Crop Protection 31 (2012) 113e118
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Crop Protection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro
Modes of pesticides utilization by Brazilian smallholders and their implications
for human health and the environment
Marcos Antonio Pedlowski a, *, Maria Cristina Canela b,1, Maria Alice da Costa Terra a,1,
Rogéria Maria Ramos de Faria b,1
a
Laboratório de Estudos do Espaço Antrópico, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro, Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000, Parque Califórnia,
Campos dos Goytacazes-RJ, CP 28013-602, Brazil
Laboratório de Ciências Químicas, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro, Av. Alberto Lamego, 2000, Parque Califórnia,
Campos dos Goytacazes-RJ, CP 28013-602, Brazil
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 February 2011
Received in revised form
29 September 2011
Accepted 4 October 2011
Since 2008, Brazil has become the largest consumer of pesticides worldwide. This development follows
four decades of governmental investments aimed at modernizing Brazilian agriculture. An unintended
consequence of pesticide consumption has been the steady growth of human health problems and
environmental contamination. This paper provides an in-depth analysis of how pesticides are routinely
handled by smallholders in a tropical region of the Rio de Janeiro state and the potential environmental
post-application fate based on chemical product characteristics. While our results do not confirm that
the farmers’ apparent careless handling of pesticides is linked to an intentional disregard for intoxication
risk, they do point to a more complex set of explanatory variables that include: labor scarcity, inadequacy
of protective gear, mixing practices, and limited educational effectiveness of labeling standards. Mixing
practices may be increasing the risk to human health and to the environment, especially given the
toxicity levels of the fifteen active ingredients identified in this study. For ten of the commercially used
pesticides identified we suggest further study. These chemicals can potentially contaminate groundwater
through leaching and run-off due to their physicochemical characteristics which facilitate their mobility
in the soil layers. Given the large consumption of pesticides in Brazil and the risks listed herein, we find
urgent to address legislation, labeling, training and other measures that would provide incentives to
reduce intoxication risks to both Brazilian farmers and the environment.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Pesticides
Risk
Smallholders
Environment
Human health
Brazil
1. Introduction
In 2008, Brazil became the largest worldwide consumer of
pesticides when it used over 700,000 tons which generated revenues of 7.1 billion USD for the chemical industry. Pesticides in Brazil
are available through 1079 products with 470 active ingredients
which are divided into herbicides (45%), insecticides (27%) and
fungicides (28%) (Meirelles, 2005). The exponential growth in
pesticide consumption in Brazil was stimulated by governmental
policies implemented in the 1960s that provided substantial
subsidies for large landowners interested in planting cash crops like
soybeans, sugarcane, corn and coffee for export (Teixeira, 2005;
Miranda et al., 2007). Pesticide usage also increased in the small
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 22 27397224.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M.A. Pedlowski).
1
Tel.: þ55 22 27397224.
0261-2194/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2011.10.002
farms sector through subsidized governmental credit lines. Today,
80% of Brazilian smallholders are using chemical substances to
increase crop yield and to combat agricultural pests and diseases
(IBGE, 2009). Since the 1960s, Brazil has created a series of laws to
regulate the approval, commercialization, handling, storage and
disposal of agrochemical products to cope with the challenges
presented by widespread consumption of pesticides in its territory
(Ferreira-Neto and Sarcinelli, 2009).
There is a general consensus that the consumption of agrochemicals has produced significant social and environmental
consequences (Wilson and Tisdell, 2001; Pimentel, 2009). When
specifically addressing the problems caused by pesticides on
human health, Moreira et al. (2002) indicated that contamination
can occur by direct and indirect means, and rural workers and
farmers are probably the group at most risk through occupational
exposure. A common explanation for the high levels of occupational exposure to pesticides in developing countries is the prevailing low education among farmers and rural workers precluding
114
M.A. Pedlowski et al. / Crop Protection 31 (2012) 113e118
their ability to follow the hazard warnings developed by the
chemical industry and regulatory agencies (Waichman et al., 2007;
Recena and Caldas, 2008). The mixing of pesticides from different
chemical groups complicates the assessment of their impact on
human health. In fact, farmers are continuously being exposed
either by employing several chemical agents simultaneously or
serially, thus making the identification of the effects of particular
agents more difficult (Kamel and Hoppin, 2004).
Based on the issues presented above, there is a need for greater
understanding of the daily practices affecting the selection, usage,
mixing and disposal of pesticides by agricultural workers in the
tropics. Given the increased pesticide utilization in Brazil, the size
of its territory, its different climatic conditions and distinct stages of
agricultural development, we cannot restrict our focus exclusively
to “utilization.” We must also look at the potential impact these
daily practices are causing on human health and how they may
contribute to environmental contamination.
The present study departs from the findings presented in
Waichman et al. (2007) on Amazonian farmers cultivating wetlands
for producing vegetables for the local market. Their premise was
that better understanding of the pesticides’ instructions would lead
to a reduction of personal health risks from using these products.
Our purpose is to examine the socioeconomic environment of
southern smallholders in well established and traditional agricultural region, in the dry land tropics, and planting crops other than
vegetables. We would need to examine other factors, in addition to
understanding labels, which might be at play in how pesticides are
handled and used, which might be at play in how these chemicals
are handled and used, and which might be also contributing not
only to increased human risk but to increased environmental risk as
well.
In light of these needs, the objectives of this article are: 1) to
contribute to a better understanding of how pesticides are
routinely handled by smallholders in a tropical region; and 2) to
provide informed suggestion on which pesticides should be
selected for in-depth empirical studies on their fate in the environment and impacts on human health.
2. Methodology
Data collection on routine practices regarding pesticides
handling was conducted among small farmers living on the Zumbi
dos Palmares settlement, an area of 8500 hectares including parts
of the Campos dos Goytacazes and São Francisco do Itabapoana
municipalities (21320 and 21450 S, 41110 and 41160 W) which are
located in the northern portion of the Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil
(Fig. 1). According to Koppen, the climate at the study area can be
classified as a tropical wet and dry (Aw) climate type with average
annual temperature between 20 C and 23 C, and maximum
average temperature of 32 C. The average annual rainfall is
1300 mm, unevenly distributed, with dry periods of high temperatures (FEEMA, 1993).
A survey instrument was applied to a random sample of 101
farmers. This sample size represents 20% of the total population of
the settlement and we also used a spatial strategy to select the
survey participants to minimize sampling biases. A questionnaire
was designed to collect information on participant farmers’
demographics, cropping systems, pesticides used, dominant practices related to pesticides utilization and risk awareness. We also
included a table containing a series of pictograms to estimate
farmers’ level of understanding of basic handling and safety
procedures presented in the labels.
At the conclusion of the fieldwork, we tabulated all questionnaires using the software SPSS 16.0 for Windows. After data tabulation was finished, we conducted a careful review of the resulting
database to verify possible cases of double-counting and erroneous
pesticide name attribution. We subsequently consulted the Brazilian National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) database to
determine human and environmental toxicity levels for all identified pesticides, their common commercial brands, active ingredients and chemical groups.
3. Results and discussion
The demographic composition of our sample showed an average
household size of 3 individuals, and in 45% of the households, the
maximum size was 2. Education levels were low, with 60% of the
family members having less than four years of formal education.
Concerning farming experience, only 52% of the farmers responded
that their main occupation before becoming land reform beneficiaries was linked to agriculture, and further analysis revealed that
a majority was working in sugarcane fields owned and operated by
large landowners. The remaining 48% were involved in a wide
range of petty activities in the urban economy informal sector.
Accordingly, farmer experience on more complex land use systems
was very limited. Concerning the participating families’ pesticide
application demographics, we found that 80% of the families
depended on two household members, and 93% of the family
members in charge of applying pesticides were males. Not all
families had enough family members for the work, since 48% of the
families had to hire off-farm workers to assist in pesticide
application.
Our data showed that farmers were planting 24 commercial
crops (ten annual and fourteen perennial). Sugarcane (80.4%),
manioc (57.4%), orange trees (41.6%) and pineapples (36.6%) were
the most common. In the case of pineapples, losses can accrue to
100% when pesticides are not used because of the presence of two
pests the larvae stage of Thecla basilides (Geyer), a small butterfly,
Fig. 1. Location of the study area in the municipalities of Campos dos Goytacazes and São Francisco do Itabapoana.
M.A. Pedlowski et al. / Crop Protection 31 (2012) 113e118
and Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell), a wingless insect of the Coccoidea superfamily. Weed infestation was another important factor
affecting the farmers’ decision to use pesticides. Weeding was
considered time consuming and tiresome, especially for families
with a small labor pool.
The threat of pest infestation coupled with labor scarcity along
with new products aimed at accelerating crop growth explain why
61% of the farmers surveyed indicated that pesticides were a key
element in their daily agricultural practices. It is also important to
note that the remaining 39% of the farmers were willing to incorporate pesticides into their land use practices as soon as they could
afford to do so. In spite of this trend toward greater consumption of
pesticides, only a few farmers (n ¼ 6) declared to have any previous
experience or training with handling and utilization of pesticides.
Regardless of access to formal pesticide application training, 65% of
the farmers declared that their decision regarding product selection, mixing and spraying practices was mostly based on advice
offered by neighbors and relatives. In addition, farmers that
declared to have some sort of formal pesticide application training
(n ¼ 12) acquired their knowledge from pesticides sales
representative.
Nevertheless, all farmers using pesticides acknowledged being
exposed to health risks. This knowledge, however, did not always
seem to be enough to induce farmers to adopt basic safety procedures, such as using a complete set of protective gear during and
after working with pesticides (Table 1).
We found that backpack sprayers were the only equipment used
to apply pesticides by farmers at the Zumbi dos Palmares settlement. In addition, 38% of the farmers indicated that the equipment
was not washed between applications. This finding is important
since highly toxic pesticides were being applied and, the lack of
proper maintenance could affect equipment performance and
magnify health problems.
Farmers indicated prevailing climatic conditions (e.g., high
temperatures, strong winds, etc) as the main reasons to avoid
wearing the entire set of protective gear. Our results indicate that
most farmers (83.6%) were willing to receive technical advice on
safe pesticides handling and many also indicated the need for the
development of protective gear more suitable for their labor
conditions.
The chemical industry and governmental agencies often
present the development of labels explaining proper pesticide
use as an effective tool to improve safety standards and environmental protection. In this study, we showed sixteen pictograms
commonly placed on pesticides containers to the farmers to verify
Table 1
Safety procedures during and after spraying pesticides (%).
Procedures during spraying
Avoid eating
Observe wind direction
Change clothes after work
Use boots
Use gloves
Use respirators
Follow label instructions
Use impermeable clothing
Use all protective gear
Cleansing procedures after spraying
Showering
Washing hands
Cloth treatment
Washing
Storing for future use
Drying
Burning
%
93.4
88.5
88.5
85.2
85.2
83.6
72.1
19.7
6.6
(%)
73.8
16.4
(%)
78.7
9.8
8.2
1.6
115
their level of understanding of the actual meaning of each pictogram (Table 2).
Our data shows that farmer understanding of pertinent pictograms was highly variable and, in several cases, the frequency of
wrong answers was significantly higher than the correct ones.
Compared to Waichman et al. (2007) results, we found that
southern smallholders had a better understanding of the pictograms compared to those in the Amazon wetlands. This understanding was reflected in the correct interpretation of 12 from the
Table 2
Actual meaning of common pesticide usage pictograms and the farmers’ aggregate
level of understanding.
Pictogram type Meaning
Did farmer know actual
meaning?
Yes (%) Almost (%) No (%)
Basic information
Use gloves
96.7
3.3
0.0
Use safety goggles
96.7
3.3
0.0
3.3
95.1
1.6
Use cartridge respirators
42.6
44.3
13.1
Wash face and hands
after handling pesticides
47.5
26.3
26.2
Use boots
93.4
3.3
3.3
Use waterproof apron
18.0
14.7
67.3
Use waterproof overalls
36.1
18
45.9
Harmful to animals
32.8
31.1
36.1
Harmful to aquatic life
39.3
26.2
34.4
Keep out of reach of children
39.3
26.2
34.4
Do not smoke
42.6
1.6
55.7
Careful. Poison!
52.5
9.8
37.7
Handling of liquid
19.7
products/Follow dosage instructions
18.0
62.3
Handling of granule
pesticides/Follow dosage instructions
9.8
14.8
75.4
47.5
24.6
27.9
Use one-strap dust respirator
Warning
Handling and dosage
Spraying of liquid
products/use back sprayer
116
M.A. Pedlowski et al. / Crop Protection 31 (2012) 113e118
16 pictograms by 20% or more of the farmers. In contrast, 20% or
more of the Amazonian farmers could correctly interpret only 4
pictograms. This result challenges the notion that labeling is sufficient to improve safety practices among farmers working with
pesticides. We found that poor understanding of pictograms was
especially high regarding handling and dosage. We also found that
at least 50% of the farmers ignored the need to wash and return
empty containers to retailers as ruled by Brazilian law, Lei 9.974
(Diário Oficial da União, June 6, 2000). The latter finding was supported by the discovery of other illegal practices including burning
of empty containers, littering of farms with containers and plastic
bags and, container disposal in aquatic ecosystems.
Our findings also confirm that farmers favor the combination of
different types of pesticides either to decrease work hours or to
decrease the scope and strength of the mixtures. As a result, most
solutions contained a combination of pesticides for different
functions (Table 3). The farmers also added liquid nutrients and
adhesive substances to their mixtures. While nutrients were added
to increase growth rates, adhesive products were included to
increase the contact time of pesticides on leaves and fruits as
a means to increase their effectiveness. The combination of pesticides for similar functions was a strategy adopted to make use of
product left over from the previous cropping cycle. Although we
were not able to measure the specific toxicity of these mixtures, our
results indicate possible impact in terms of human and environmental contamination that may supersede those calculated for
each individual pesticide. These findings are in line with those
generated by previous studies that pointed to increased health and
environmental problems caused by the mixing of pesticides (Kamel
and Hoppin, 2004; Perry et al., 2007; Elhalwagy and Zaki, 2009).
The effectiveness and safe use of pesticides is often associated
with the farmers’ capacity to follow the manufacturer’s recommendations regarding the indications of dosage and target crop as
approved by ANVISA (Table 4). Our efforts to verify whether the
farmers’ followed the dosage recommendations were hampered by
their uncertainty concerning the total crop area treated and the
total volume applied during each crop season. Our farmers mixed
pesticides to address the desire to save time and extract the most
from the capital invested in pesticides purchase. It is common for
farmers to use the entire content of the backpack sprayer, either by
spraying more than recommended, or by adding to the mixture
another pesticide intended for treating a different crop in spite of
their knowledge that the pesticides present in the container were
Table 3
Mixturesa, active ingredients and functions of pesticides.
Mixture
Active ingredient
Decis 25CE þ Orthocide
Tamaron þ Folisuper
Deltametrine, Captane
Methamidophos,
Methyl Parathion
Folisuper þ Cercobin
Methyl Parathion,
Thiofanate Methyl
Folidol þ Orthocide
Methyl Parathion, Captane
2,4D þ Advance
2,4-D, Diuron
þ Hexazinone
Folidol þ Orthocide
Methyl Parathion,
Captane
Herbipak þ Advance
Ametrine, Diuron
þ Hexazinone
Round up þ Glifosato
Glyphosate, Glyphosate
Round up þ Advance
Glyphosate, Diuron
þ Hexazinone
Folisuper þ Orthocide
Methyl Parathion, Captane
Sevin 850 SC þ Orthocide Carbaril, Captane
Sevin 850 SC þ Folisuper Carbaril, Methyl
þ Orthocide
Parathion, Captane
a
Names of commercial products sold in Brazil.
Function
Insecticide, Fungicide
Insecticide, Insecticide
Insecticide, Fungicide
Insecticide, Fungicide
Herbicide, Herbicide
Insecticide, Fungicide
Herbicide, Herbicide
Herbicide, Herbicide
Herbicide, Herbicide
Insecticide, Fungicide
Insecticide, Fungicide
Insecticide, Insecticide,
Fungicide
Table 4
Recommended and actual use of pesticides by target crops.
Commercial formulation Recommended use
Herbicides
Karmex
Advance
Krovar
Round up original
Herbipak
2,4-D
Volcane
DMA 806 BR
Herburon
Glifosato
Fortex
Ametrex 500 SC
Inseticides
Sevin 850 SC
Decis 25CE
Tamaron
Folisuper
Folidol 450
Lebaycid
Vegetable Oil
Mineral Oil
Fungicides
Cercobin 700 PM
Manzate
Orthocide 500
Citrus, Pineapple, Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Pineapple, Citrus
Banana, Citrus, Corn,
Pasture, Sugarcane.
Banana, Citrus, Pineapple,
Sugarcane,
Corn, Pasture, Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Sugarcane. Corn. Pasture
Pineapple, Banana,
Sugarcane, Citrus.
Citrus, Corn, Pasture, Sugarcane,
Citrus, Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Actual use
Pineapple
Sugarcane
Pineapple
Citrus, Coconut,
Corn, Manioc,
Passion Fruit,
Pineapple, Pumpkin,
Sugarcane
Pineapple
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Pineapple
Pineapple, Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Manioc, Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Beans, Pineapple, Pumpkin
Beans, Corn, Citrus,
Pineapple, Watermelon,
Pineapple
Coconut, Corn,
Guava, Pineapple,
Pumpkin
Beans
Citrus, Coconut,
Guava, Pineapple
Beans, Corn
Citrus, Coconut,
Pumpkin, Pineapple,
Beans, Corn
Pineapple
Citrus, Guava, Mango, Pumpkin, Passion Fruit
Passion Fruit, Watermelon
Citrus
Pineapple
Citrus
Citrus
Beans, Citrus, Pineapple,
Pumpkin, Watermelon
Beans, Citrus, Pumpkin,
Watermelon
Beans, Citrus Pineapple,
Pumpkin, Watermelon
Pineapple
Coconut, Guava
Pineapple
not indicated for the new crop at hand. Good examples are
mixtures containing the widely used herbicide glyphosate. We
were, therefore, unable to determine if the pesticides applied to the
crops followed the manufacturers’ prescribed dosage.
Regarding target crops, the disparity between what is prescribed
by manufacturers, and how the farmers’ actually use of the pesticide is influenced by the prevailing mechanism of knowledge
acquisition and diffusion. Our sampled farmers often relied on
hearsay rather than information from proper technical training
provided by rural extension agencies.
Although we cannot estimate the consequences of farmer
inaccuracies in defining pesticide dosages applied and to which
target crop, field evidence shows that in the case of pineapples it
received the greatest number of pesticide applications among all
crops examined using mostly Glyphosate mixtures. Consequently,
the estimated yield losses due to insect and fungi infestation were
declared by most farmers to be as high as 25%. In addition to yield
losses, other potential problems caused by pesticide mishandling
include greater environmental and human contamination as
farmers tend to increase the number of applications to counteract
perceived pesticide “weakness” to control the target pests.
Based on intended target crops, sample participants reported
that herbicides were the most used pesticides, followed by insecticides and fungicides (Table 5). This result is explained by the
farmers’ necessity to save time by avoiding time consuming
weeding activities. In addition, the fact that the pineapple
M.A. Pedlowski et al. / Crop Protection 31 (2012) 113e118
Table 5
Commercial formulation, active ingredients and chemical groups by pesticide type
(%).
Commercial formulation Active ingredient
Herbicides
2-4-D
Advance
Ametrex 500 SC
DMA 806 BR
Fortex
Glifosato
Herbipak
Herburon
Karmex
Krovar
Round up
Volcane
Insecticides
Bravik
Decis 25CE
Folidol 450
Folisuper
Lebaycid
Óleo Mineral
Óleo vegetal
Sevin 850 SC
Tamaron
Fungicides
Orthocide 500
Manzate
Cercobin 700 PM
Chemical group
(%)
2,4-D
Diuron þ Hexazinone
Ametryne
2,4-D
Diuron þ MSMA
Glyphosate
Ametryne
Diuron
Diuron
Bromacyl þ Diuron
Glyphosate
MSMA
Phenoxy-carboxylic-acid
Urea þ Triazine
Triazine
Phenoxy-carboxylic-acid
Urea þ Arsenic
Glycine
Triazine
Urea
Urea
Uracil þ Urea
Glycine
Arsenic
11.5
24.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
11.5
3.3
4.9
4.9
60.7
6.6
Methyl parathion
Deltametrin
Methyl parathion
Methyl parathion
Fenthion
Mineral Oil
Vegetable oil
Carbaryl
Methamidophos
Organophosphate
Pyrethroid
Organophosphate
Organophosphate
Organophosphate
Aliphatic hydrocarbons
Oil
Carbamate
Organophosphate
1.6
16.4
4.9
31.1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
27.9
Captane
Mancozeb
Thiophanate methyl
Phthalimide
Dithiocarbamate
Benzimidazole
27.9
4.9
1.6
Table 6
Toxicity levels for pesticides used at the Zumbi dos Palmares settlement and their
active ingredients’ international commercial restrictions.
Commercial
formulation
Herbicides
2-4-D
Advance
Ametrex 500 SC
DMA 806 BR
Fortex
Glifosato
Herbipak
Herburon
Karmex
Krovar
Round up
Volcane
Insecticides
Bravik
Decis 25CE
Folidol 450
Folisuper
Lebaycid
Óleo Mineral
Óleo Vegetal
Sevin 850 SC
Tamaron
Fungicides
Cercobin 700 PM
Manzate
Orthocide 500
Human
toxicitya
Environmental toxicitya
Active ingredient
banned or severely
restricted
I
III
IV
I
II
IV
III
II
II
III
III
III
III
II
II
Decree24.114/34
Decree 24.114/34
III
Decree 24.114/34b
Decree 24.114/34
II
II
III
III
e
EU
EU
EU
EU
e
EU
EU
EU
EU
e
e
I
II
I
II
II
IV
IV
II
III
Decree 24.114/34
I
III
Decree 24.114/34
II
IV
IV
Decree 24.114/34
II
EPA,
e
EPA,
EPA,
EU
e
e
EU
EPA,
IV
III
III
II
Decree 24.114/34
Decree 24.114/34
e
e
e
EU, PICc
EU, PIC
EU, PIC
EU, PIC
a
According to ANVISA, pesticides can be divided according to their human and
environmental toxicity into four categories: I ¼ Extremely Toxic, II ¼ Highly Toxic,
III ¼ Moderately Toxic, and IV ¼ Slightly Toxic.
b
Decree 24.114/34 allows the temporary commercialization of pesticides until
the environmental certification process is concluded.
c
EPA e U.S. List of “Banned” or “Severely Restricted” Pesticides, EU e Pesticides
banned or severely restricted in the EU, PIC e Rotterdam Convention on Prior
Informed Consent.
117
monoculture is prone to insect infestation explains the high
demand for insecticides. A total of 15 active ingredients and oil
types were identified in the commercial formulations used by
farmers, and organophosphates were prevalent both in terms of
number of commercial products and absolute consumption.
In terms of toxicity, our results indicate a wide range of combinations for human and environmental risk levels with a larger
number of products classified as extremely toxic to humans (Table 6).
The question of toxicity levels in the study area is especially important because of dominant practices in all phases of the pesticide
consumption cycle. We verified that 58% of the active ingredients
present in our sample are prohibited in other parts of the world,
especially in the European Union and the United States. Another
source of concern is that the producing companies of these active
ingredients obtained temporary permits based on a law issued in
1934 (Decree 24.114) to commercialize pesticides in Brazil which
seems to be a strategy to bypass the most recent certification
requirements. In our study, this was the case for 37.5% of the products
being used by the farmers. It is important to note, however, that all
herbicides and all insecticides approved through Decree 24.114 in our
study had their commercialization either banned or severely
restricted by the EPA, EU, and PIC. Moreover, there is controversy on
how the certification process is carried out in Brazil. For example,
some pesticides with the same active ingredient, such as Folidol 450
and Folisuper (methyl parathion), have been classified under
different environmental and human toxicity levels. It is possible that
the different toxicity levels for humans are explained by a variation in
the concentration of the active ingredient. Folisuper uses a more
concentrated formulation and has been classified as environmentally
toxic while Folidol 450 has not.
4. Conclusions
The general results of this study confirm some of the findings of
Waichman et al. (2007) regarding the problematic use of pesticides
by smallholders in Brazil. We indicated that the problems
surrounding the use of pesticides by smallholders are not restricted
to backward regions of Brazil but are also present in the most
modernized and consolidated Brazilian agricultural regions. While
our results do not suggest that the farmers’ apparent careless
handling of pesticides is linked to an intentional disregard for
intoxication risk (Guivant, 1994; Waichman et al., 2007), they do
point to a more complex set of variables which may explain the
prevalent practices found in our research. In addition to low
concern for risks posed by working with pesticides, we suggest that
labor scarcity, inadequacy of protective gear suitable for tropical
climates and limited educational effectiveness of labeling standards
are also important explanatory variables. Therefore, the broader
context in which pesticides are used, stored and disposed must be
considered when attempting to improve usage given the wide array
of pesticides that are available for Brazilian farmers.
In this study we were able to identify the use of fifteen active
ingredients and fourteen chemical groups. Organophosphates were
dominant both in terms of number of commercial formulations and
total consumption. Moreover, we detected that farmers were
mixing products with different chemical characteristics to save
time and to enhance the mixture effectiveness to eliminate weeds,
insects and diseases. Mixing procedures may be increasing the risk
to human health and the environment, especially given the toxicity
levels of products found in our study. In this regard, it is worrisome
that some of the pesticides found in our study are banned in most of
the developed world, especially in the European Union and the
United States. This particular finding suggests negative consequences of the currently high levels of pesticides consumption in
Brazil.
118
M.A. Pedlowski et al. / Crop Protection 31 (2012) 113e118
Ten pesticides found in our study can potentially contaminate
groundwater through leaching and run-off. The physicochemical
characteristics of these very components facilitate their mobility in
the soil layer (unpublished results). Less mobile compounds than
these have been found in aquatic ecosystems as a result of atmospheric deposition and soil overload associated with pesticide
spraying and subsequent drifting (Van der Werf, 1996; Epple et al.,
2002; Arias-Estévez et al., 2008; Canela et al., 2008). Therefore, our
results have provided a first indication of which pesticides should
be selected for in-depth studies regarding their fate and impact on
soils and aquatic ecosystems.
Further, we suggest three main fronts of future work to tackle
the human and environmental risk from the use of pesticides. First,
Brazil should execute a general overhaul of the legislation regulating pesticide certification and commercialization to improve
human health and environmental protection. Second, along with
changing the legal codes, we must improve on-farm practices
regarding pesticide utilization and training. Third, the industry
must modify labeling of its products accordingly for the lowest
educational level among the group of users.
Given the pervasive problems unveiled by this study, there is an
urgent need to strengthen extension agencies and to a create task
force capable of reaching farmers which are generally left out of any
sort of educational campaigns. Finally, we suggest that pesticides
manufacturers and regulatory agencies should communicate with
farmers to gather their ideas on better mechanisms to improve
application methods thus strengthening the communication
process regarding safety protocols for pesticides utilization in Brazil.
Acknowledgments
Authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from FAPERJ
and CNPq. The authors would like to thank two anonymous
reviewers for their initial review of the manuscript. Finally, the
authors want to express their gratitude to Suzana S. Muller for her
assistance in editing the manuscript.
References
Arias-Estévez, M., López-Periago, E., Martínez-Carballo, E., Simal-Gándara, J.,
Mejuto, J.C., García-Río, L., 2008. The mobility and degradation of pesticides in
soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 123,
247e260.
Brasil, 2000. Law n. 9.974. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brazil, Brasília,
June 6, 2000.
Canela, M.C., Neves, M.A., Pedlowski, M.A., 2008. Riscos de contaminação de águas
superficiais e subterrâneas por agrotóxicos e os processos de degradação no
ambiente. In: Polanczyk, R.A., Cecílio, R.A., Matta, F.M., Soares, T.C.B.,
Pezzopane, J.E.M., Campanharo, W.A., Oliveira, M.C.C. (Eds.), Estudos Avançados
em Produção Vegetal, first ed. Editora V.2., Alegre, pp. 345e358.
Elhalwagy, M.E.A., Zaki, N.I., 2009. Comparative study on pesticide mixture of
organophosphorus and pyrethroid in commercial formulation. Environ. Toxicol.
Pharmacol. 28, 219e224.
Epple, J., Maguhn, J., Spitzauer, P., Kettrup, A., 2002. Input of pesticides by atmospheric deposition. Geoderma 105, 327e349.
FEEMA-Fundação Estadual de Engenharia e Meio Ambiente, 1993. Perfil Ambiental
do Município de Campos. Gráfica da FEEMA, Rio de Janeiro.
Ferreira-Neto, M.L.F., Sarcinelli, P.N., 2009. Pesticides in drinking water: a risk
assessment approach and contribution to the Brazilian legislation updating
process. Eng. Sanit. Ambient 14, 69e78.
Guivant, J.S., 1994. Perception of the great Florianópolis (SC) legume farmers about
the risks created by pesticides. Rev. Bras. Saúde Ocup. 22, 47e57.
IBGEe Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2009. Censo Agropecuário
2006: Brasil, Grandes Regiões e Unidades da Federação, Ed. IBGE. Rio de
Janeiro.
Kamel, F., Hoppin, J.A., 2004. Association of pesticide exposure with neurologic
dysfunction and disease. Environ. Health Perspect. 112, 950e958.
Meirelles, L.C., 2005. A gerência de toxicologia geral da ANVISA. http://portal.anvisa.
gov.br/wps/wcm/connect/2fc35f00405209cab7a6bf89c90d54b4/4.pdf?
MOD¼AJPERES (accessed on 28.10.10).
Miranda, A.C., Moreira, J.C., Carvalho, R., Peres, F., 2007. Neoliberalism, pesticide
consumption and food sovereignty crisis in Brazil. Cien. Saúde Colet. 12, 7e14.
Moreira, J.C., Jacob, S.C., Peres, F., Lima, J.S., Meyer, A., Oliveira-Silva, J.J.,
Sarcinelli, P.N., Batista, D.F., Egler, M., Faria, M.V.C., Araújo, A.J., Kubota, A.H.,
Soares, M.O., Alves, S.R., Moura, C.M., Curi, R., 2002. Avaliação integrada do
impacto do uso de agrotóxicos sobre a saúde humana em uma comunidade
agrícola de Nova Friburgo, RJ. Cien. Saúde Colet. 7, 299e311.
Perry, M.L., Venners, S.A., Barr, D.B., Xu, X., 2007. Environmental pyrethroid and
organophosphorus insecticide exposures and sperm concentration. Reprod.
Toxicol. 23, 113e118.
Pimentel, D., 2009. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. In: Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K. (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process. Springer
Science þBusiness Media B.V., pp. 89e111.
Recena, M.C.P., Caldas, E.D., 2008. Risk perception, attitudes and practices on
pesticide use among farmers of a city in Midwestern Brazil. Rev. Saude Publica
42, 294e301.
Teixeira, J.C., 2005. Modernização da agricultura no Brasil: impactos econômicos,
sociais e ambientais. Revista Eletrônica da Associação dos Geógrafos Brasileiros
e Seção Três Lagoas-MS 2, 21e42.
Van der Werf, H.M.G., 1996. Assessing the impact of pesticides on the environment.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 60, 81e96.
Waichman, A.V., Eve, E., Nina, N.C.S., 2007. Do farmers understand the information displayed on pesticide product labels? A key question to reduce pesticide
exposure and risk of poisoning in the Brazilian Amazon. Crop Prot. 26,
576e583.
Wilson, C., Tisdell, C., 2001. Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecol. Econ. 39, 449e462.