricted products. [Cited 2014 June 30]. Available
from: http://cibrc.nic.in/
Council Directive 76/895/EEC of 23 November 1976 relating to the fixing of
maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables. OJEU,
L340/26, 09/12/1976, Brussels (BE): p 26–31.
Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels
for pesticide residues on cereals. OJEU, L221/37, 07/08/1986, Brussels (BE):
p 37–42.
Council Directive 86/363/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for
pesticide residues in and on foodstuffs of animal origin. OJEU, L221/43, 07/08/
1986, Brussels (BE): p 43–47.
Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum
levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin,
including fruit and vegetables. OJEU, L350/71, 14/12/1990, Brussels (BE). p
71–79.
11
Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market. OJEU, L230/1, 19/08/1991, Brussels (BE).
p 1–32.
Damalas CA, Eleftherohorinos IG. 2011. Pesticide exposure, safety issues,
and risk assessment indicators. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8:1402–
1419.
Directive 2009/127/EC of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with
regard to machinery for pesticide application. OJEU, L310/29, 25/11/2009,
Brussels (BE). p 29–33.
Directive 2009/128/EC of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for
community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides. OJEU, L309/
71, 24/11/2009, Brussels (BE). p 71–86.
[DOA] Department of Agriculture. 2012. Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals,
Regulation [Internet]. [Cited 2014 June 27]. Available from: http://www.daff.
gov.au/agriculture-food/ag-vet-chemicals/regulation
[DOH] Department of Health. 2010. A guide to the use of pesticides in Western
Australia: Providing information on legislation, policies and best practice.
[cited 2014 July 14]. Available from: http://www.health.wa.gov.au/publica-
tions/documents/11627_Pesticides.pdf
Don Wauchope R. 2008. Global harmonisation of pesticide regulation: Greater
transparency of the risk assessment process is a prerequisite. Outlooks on Pest
Management 19:284–285.
Drogue S, DeMaria F. 2012. Pesticide residues and trade, the apple of discord?
Food Policy 37:641–649.
[EC] European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumers. EU
pesticides database. [cited 2014 June 30]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/
sanco_pesticides/public/?event=activesubstance.selection
[EC] European Commission. 2014. Agricultural trade in 2013: EU gains in
commodity exports. [cited 20xx Month xx]. Available from: http://ec.europa.
eu/agriculture/trade-analysis/map/2014-1_en.pdf
[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2011. 2009 European Union Report on
pesticide residues in food. EFSA 9:2430–2655.
[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2013. International frameworks dealing
with human risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals.
EFSA 11:3313–3382.
Erlacher E, Wang M. 2011. Regulation (EC) No.1107/2009 and upcoming
challenges for exposure assessment of plant protection products: Harmo-
nisation or national modelling approaches? Environ Pollut 159:3357–3363.
Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food. 2012. Report on the Pesticide
Residues Monitoring Programme for Quarter 2 2012. [cited 2014 June 25].
Available from: http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/Resources/CRD/PRiF/Docu-
ments/Results%20and%20Reports/2012/Q2_2012_Report.pdf
[FAO and WHO] Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
and World Health Organisation. 2014. International Code of Conduct on
Pesticide Management. [2014 September 20]. Available from: http://www.
fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pests_Pesticides/Code/
CODE_2014Sep_ENG.pdf
[FAO] Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations. 2009. Submission
and evaluation of pesticide residues data for the estimation of maximum
residue levels in food and feed. FAO Plant production and protection paper
197, 2nd Ed. Rome (IT): FAO. 261 p.
Fishel FM. 2009a. Pest management and pesticides: A historical perspective.
Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Publication P I219. p 1–5.
[cited 2014 June 30]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi219
Fishel FM. 2009b. The global increase in counterfeit pesticides. Agronomy
Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Publication P I174. p 1–7. [cited
2014 June 30]. Available from: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/ P I21000.pdf
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954. [cited 2014 July 31]. Available from: http://www.fssai.gov.in/Regu-
lations/PreventionofFoodAdulterationAct1954.aspx?
RequestID=3mmUs1KuM44mm0uKU1h_doAction=True
Froman MBG. 2014. 2014 Report on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Office
of the United States Trade Representative. [cited 2014 June 30]. Available
from: http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/FINAL-2014-SPS-Report-Com-
piled.pdf
Garcia EG, Bussacos MA, Fischer FM. 2005. Impact of legislation on registration of
acutely toxic pesticides in Brazil. Rev Sa
ude Publica 39:1–8.
12
Gill RJ, Ramos-Rodriguez O, Raine NE. 2012. Combined pesticide exposure severely
affects individual and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491:105–108.
Hanjra MA, Qureshi ME. 2010. Global water crisis and future food security in an
era of climate change. Food Policy 35:365–377.
Hayashi Y, Sato S, Obara K, Ito K. 2009. Japan- Food and Agricultural Import
Regulations and Standards- Narrative, FAIRS Country Report. USDA Global
Agricultural Information Network. [cited 2014 June 25]. Available from: gain.
fas.usda.gov/Recent GAIN Publications/Food and Agricultural Import Regu-
lations and Standards-Narrative_Tokyo_Japan_8-19–2009.pdf
Jardim ANO, Caldas ED. 2012. Brazilian monitoring programmes for pesticide
residues in food: Results from 2001 to 2010. Food Control 25:607–616.
Joemat-Pettersson T. 2010. Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and
Stock Remedies Act, 1947 (Act no. 36 of 1947). Adoption of Pesticide
Management Policy for South Africa, Report 33899.
Ko€hler H, Triebskorn R. 2013. Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: Can we track
effects to the population level and beyond? Science 341:759–765.
Lin F. 2013. Ebook19: Regulations on Pesticide Administration. China State
Council, ChemLinked. p 1–25. [cited 2014 June 8]. Available from: https://
chemlinked.com/system/files/ebook/ebook19_regulations_on_pesticide_ad-
ministration_0.pdf
Lin F. 2014. Chinese pesticide legislation overview. China State Council,
ChemLinked. [cited 2014 June 25]. Available from: https://agrochem.
chemlinked.com/chempedia/chinese-pesticide-legislation-overview
Matthews G, Zaim M, Yadav RS, Soares A, Hii J, Ameneshewa B, Mnzava A, Dash
AP, Ejov M, Tan SH, et al. 2011. Status of Legislation and Regulatory Control of
Public Health Pesticides in Countries Endemic with or at Risk of Major Vector-
Borne Diseases. Environ Health Perspect 119:1517–1522.
Mostafalou S, Abdollahi M. 2013. Pesticides and human chronic diseases:
Evidences, mechanisms, and perspectives. Toxicol Appl Pharm 268:157–177.
Neff RA, Hartle JC, Laestadius LI, Dolan K, Rosenthal AC, Nachman KE. 2012. A
comparative study of allowable pesticide residue levels on produce in the
United States. Global Health 8:1–14.
Northern Presbyterian Agricultural Services and Partners. 2012. Ghana's Pesticide
Crisis: The need for further government action. [cited 2014 June 20]. Available
from: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/ghanas-pesticide-crisis.pdf
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Pesticide
Programme: Agricultural Pesticides and Biocides [Internet]. [Cited 2014, June
11]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/pesticides-biocides/
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011.
Guidance Document on the Planning and Implementation of Joint Reviews
of Pesticide. No. 60. Paris (FR): OECD. 54 p.
Ohta H. 2013. Historical development of pesticides in Japan: Survey reports on the
systemisation of technologies. National Museum of Nature and Science,
Japan, No. 18.p 1–108.
PAN [Pesticide Action Network]. 2013. Pesticides in your daily bread: A consumer
guide to pesticides in bread 2014. PAN, London (UK). p 1–10. [cited 2014 June
30]. Available from: http://www.pan-uk.org/files/Pesticides%20in%20Your%
20Daily%20Bread%20guide%20-%20FINAL%20(1)(1).pdf
Petry M, Bugang W. 11 November 2009. China, Peoples Republic of FAIRS Subject
Report Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China 2009. USDA Foreign
Agricultural Service GAIN Report, CH9019. p 1–21.
Regulation (EC) 1185/2009 of 25 November 2009 concerning statistics on
pesticides. OJEU, L324/1, 10/12/2009, Brussels (BE). p 1–22.
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/
EEC and 91/414/EEC. OJEU, L309/1, 24/11/2009, Brussels (BE). p 1–50.
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels
of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending
Council Directive 91/414/EEC. OJEU, L70/1, 16/03/2005, Brussels (BE).
p 1–16.
View publication stats
Integr Environ Assess Manag 9999, 2015—CE Handford et al.
Regulation (EU) No 283/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements
for active substances, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the
European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market. OJEU, L93/1, 03/04/2013, Brussels (BE). p
1–84.
Regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements
for plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/
2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of
plant protection products on the market. OJEU, L93/85, 03/04/2013, Brussels
(BE). p 85–152.
Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing
Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the
active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohib-
iting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products
containing those active substances. OJEU, L 139/12, 25/5/2013, Brussels (BE).
p 12–26.
SANCO/10801/2013. 13th May 2013. Guidance document on preparing dossiers
for the approval of a chemical new active substance for the renewal of
approval of a chemical active substance according to Regulation (EU) No 283/
2013 and Regulation (EU) No 284/2013. European Commission, Brussels (BE).
p 1–12.
SANCO/12571/2013. 19th November 2013. Guidance document on analytical
quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food
and feed. European Commission, Brussels (BE). p 1–42.
Schierow L, Esworthy R. 14th Novemeber 2012. Pesticide Law: A Summary of the
Statutes. CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of
Congress, RL31921. p 1–15.
Sola P, Mvumi BM, Ogendo JO, Mponda O, Kamanula JF, Nyirenda SP, Belmain SR,
Stevenson PC. 2014. Botanical pesticide production, trade and regulatory
mechanisms in sub-Saharan Africa: Making a case for plant-based pesticidal
products. Food Security 6:369–384.
Stark G. 2011. EU pesticide legislation: An update. Aspects of Applied Biology
106:259–262.
United Nations. 2011. Globally harmonised system of classification and labeling of
chemicals (GHS). 4th revised edition. ST/SG/AC.10/30/Rev. 4. p 1–568.
[USC] United States Code. 2014a. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
21 USC, Chapter 9 Section 346a.
[USC] United States Code. 2014b. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). 7 USC, Chapter 6 Section 136a.
[USC] United States Code. 2014c. Food additives. 21 USC, Chapter 9 Section 348.
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2014. Pesticide MRL database.
[cited 2014 June 30]. Available from: http://www.mrldatabase.com/
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. Pesticides: Regulating
pesticides. Laws and regulations. [cited 2014 June 26]. Available from: http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws.htm
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. Pesticides: International
activities. Health Canada and EPA adopt OECD calculator for establishing legal
limits for pesticide residues. [cited 2014 June 23]. Available from: http://www.
epa.gov/oppfead1/international/worksharing/oecd-factsheet.html
Verger PJP, Boobis AR. 2013. Re-evaluate pesticides for food security and safety.
Science 341:717–718.
[WHO] World Health Organisation. 2011. Guidelines on public health pesticide
management policy for the WHO African Region. [cited 2014 June 25]. Available
from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501231_eng.pdf
[WTO] World Trade Organisation. Agreement of the application of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures (SPS Agreement), Article 3, Harmonisation. [cited
2013 January 1]. Available from: http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/
15-sps.pdf
Zhang W, Jiang F, Ou J. 2011. Global pesticide consumption and pollution: with
China as a focus. IAEES 1:125–144.