Situação regulatória internacional de agrotóxicos com uso autorizado no Brasil: potencial de danos sobre a saúde e impactos ambientais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Brazilian legislation does not provide for a periodic review of the registration of pesticides and, even nowadays, products banned in other countries are still used. Based on the pesticide active substances registered in the country, the present study investigated the international regulatory situation in the following member countries: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), European Community, and the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Moreover, we sought to relate the main chronic effects to human health and the environment of the most commercialized pesticide active substances in Brazil in lists of classification of carcinogenic potential (US Environmental Protection Agency - USEPA and International Agency for Research on Cancer - IARC), endocrine disruption, and candidates for substitution, both from the European Community. A total of 399 pesticide active substances registered in Brazil for agricultural use were identified, excluding microbiological and biological control agents. Of these, the percentage of unauthorized pesticide active substances according to countries is as follows: 85.7% in Iceland; 84.7% in Norway; 54.5% in Switzerland; 52.6% in India; 45.6% in Turkey; 44.4% in Israel; 43.4% in New Zealand; 42.4% in Japan; 41.5% in the European Community; 39.6% in Canada; 38.6% in China; 35.8% in Chile; 31.6% in Mexico; 28.6% in Australia; and 25.6% in the United States. 120 pesticide active substances were related to damage to health and the environment. Considering the pesticide active substances for which commercialization data are available in the country, 67.2% of this volume is associated with at least one serious chronic damage assessed in this study. The results of the present study indicate the need for promoting transparency of international databases, regarding the motivations of the respective regulatory decisions and the Brazilian regulatory bodies to reevaluate the registration of obsolete products and to strengthen public policies related to the reduction of the use of pesticides.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".