January 14, 2014
China discusses ban on seven active crop protection ingredients
China''s Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) issued Announcement 2032 which bans or restricts seven active crop protection ingredients.
Li Wenxing, Division Director of pesticide management from the department of crop production of the MoA, explains the rationale and impact on China''s crop protection industry as well as suitable alternates to these pesticides.
The potential environmental and health risks posed by these active ingredients were the primary mitigating factors in the decision to ban or restrict their use. The three sulfonylurea herbicides have an excessively long residual effect, require high levels of skill to apply safely and often cause injury to the following crops. Though, the Ministry issued two announcements in 2005 and 2006, which amended the standards regulating these pesticidesregarding the permissible area, dosage and treatment of following crops, serious adverse events in recent years have precipitated MoA''s final decision.
Two organic arsenic fungicides which have the potential to cause serious health effects during the manufacturing and utilisation have also been banned. Furthermore they can easily biodegrade into inorganic arsenics and accumulate in soil causing elevated residues levels in treated crops. These two factors were the reasons for the National Expert Committee for Pesticide to suggest the ban in 2012.
Chlorpyrifos and triazophos are classified as moderate-toxicity organophosphates, but both substances generally exhibit excessive residue levels in treated crops. According to the available data on the acute dietary risk assessment, the use of triazophos on cabbage poses unacceptable health risk to children and the general population. Furthermore, routine quality and safety monitoring of agricultural products has in recent years found that these two insecticides are frequently the subject of MRL regulatory violations. As a consequence, the Ministry of Agriculture decided to ban their application on vegetables.
Li also explained that the ministry has taken full consideration of the socioeconomic impact of the decisions made and whilst these pesticides are of significant economic important to the industry their utility is offset by their potential for serious negative environmental and health impact. The three sulfonyurea herbicides perform excellently when used for wheat and rapeseed, but similar efficacy along with reduced negative characteristics demonstrated by other active ingredients such as fenoxaprop-P-ethyl, isoproturon, clodinafop-propargyl, tribenuron-methyl, haloxyfop and benazolin-ethyl have made the MoA ban an easy decision.
Currently, 43 companies have registered 98 associated products with the Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals, Ministry of Agriculture (ICAMA) the majority of which are destined for export, meaning the ban will have little effect on indigenous pesticide manufacturers. The registrants and registration of asomate and urbacide are even fewer with just 13 ICAMA registrant and 21 products. Asomat was primarily registered for cucumber powdery mildew, pear scarb, pepper anthracnose and urbacide was mainly utilised for apple canker.
Li suggested that carbendazim and chlorothalonil are good alternates to asomate and more than 30 other urbacide replacements have been registered for apple canker. The negative industrial impact of some changes will be reduced by certain factors. Take Chlorpyrifos for example which has a stable demand in overseas market and on the domestic front a wide variety of alternatives for vegetable applications are available such as beta-cypermethrin, bacillus thuringiensis, abamectin, acetamiprid and flubendiamide.