The 346 pesticides in SA that cause cancer, birth defects or worse, and the fight to keep them

Cancer, birth defects or DNA mutations – these are some of the risks of the 346 pesticides the South African government says must be removed from the shelves by June 2025.

The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRLD) is phasing out these products as part of a global effort to ban chemicals that the World Health Organization considers carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproductive health.

In October last year, the department published a list of 28 chemicals that, according to the new Globally Harmonised Systems of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), are either 1A: known to cause cancer, mutations to DNA, birth defects or other reproductive issues based on human evidence, or 1B: presumed to cause these effects based on animal evidence.

These 28 chemicals are found in 346 pesticides that are currently used on crops, as wood preservatives or to target rodents.

“Pesticides are … by their nature … hazardous; they carry risks that need to be managed. All over the world … when new information comes in … and when the risk associated with them is deemed to be unmanageable, that is where we then begin the process to phase them out. So it is not a new phenomenon, we have phased out or banned many products in the past and now is another process,” Maluta Mudzunga, the department’s registrar in charge of pesticides told us shortly after the phase-out was first announced.

Pesticides can be toxic in different ways: acutely toxic, like the pesticides that have been linked to recent poisoning cases in Gauteng, or chronically toxic, like the 346 pesticides targeted in the phase-out.

“Those products causing cancer, changes to your genetic makeup or DNA, or those that affect the development of the foetus or interfere with normal reproductive development, those are the chemicals that we are now focusing on,” Mudzunga said.

Of these 346 pesticides, 48 contain active ingredients that have been identified as carcinogenic, while 19 are mutagenic and 263 either damage fertility or harm babies in the womb. (Another 16 products made it on to the list because they contain an inert ingredient that is classified as 1A/1B).



Despite this, pesticide manufacturers – including Germany’s BASF, Switzerland’s Syngenta, Israel’s Adama and India’s UPL – are pushing to keep 115 of these health risk-laden pesticides on the market, using loopholes provided by the department’s own regulations.

These loopholes would allow companies to keep selling their products if they can show that there are no viable alternatives and that phasing out the product would cause a public health crisis or would be economically catastrophic for the farming industry.

As Elriza Theron, advocacy and communications manager for CropLife South Africa (which represents the pesticide industry), explained in a recent interview: “I think there’s … a tendency to have an us versus them [perspective] – a David and Goliath or a good versus evil – and you know, at the end of the day, there’s no separate food aisle that we are getting our food from.”

“I know we all would love to have an Erin Brockovich kind of situation where the big guy gets taken down by the small guy because no one cared about the environment. But … as agriculture, it is absolutely the opposite, because we need the environment and we need people in order to actually be in business.”

When it comes to 1A/1B chemicals, however, it’s not the shopper at Woolies who is at risk, but the 929,000 people – mostly women – who work in the farming industry and are repeatedly exposed to these chemicals, often with little protection.

The reality in South Africa

In 2003, a group of researchers decided to take a closer look at the use of pesticides in the Eastern Cape. “There has been growing concern about the occurrence of certain birth defects which seemed to have increased in the past few years,” researchers Gudrun Heeren, Joanne Tyler and Andrew Mandeya wrote.

They concluded that there was a “significant association” between pregnant women being exposed to pesticides and their babies being born with a range of physical and neurological problems. According to their study, babies born with birth defects were seven times more likely to have a mother who worked with pesticides than those who didn’t.

Twenty years later, in August 2023, Professor Marcos Orellana – the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics and Human Rights – visited South Africa to assess the continuing impact of pesticides on people.

There was, he wrote in his report, increasing evidence linking pesticide exposure and serious health impacts on the skin, eyes, liver, kidneys, endocrine and nervous systems, with children and women being the most vulnerable to these risks.

“During my visit to the Western Cape province, I heard from women farmworkers who were routinely exposed to hazardous pesticides and would denounce serious adverse health impacts in their communities,” Orellana said during a briefing on his preliminary findings.

This included women without proper protective gear working in vineyards immediately after pesticides had been sprayed, even though pesticides were still visibly dripping from the vines.

“I also learnt that pesticides meant for agricultural use are illegally sold and used to combat rampant cockroach mass infestations that spread in the absence of sanitation services in informal settlements. I was appalled to learn of the many children who were poisoned or died from eating, drinking or handling hazardous pesticides.”

By the beginning of October 2024, eight children had died from pesticide poisoning.

“Our investigations have confirmed that all eight deaths were the result of exposure to pesticides, which are often sold in informal markets and lack proper regulation and safety warnings,” Gauteng Department of Health spokesperson Motalatale Modiba told us on 5 October.

“The illegal nature of these substances makes them especially hazardous, as they are easily accessible but poorly controlled. We must hasten to indicate that whether a pesticide is legally or illegally obtained is a secondary factor. Even ‘legally’ obtained pesticides are deadly when they are not used in line with the given instructions.”

The next day, on 6 October, another six children died after eating snacks bought from a spaza shop in Soweto.

“All the six children died from terbufos ingestion,” health minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi announced at a press briefing on Monday, 28 October.

Terbufos is an organophosphate, a notoriously lethal compound found in both pesticides and nerve gas. In 2022, there were 34 reported cases of terbufos poisoning and five deaths. Although terbufos has long been banned in the EU, it continues to be widely used in South Africa, including on citrus and – illegally – in urban areas to control pests.

“At the present moment, samples from various spaza shops in Soweto have been sent to the National Laboratory and we are still waiting for the results. This means that while organophosphates were found in the bodies of the children, we are waiting to see if they were also found in the spaza shops so we can scientifically link the event,” Motsolaedi added.

During the July 2021 riots, a warehouse in Durban belonging to the agrochemical giant UPL was set alight with more than roughly 6,000 tons of pesticides inside – including 20 tons of terbufos – sending a choking cloud of toxic fumes and a river of toxic chemicals into the surrounding communities.

“The Blackburn informal settlement was particularly hit by the toxic pollution of the air and the water. When talking to affected communities and representatives, it was clear to me that both industry and government left them on their own to bear the short and long-term consequences on their health and livelihoods,” Orellana wrote.

Part of the problem, the UN Special Rapporteur noted, was that South Africa’s main pesticide law – the Fertilisers, Farm Seeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947 – is woefully out of date.

“Despite scientific evidence on the harms,” he noted, “many highly hazardous pesticides are still legal and in use in South Africa.” These pesticides, he continued “are banned in the European Union (EU), yet they are still produced in European countries for export, particularly to developing countries”.

“This practice reproduces long-standing racist and colonial patterns of exploitation. Equally, the South African Government has a duty to protect its people and not contribute to reinforcing these double standards. Accordingly, South Africa should ban the import of all highly hazardous pesticides, including those that have been banned for use in their country of origin, without delay.”

Read more: UN report finds ‘environmental racism’ persists in South Africa’s hazardous waste management

The phase-out

The department’s phase-out of 1A/1B chronic toxicity chemicals is part of the process to bring South Africa’s pesticides law into the 21st century and in line with global standards.

The World Health Organization has identified eight categories of “highly hazardous pesticides” that should be phased out, ranging from chemicals that are acutely toxic, like terbufos, to those that cause chronic conditions like cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects or other reproductive issues, mostly through long-term exposure.



“South Africa has phased out all the chemicals … that have been identified to be Persistent Organic Pollutants in terms of the Stockholm Convention … except that South Africa has been allowed to use a limited amount of DDT in terms of controlling malaria,” Mudzunga explained.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) are hazardous chemicals that don’t easily degrade but instead linger for years, potentially poisoning people and the environment. Anyone caught using POPs since 2021 faces a R5-million fine and five years in prison. Last year, South Africa also phased out Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), which are known to cause cancer.

But when the draft regulations for the upcoming phase-out were first published in 2021, the only category of chemicals targeted was 1A: known carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins. The other 24 chemicals that fall into the category of 1B, presumed carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins, were initially left off the list.

Had these regulations been passed, it would have made for a very short list: arsenic acid, benomyl, brodifacoum and chromium trioxide, ie, chemicals where, for tragic reasons, we have direct evidence of their effects on humans.

However, as environmental lawyer Angela Andrews pointed out in a submission to the registrar on behalf of civil society group UnPoison, “many presumed toxicants are in Category 1B because it is unethical to conduct experiments on humans to test whether human exposure to such toxicants causes cancer, mutations, or adverse effects on sexual function, fertility or on development.”

When the final regulations were published last year, the 1A category – known carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxins – was on the phase-out list, but so too were 24 other chemicals classed as 1B: presumed toxins.

“Getting rid of or prohibiting or banning certain products, of course, [the industry] are not going to be happy. I don’t think you will also be happy that, in the future, you can’t sell a certain category of products,” Mudzunga said. “But look I must commend them, they are of the view that, yes, they agree that category 1A must be phased out. They would have preferred that 1B category should still be allowed to be used. So that’s their position, they have got a mixed reaction to the prohibition that is coming.”

Read more: ‘Dinosaur’ pesticide law clings to life as SA dithers on poisons reform

The fight to keep them

South Africa has an opaque but profitable pesticide market.

In the past five years, we have imported R38-billion worth of pesticides into South Africa and exported R15-billion worth, largely to the SADC region. Our largest supplier is, unsurprisingly, China (R12-billion), but Belgium, Germany and the United States all feature in the top 10.



When the department announced the phase-out of 1A/1B chemicals, it also kept the door open for some of the products to stay on the market in “exceptional circumstances” through a derogation (exemption) process.

Provided there are no viable alternatives on the market, there are three loopholes that companies can use in this regard:

1. If the risk to humans, animals or the environment is “negligible … under realistic worst-case conditions of use”;


2. If the pesticide is “essential to prevent or control a serious danger to human health, animal health or the environment”; or


3. If banning the pesticide would have “a disproportionate negative impact on society” when compared to the risk.

“We have to look at the risk,” Roeleen le Grange, CropLife’s regulatory manager told us.

“[W]hen we’re phasing out these chemicals, it’s what we call the precautionary approach, and that means because we’re unsure about the risks, we basically put in a blanket ban because we don’t know what the risks are, and the consequences of not knowing is high… and then we say, if you want to keep it on the market, you have to do a risk assessment and show that you can still use it without that hazard posing a major risk.”

At least 25 companies have told the department that they will apply for derogations on a total of 61 products.

“[A] lot of conditions need to be met before a derogation can be granted, and this is only in the interim, it’s not indefinitely,” Theron from CropLife added. “It needs to be an absolute, complete exception to the rule. So it’s not just ‘we’re applying for derogations, it’s granted, these products stay on the market’ – that’s not how it works. It needs to be really essential.”

If pesticide companies want to keep their 1A/1B products on the market, they have to show that the real-life risks of using their products are “negligible”. Yet there is ample evidence that in South Africa – where workers have little bargaining power and rules are poorly enforced – this is rarely the case.

Chromium trioxide: wood preservative, carcinogen and mutagen

Two chemicals that were always going to be on the phase-out list are arsenic acid and chromium trioxide. The former is a 1A: known carcinogen while the latter – a type of hexavalent chromium – is both a 1A: known carcinogen and a 1A: known mutagen, meaning it causes changes to one’s DNA that can be inherited by future generations.

Hexavalent chromium was responsible for contaminating groundwater in Hinkley, California, which was linked to the cluster of cancer cases that was famously exposed by paralegal Erin Brockovich.

Both arsenic and chromium trioxide are ingredients in Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA), a wood preservative used to treat fences, telephone poles, structural timber and children’s playgrounds. CCA is easily recognisable by its initial light green colour, which fades to grey over time.

In the US and EU, CCA was voluntarily withdrawn by manufacturers 20 years ago, after concerns were raised about it containing arsenic. The product was never officially banned, but it has largely been replaced by less toxic but more expensive options.

Yet CCA remains widely used in South Africa.

The local manufacturer, Dolphin Bay Chemicals, is fighting to keep its CCA products – Permacure Oxide and Celcure Oxide – on the market by employing the argument that the risk posed by 1A/1B chemicals is minimal if used under strictly controlled conditions (derogation loophole #1).

In the case of CCA, this means that the chemicals are not sprayed, but applied inside a sealed vacuum-pressure chamber, which forces the chemicals deep into the wood.

“Permacure … is an industrial wood preservative not sold to the public. The preservative is only used in industrial timber treatment plants… Considering the controlled application method and low possibility of human contact, the risk associated with the [Permacure] wood preservative chemical product is manageable,” CropLife told us on behalf of the company.

But these assurances are somewhat undermined by Dolphin Bay’s own newsletter – the Dolphin Bay Brief – which has for years drawn attention to the risks posed by the illegal timber treatment industry.

“The problem has mushroomed into a national industry crisis,” Dolphin Bay wrote in July 2023.

“There has always been illegal dip-treating of poles and planks. But it was minimal. You’d see the odd guy on the street here or there. Now, because of the lack of policing, it’s completely out of hand,” KwaZulu-Natal regional head Mark Duckham was quoted as saying. “These illegal treaters are thugs … armed gangs, and nobody wants to confront them because they’re scared of being taken out.”

According to Bruce Breedt, CEO of the South African Wood Preservers Association (SAWPA), the wood and the chemicals to treat it – including CCA – are usually stolen, although in some instances legal operators sell the chemicals out the back door.

“[I]llegal treaters also phone suppliers and SAWPA members, trying to buy the preservative, and use any method of turning timber green or black, including paint colourants, carbolineum and old car oil if they are not able to get their hands on controlled preservatives,” Breedt told the Dolphin Bay Brief in April 2019.

“When the [Regulator] visits illegal traders, telling them to halt operations, they simply move to a different location, and continue, since most of them do not make use of industrial equipment, but merely dip or brush paint their substances onto the poles,” the same newsletter noted.

The existence of a rampant illegal industry, dosing poles with CCA on the side of the road, shows how easy it is for arsenic and chromium trioxide to leech into the environment.

This is not Dolphin Bay’s fault, but it does expose the flaw in its argument: the potential impact of using CCA under “realistic worst-case conditions” in South Africa is far from negligible.

Counting the cost

Dolphin Bay didn’t want to speak to us, but it is evidently confident that it can persuade the registrar to keep CCA on the market.

In addition to its argument that it can protect timber workers, the company has commissioned a study to look at whether wood treated with CCA should be considered safe for the end user.

“Dolphin Bay asked the highly respected toxicologists and environmental scientists at Infotox to investigate… Their research findings show that Permacure CCA-treated timber should indeed be treated as non-toxic… Dolphin Bay and the industry have made this case in a submission to the department and believe it will not be disputed,” it wrote in a 2022 newsletter.

Infotox produced a similar report for SAWPA in 2014, titled Health Risks of Children Associated with Exposure to CCA at Playgrounds. The report concluded that “the most likely cancer risk range is roughly between one in a million and one in ten thousand for childhood exposures at playgrounds with CCA-treated wooden structures”, which is considered “acceptable” by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Another challenge Dolphin Bay faces is that a derogation can only be granted if there is no viable alternative on the market. But Dolphin Bay already produces an alternative to CCA called ACQ, which is less toxic, but more expensive.

“Look it will cost more – new technology or new products obviously will cost more – so I can understand that nobody wants to pay more to produce the same thing that they have been producing before,” the registrar, Maluta Mudzunga, told us in 2022.

“But remember, that is where government comes in… If you look at the costs of the health burden of the country, compared to the cost to agriculture – if the costs to the government as a whole is bigger in terms of the health burden … [then] we need to move towards certain categories of pesticides.”

However, while this argument is clear-cut in some cases, in others the public health burden may be precisely the reason that some 1A/1B chemicals stay on the market.

Brodifacoum: rat poison and reproductive toxin

Brodifacoum is a common ingredient in rat poison and, like arsenic and chromium trioxide, is classified as 1A: known reproductive toxin, putting it right at the top of the list of targeted chemicals.

Despite this, manufacturers are fighting to keep their products – including popular brands like Rattex, Rodex and Scientific Supa-Kill – on the market, using the argument that removing the products would cause a public health crisis (derogation loophole #2).

We approached these companies for comment, but instead got a response from the Rodenticide Derogation Working Group: “The active ingredients of … anticoagulant rodenticides … all meet the classification criteria of Category 1A or 1B reproductive toxicity, which, due to their anticoagulant nature, may cause harm to an unborn child if swallowed by, or absorbed through the skin of a pregnant woman,” the group confirmed in a written statement.

“For companies of which anticoagulant rodenticide products form a significant part of their product portfolio, there is no doubt that there would be a detrimental effect to their commercial interests. That said, the commercial losses to these companies would pale in comparison with the dire public health, food safety and food security crisis that is likely to unfold, should farmers, industry and the general public lose access to the most widely used rodent control method available.”

The Rodenticide Derogation Working Group refuses to identify its members; all emails came from Hannelie Marais, a consultant who prepares derogation applications on behalf of companies. Asked who she was representing, she said: “We would like to remain protected under the Rodenticide Derogation Group, the registrar takes a dim view of companies running to the media.”

Despite the unnecessary cloak and dagger, the group has a case. Unchecked, it argues, rats would spread diseases like leptospirosis and toxoplasmosis. Worse, in the absence of cheap well-known staples, they argue that more consumers would turn to dangerous, off-label alternatives.

“These ‘street pesticides’, which are often sold in unmarked containers, are created by the illegal practice of combining pesticides intended for agricultural use, for example, organophosphates with other compounds … to control pest infestations,” the group told us.

Poisoned children

This is already a huge problem. Even with cheap anticoagulant rodenticides on the market, and despite regular raids by the police and the department’s inspection unit, the market for off-label pesticides continues to grow.

Last week, four people were reportedly arrested for being in possession of aldicarb, an insecticide and rodenticide informally known as “two-step”, which has been banned in South Africa since 2011, but which still finds its way into the informal market.

It was initially thought that aldicarb was responsible for the deaths of six children in Naledi, but toxicology results pointed to organophosphates being responsible.

“Organophosphates are … pesticides that are used widely in agriculture. I want to emphasise that they are not supposed to be used for cleaning in domestic settings,” health minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi said in a press briefing on Monday.

“People who manufacture domestic poisons are by law instructed to make them weak. For instance, these pesticides are usually used to kill rodents. Rodents domestically are killed by Rattex, [but] people don’t like it because Rattex is weak. And it has been made to be weak so that it doesn’t kill anybody ... a child has to ingest a lot of Rattex for it to kill them; not so with organophosphates.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qflhHUVfn4

In January, Villa Crop Protection issued a statement warning against off-label use of dichlorvos, another organophosphate designed for crops, but which has become a popular solution to combat cockroaches.

While dichlorvos is not on the phase-out list, it is acutely toxic and can be fatal if inhaled or if it comes into contact with one’s skin.

“Dichlorvos is a volatile substance … and when applied indoors will rapidly saturate the indoor space. People residing, sleeping, or working in such spaces will be exposed to dichlorvos which has a high inhalation toxicity,” Villa warned in a press release in January.

“Incidents in which pure dichlorvos was applied indoors resulted in severe organophosphate poisoning symptoms in people because whoever applied the product, overdosed the product 40 to 50 times compared to the dosage that is dispensed by registered dichlorvos containing fumigants.”

In an attempt to combat the unregulated trade in dichlorvos, Villa announced in January that it would only sell the product to registered, traceable buyers. But until recently, it was widely available from smaller suppliers, either in Villa-branded five-litre containers (R1,200-R1,600) or decanted into smaller containers and sold for as little as R25.

“The presence of such substances points to the already prolific availability and use of illegal street pesticides often sold as ‘Rat Poison’… While the effective policing of such illegal activities would ultimately reduce the cases of accidental or deliberate poisonings, the banning of anticoagulant rodenticides will only increase the demand for such products, exacerbating the problem,” the Rodenticide Derogation Working Group argues.

However, data collected by the Poison Information Centre and provided to News24 in September makes it clear that children are being poisoned by both legal and street pesticides at an alarming rate. At the Red Cross Children’s Hospital, 10% of general poisoning cases were linked to pesticides. Of that 10%, a third were caused by organophosphates, a third by anticoagulant rodenticides that contain chemicals like brodifacoum, and a third by unidentified chemicals.

Despite this, the argument for keeping anticoagulant rodenticides on the market has a precedent: in the EU, the decision to ban these pesticides has been put on hold until the end of 2026 to allow more time to weigh up the public health implications of removing them.

However, most of the big manufacturers trading in both Europe and South Africa cherry-pick examples set by the EU: when an EU decision helps a product stay on the market, these manufacturers deliver the highest praise, but when the EU clamps down, they will argue that these rules shouldn’t apply in South Africa.

Propiconazole: fungicide and reproductive toxin

Propiconazole is a fungicide used on crops and as a wood preservative. It is also classified as a 1B: presumed reproductive toxin and is a potent endocrine disruptor, meaning it mimics hormones found in the human body.

Last year, the EU decided that propiconazole could stay on the market as a wood preservative, but for extremely limited uses. Among other requirements, the EU ruled that propiconazole “should only be authorised for indoor use” where run-off can be tightly controlled since “spray-drift by manual spraying is impossible to be mitigated at a site outdoors”.

The EU ruling also noted that “wood treated with propiconazole should not be placed on the market to produce furniture and play structures”.

Yet in South Africa, several companies are fighting to keep propiconazole on the market as a treatment for powdery mildew and other fungi on crops where preventing run-off and spray drift is impossible.

Schalk van der Merwe, the national marketing manager for Adama, told us that “we are applying for derogation for essential uses only … and for a limited time period… Withdrawal of products before suitable, sufficient alternatives … are available to the growers, could impact negatively on … growers, local and export markets, and therefore the economy.”

Adama, which is part of the Syngenta group – one of the big four companies that dominate global pesticide sales – is “investing in derogations, without certainty about the outcome or the period for which the derogation could be granted,” he said.

However, the data provided by CropLife shows that Adama considers its propiconazole product, Bumper 250 EC, essential for a wide range of crops, including peaches, nectarines, cherries, pecan nuts, mangoes, wheat and barley.

Adama is also applying to keep using products containing dimethomorph for potatoes and grapes, as well as linuron for sweet potatoes and carrots. Both dimethomorph and linuron are classified as 1B: presumed toxic to reproductive health.

The job of policing these “exceptional” uses will fall to the department’s already over-stretched inspection unit.

Adama, which is headquartered in Israel, has decided not to fight for some of its other products, including Diurex, which contains diuron (1B: carcinogenic) and Soprano, which contains carbendazim (1B: mutagenic). Both will be removed from the shelves by the end of May 2025.

However, Adama’s parent company Syngenta – owned by China’s state-owned Sinochem – is using a different tactic.

In addition to the 61 products that companies are defending through the derogation process, companies have launched a parallel process to have 54 products reclassified from, for instance, 1B: presumed carcinogen to 2: suspected carcinogen.

And while the derogation process would give 1A/1B products a limited life extension, the reclassification process would allow these products to remain on the shelves indefinitely.

Double standards

South Africa, with its massive agricultural sector and outdated laws, has long been a haven for pesticides that are “made in Europe” but also “banned in Europe”.

The weed killer Paraquat, for instance, has done wonders for Syngenta’s bottom line – in 2018, the Swiss multinational reported more than $100-million in sales from just this one chemical.

Ironically, however, it’s illegal to sell Paraquat in Basel, Switzerland, where Syngenta is based. It’s also illegal to sell it in Huddersfield, England, where the herbicide is made. But if you’d like to buy it in South Africa, all you have to do is go down to your local Agrimark, where you can pick up five litres for roughly R500.

Paraquat is a highly toxic herbicide – “fatal if inhaled” – which has been banned in the EU since 2007, but continues to be sold in South Africa where it is sprayed to create firebreaks ahead of controlled burns.

And paraquat is not alone.

Benomyl is classified as a 1B: presumed carcinogen and mutagen by the European Chemical Agency and banned across the EU.

It was widely used as a fungicide (under the brand name Benlate) until it became the focus of several lawsuits alleging that it had caused damage to crops. Separately, a handful of parents in the US, UK and New Zealand filed lawsuits alleging that the chemical was linked to serious birth defects, including children being born with severe eye deformities.

Although studies on rats convincingly replicated these results, the manufacturer DuPont denied their product was responsible. The cases were eventually settled out of court, by which point DuPont had voluntarily withdrawn its benomyl products from the market.

But only in the US and the EU.

Products containing benomyl continue to be sold in South Africa by UPL, Adama, Villa Crop Protection and Castle-Ag, particularly to the citrus industry. An inventory from the UPL warehouse fire shows that as recently as July 2021, 5 227kg of products containing benomyl were destined for market in KwaZulu-Natal.



“We know that the manufacturers … are not going to stop selling products irrespectively of the nature of the hazard those products cause,” Maluta Mudzunga, the department’s registrar in charge of pesticides told us in an interview in 2022. “So in South Africa, we operate, unfortunately, under circumstances where companies need a law, and hence we are now coming in with a law that says you can’t import, sell, [or] use a specific type of product. Because at the end of the day, remember, sometimes it’s all about costs … people would want to sell those products that cost less and so those are the dynamics that we have in this country.”

All four companies have told the registrar that they will not fight the phase-out of benomyl, although the Citrus Growers’ Association said in a newsletter that one of the companies had applied for “a grace period for on-farm use of benomyl until 31 May 2025 and made provision for ample product stock accordingly”.

Companies are fighting to keep other chemicals on the market, however, by arguing that in certain instances, a product classified as a 1B: presumed carcinogen in the EU should be downgraded to a 2: suspected carcinogen when it’s sold in South Africa.

Room for interpretation

Before you can phase out any chemical, you need to agree on whether it’s a known or presumed carcinogen (1A/1B), or merely a suspected one (2).

In 2022, South Africa agreed to implement the Globally Harmonised Systems of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), an international standard to help countries get on the same page about the risks associated with different chemicals.

The GHS only provides guidelines though, and doesn’t classify products as 1A or 1B – that job is left up to individual countries. But South Africa made clear early on that it would follow the classifications used by the European Chemical Agency.

“The department does not see the need to repeat the work that is already being done by a world-recognised regulatory authority,” then minister Thoko Didiza told Parliament last year.

The pesticide industry disagrees and is seeking to persuade the department that another 54 products should be reclassified in South Africa as no longer carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproductive health.

As the department explained in a written response, “the European Union database source, which the registrar relies on amongst others, has classified the stated products as 1A or 1B. Such classification in some instances are different in other countries like USA, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand. Some of the Registration holders have provided additional information to dispute the European Union classifications.”

If successful, this would mean that the same product could be labelled as carcinogenic in Europe but carry no such warning in South Africa.

Verena Kempter, communications head for the German chemicals giant BASF, told us that “the GHS hazard classification criteria for assigning classification for carcinogenicity and reproduction toxicity is not clear-cut and leaves room for interpretation… Therefore expert knowledge and a careful weight-of-evidence assessment is needed considering all available data and human relevance of effects obtained in experimental animal studies. This is the reason why the same data may be weighted differently depending on the expert assessor, resulting in different classification outcomes.”

Epoxiconazole: sugarcane treatment and reproductive toxin

BASF is betting that it can persuade the under-resourced South African authorities to give its products a lower hazard rating, downgrading the active ingredient epoxiconazole from a 1B: presumed reproductive toxin – which may damage fertility or the unborn child – to a 2: suspected of damaging fertility or an unborn child.

In fact, BASF isn’t waiting for the department’s ruling – the safety data sheets for its products list epoxiconazole as a 2: suspected reproductive toxin, even though both the European and South African authorities place it in the more hazardous 1B category.

“The appropriate classification of epoxiconazole for developmental toxicity is borderline and changed several times in Europe within the last ~25 years,” Kempter told us.

“Therefore, BASF decided that the UN GHS classification of epoxiconazole for developmental toxicity in classification category 2 ‘suspected human reproductive toxicant’ (previous classification in Europe) should be kept as global classification, despite of Category 1B ‘presumed human reproductive toxicant’ (current classification in Europe).”

This is despite South Africa’s regulators explicitly stating that the country would follow EU product classifications.

Part of BASF’s justification is that “the product labels triggered by the Reproductive Toxicity Category 1 and 2 are identical, thereby the same level of protection of end users handling epoxiconazole is ensured.”

But the difference is massive: 1B means BASF needs to start phasing out its epoxiconazole products, including Opera, Abacus Advance, Stellar Star, Ceriax and others that are widely used on crops like sugarcane and maize; 2 means it gets to keep selling them indefinitely.

Dimethomorph: grape fungicide and reproductive toxin

Reclassification is also giving companies like BASF a potential second bite at the cherry where derogation applications in the EU have failed.

Dimethomorph is a fungicide used in two BASF products: Orvego and Acrobat, both of which are widely used on grapes.

In 2019, the European Chemical Agency classified dimethomorph as a 1B: presumed reproductive toxin and ordered that products containing this ingredient be labelled “H360F: may damage fertility”.

Yet despite its 1B classification, BASF, Arysta LifeScience (owned by UPL) and Adama brought a derogation application to renew their dimethomorph products in the EU, arguing that “the exposure of humans and/or the environment to dimethomorph was negligible under realistic conditions of use” – the same loophole that is available in South Africa.

The EU did not buy this argument and in April this year ruled that dimethomorph should be phased out.



Among other findings, the EU concluded that “dimethomorph is not necessary to control a serious danger to plant health which cannot be contained by other available means including non-chemical methods” and “dimethomorph meets the criteria for endocrine disruptors for humans and wild mammals … due to its estrogen, androgen and steroidogenesis (EAS)-modalities”.

“Despite the arguments put forward by the applicants, the concerns regarding the active substance could not be eliminated,” the EU concluded.

Having failed to secure a derogation in the EU, BASF is now hoping that the same argument will find more fertile ground in South Africa, but this time by asking the authorities to reclassify dimethomorph in its entirety.

“We believe that a well-founded risk assessment should take into account the actual exposure of a substance and not just a theoretical hazard,” Kempter told us. “We defend this position for our active ingredient dimethomorph worldwide. We are convinced that our products can be used safely if they are used in accordance with the instructions for use.”

“Based on scientific studies, we believe that dimethomorph should be classified as chronic reprotoxic category 2. This means that it will not fall under the … definition for ‘highly hazardous pesticides’. We defend this position in regulatory proceedings worldwide.”

Mancozeb: citrus fungicide and reproductive toxin

The most contentious fight isn’t over grapes, however, but over the R11-billion-a-year export citrus industry.

Mancozeb is the active ingredient in 49 products currently sold in South Africa, and is a powerful fungicide used on citrus, onions and flower bulbs. The ingredient’s effectiveness in destroying fungus and the like has a similarly detrimental effect on the human endocrine system.

Endocrine disruptors like mancozeb mimic oestrogens that then disrupt hormone function causing development, growth and reproduction challenges in humans and wildlife. A study by the University of Venda, Steve Biko Academic Hospital and the University of Pretoria found that mancozeb had short-term toxic impacts on the immune system and other cells that impact the thyroid and can cause liver tumours.

When high doses of mancozeb were given to pregnant lab rats, some pups were born with malformed tails and meningoencephalocele, a rare condition where part of the brain herniates through the skull.

The chemical, classified as a 1B: presumed reproductive toxin by the EU, was subsequently banned by the bloc in 2021.

Despite this, 11 companies – backed by the citrus industry – are fighting to keep mancozeb on the shelves in South Africa through the department’s reclassification process.

“Mancozeb is the best multi-site fungicide available on the market [and] forms the backbone of the programme to control Citrus Black Spot … a fungal disease creating superficial blemishes on the fruit,” UPL South Africa told us via a PR company.

Citrus Black Spot doesn’t change how the fruit tastes, only how it looks. Despite this, the EU doesn’t allow fruit with Citrus Black Spot to be imported, which has made South Africa’s citrus farmers reliant on spraying with mancozeb-based fungicides.

“The EU has very strict regulations on Citrus Black Spot which threatens South Africa’s citrus exports,” UPL South Africa told us. “If South Africa’s citrus growers do not address [Citrus Black Spot] to adhere to the strict EU regulations, it will have a devastating impact on farm-level jobs that rely on this very important agricultural export.”

The company added that there is “currently no cost-effective alternative treatment for this disease”.

The result of this is that to treat an entirely cosmetic disease, farm workers in South Africa are potentially exposed to a long list of side effects from products that “may damage the unborn child”, are “suspected of causing cancer” and “may cause damage to organs through prolonged or repeated exposure”.

In April, the Citrus Growers’ Association, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, launched a case with the World Trade Organisation’s Dispute Settlement Body challenging what they deem discriminatory measures on the citrus exports from South Africa to the EU.

The press release didn’t mention the health effects of mancozeb spraying, but instead highlighted the R3.7-billion a year in opportunity costs for the export citrus industry to comply with the rules.

“140,000 livelihoods at farm level alone are sustained by the citrus industry,” Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen was quoted as saying. “It is a priority for government to protect these jobs and to make sure citrus can continue to play the essential economic role it does in so many rural communities throughout the country.”

For now, the citrus industry, the minister and the registrar are all pulling in the same direction. But if the EU refuses to budge, it’s likely that farm workers will be told, once again, to take one for the economy.

UPL’s new data

However, there are also commercial pressures to keep mancozeb on the market. UPL is heavily invested both locally and globally in this regard, and not just for the sake of the citrus industry. In January, UPL announced that it had bought the rights to Corteva’s mancozeb products outside China, Japan, South Korea and the EU.

UPL is the fifth-largest agrochemical company in the world, holding around 20% of market share. In a press release, UPL’s global office wrote that “mancozeb is a highly effective protective fungicide used to prevent plant diseases across a range of crops, including rice, soybean, wheat, onions, potatoes, and other vegetables and fruits … UPL, the market leader in this technology, was instrumental in introducing mancozeb for soybean production in 2014, where it proved effective in controlling fungal diseases and boosting growth and yield.”

If UPL’s application is successful in South Africa and mancozeb is reclassified from 1B (presumed reproductive toxin) to 2 (suspected reproductive toxin), it will mean that it can continue to be widely used on a variety of crops.

​​“[We] have data to show that Mancozeb is actually a group 2 … product, and the European Food Safety Authority categorisation as a carcinogen, mutagen or reproductive toxin (CMR) is incorrect,” UPL told us. “There is currently an application with the South African Department of Agriculture to have it correctly classified.”

UPL South Africa wouldn’t discuss what kind of data would justify mancozeb being downgraded, but according to the department, UPL has made the argument that, despite what the EU says, a number of countries regard mancozeb as a group 2: suspected reproductive toxin.

“The information provided by UPL included a list of countries where Mancozeb is still registered and classified as not being a CMR 1A or 1B. Such countries include Australia, Brazil, New Zealand, Russia and the USA,” the department told us.

In 2019, when the European Chemical Agency reviewed mancozeb, it was presented with new animal studies showing that, at lower doses, the birth defects seen in the original rat study did not occur.

The EU however refused to downgrade mancozeb to a 2: suspected reproductive toxin, arguing that “the new data is not convincing enough to reduce the concern for the malformations seen in the original … study”. It added that “the severe and irreversible developmental findings in [the original study] make it difficult to argue for a category 2 classification”.

UPL has decided to let go of several other products it actively trades, including Benomyl, Colloso and Propicon – all of which were present in large volumes in the UPL warehouse in Cornubia when it burnt down during the July 2021 unrest.

Very little is known about the volumes of pesticides sold in South Africa, so the inventory of the UPL warehouse offers an imperfect but valuable snapshot.

Among the thousands of tons of various products was 5,227kg of Benomyl (containing benomyl, 1A: toxic to reproductive health), 1,223kg of Colloso (containing flusilazole and carbendazim, 1B: mutagenic, toxic to reproductive health), and 1,425 litres of Propicon (containing propiconazole, 1B: toxic to reproductive health).

All of these products will be banned from June 2025. Mancozeb, which was listed as the active ingredient in 91,518kg of product, may remain on the market for a lot longer.

Public reckoning

The phase-out process means that for once, the secretive pesticides industry is being forced into the open. When new pesticides are registered, the public isn’t asked for comment. In fact, there isn’t even a public register showing which pesticides have been legally approved for use in South Africa.

This time however, if companies want to keep using 1A/1B products via one of the three loopholes in the derogation process, they will have to publish a risk assessment report and call for public comments.

So far, none of the companies seeking exemptions for their 61 products has made a move.

“The registration holder will invite the public for comments through the media platforms. The registration holder will make the risk assessment reports and/or any relevant information available on their respective websites. In addition, the documents will also be available on DALRRD website,” the department told us.

• Interested parties will submit their comments or objections in connection with the proposed application in writing to:

Mr Maluta Mudzunga
The Registrar: Fertilizer, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies, 1947 (Act no. 36 of 1947)
Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development
Private Bag X343, Pretoria, 0001
30 Hamilton Street, Harvest House Building, Office 417, Arcadia, Pretoria, 0002
Tel no: 012 319 6530
Email to [email protected]

However, the more controversial process – having 54 products reclassified as no longer carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic to reproductive health – will take place behind closed doors.

The department says that this process has not yet been completed, but CropLife is confident. In April, it told members that all 54 of these products had been “[r]eclassified as not being a CMR and will remain on the market”. DM