The unknown and deregulated status of agrochemicals

Society has been benefited from the diversity of chemical substances over the years. More than 76.000.000 of organic and inorganic chemical substances have been registered, including alloys, mineral compounds, mixtures, polymers, salts, etc. However, less than the 10% of the necessary toxicological information has been collected. Among the completed analytic evaluations, circa 8000 of them have been declared as hazardous substances, being subjected to labeled schemes, specific registers, commercial tracking. Every year, 5000 of them are massively produced, constituting the 90% of the global consumption. The UNEP has elaborated an open list of circa 600 forbidden substances, which cannot be used or commercialized in different countries.[1]

Some of them are part of the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, a mechanism for formally obtaining and disseminating the decisions of importing Parties as to whether they wish to receive future shipments of those chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention and for ensuring compliance with these decisions by exporting Parties. For each of the chemicals listed in Annex III and subject to the PIC procedure a decision guidance document (DGD) is prepared and sent to all Parties. The DGD is intended to help governments assess the risks connected with the handling and use of the chemical and make more informed decisions about future import and use of the chemical, taking into account local conditions.[2] 

The Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade, which was adopted in 1998 by the Conference of the Plenipotentiaries,[3] entered into force on 24 February 2004. The objective of this Convention is to promote shared responsibility and cooperative efforts among Parties in the international trade of certain hazardous chemicals in order to protect human health and the environment from potential harm and to contribute to their environmentally sound use, by: facilitating information exchange about their characteristics, providing for a national decision-making process on their import and exports, and disseminating these decisions to Parties.[4] Its text applies to banned or severely restricted chemicals and severely hazardous pesticide formulations.[5]

Depending on our life style, and life and work conditions, the exposure to dangerous chemical products can vary. Under no circumstances must one forget how the urban area where people live can modify the risk exposure, but it is also crucial to take into account the transversal consumption of hygiene products, pesticides and other massively consumed chemical products. Having said that, it is fundamental to understand how, by direct or indirect actions, in short or long-term, the risk gradient can reach deathly spectrums and how the phenomenon depends not only on the toxic agent but also on the ways people get exposed.[6]

When it comes to pesticides, the Pan International Consolidated List of Banned Pesticides has incorporated 370 chemical products that are banned globally by any party of the Pesticide Action Network. Since the 3^rd edition of the Consolidated List issued in Aril 2017, Argentina has been part of this worldwide network,[7] banning just 18 of the pesticides globally questioned for the environmental hazard that they can represent.[8] However, at national level things might seem to be improving, especially considering that more than 120 chemicals have been explicitly forbidden at national level, including 86 pesticides.[9] But, despite of the progress, Argentina has been involved in scandalous controversy, due to the consistent use of circa 107 pesticides worldwide forbidden,[10] which from them 33% has been declared as highly hazardous chemical substances by the WHO.[11] The agrotoxic situation has been seen as a consequence arose from: 

• the flexibilization of the commercialization of pesticides and the accessible chemical market;

• the naturalization of the access and use of chemical products;

• the internet commercialization of chemical substances and the complete lack of restrictions on the acquisition;

• the offering of low-cost products;

• the political negligence and the resistance of the political and economical establishment of taking greater measures to control the use of agrochemicals; and 

• the hierarchical legal system of federal countries, which impede the local action without consent of the national powers.

Summing up, the deregulation of the chemical market, the open access to some high hazardous substances and the lack of information of more than millions of chemical products are the main reason to believe that an environmental risk assessment of the chemical industry is a must. Therefore, it urges that the national and local authorities take the initiative to protect the environmental and human rights affected by the frequently and commonly used highly hazardous chemicals in the country. However, it remains to be seen if the governments will prioritize the ecological balance and people’s rights or the agro-industry sector interests.