South Africa, the largest user of pesticides in sub-Saharan Africa, stands at a crossroads as agrichemical companies face mounting scrutiny over the environmental, health, and economic impacts of their products.
With a robust agricultural sector contributing $13.7 billion in exports in 2024, pesticides have been pivotal in boosting crop yields and ensuring food security. However, the side effects of these chemicals—ranging from cancer and neurological disorders to environmental degradation—have sparked calls for reform, challenging the future of agrichemical companies. This article examines the trajectory of these companies in South Africa, the risks posed by pesticides, and the push toward sustainable alternatives, while critically assessing the balance between food security and public health.The Role of Agrichemicals in South African Agriculture
Agrichemical companies like Enviro Bio-Chem, BASF, Syngenta, Adama, and UPL have been integral to South Africa’s agricultural success, providing over 120 registered products, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators. These chemicals have increased yields, reduced crop losses, and supported exports to markets like the Southern African Development Community (SADC). In 2024, South Africa imported R38 billion worth of pesticides, primarily from China, while exporting R15 billion, underscoring the industry’s economic significance.
However, the reliance on synthetic pesticides has grown rapidly, driven by a need to feed a population projected to double by 2050. The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Seeds and Remedies Act (FFFAR) of 1947, which governs pesticide regulation, is outdated, focusing on approval rather than restriction or monitoring. This regulatory lag, coupled with weak enforcement, has allowed the use of 192 highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), including 36 classified by the World Health Organization as Group 1A/1B—known or presumed carcinogens, mutagens, or reproductive toxins.
Health and Environmental Side Effects of Pesticides
The side effects of pesticides in South Africa are alarming. Studies link pesticides like aldicarb, carbofuran, mevinphos, and terbufos to severe health issues, including endocrine disruption, neurological damage, cancer, birth defects, and acute poisoning, with children and farmworkers particularly vulnerable. A tragic 2024 incident in Soweto, where 23 children died from food contaminated with “street pesticides” like terbufos, highlighted the dangers of unregulated use in informal settings. Farmworkers, often lacking proper protective equipment (PPE) or training, face high exposure risks, with women—frequently seasonal workers—being especially vulnerable. A 2019 study by the Women on Farms Project found 67 EU-banned pesticides in use, linked to ailments like asthma, rashes, and cancer among workers.
Environmentally, pesticides contaminate water sources, harm pollinators like honeybees, and threaten aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity. For instance, chromated copper arsenate (CCA), containing arsenic acid and chromium trioxide (both Group 1A carcinogens), is used in wood preservatives, risking groundwater contamination. Overuse and improper disposal, such as storing pesticide containers in homes or cleaning equipment in drinking water sources, exacerbate these issues, particularly in rural areas with limited regulatory oversight. A 2022 study found that pesticide residues in soil and air vary by crop type, with inhalation posing a higher risk than soil ingestion, though overall human health risks were deemed negligible in controlled settings.
Regulatory Challenges and Industry Pushback
The South African government, through the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), announced plans to phase out 346 HHPs by June 2025, aligning with global efforts to ban carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductively toxic chemicals. However, pesticide manufacturers are resisting, seeking to keep 115 products on the market by exploiting regulatory loopholes, arguing that alternatives are unavailable or that bans would cause economic or public health crises. CropLife South Africa, representing the industry, insists that stringent safety studies (over 150 per product) ensure safe use when label instructions are followed, emphasizing pesticides’ role in food security.
Critics, including Unpoison SA and the Women on Farms Project, argue that weak enforcement, inadequate training, and outdated regulations undermine safety claims. The FFFAR Act, unchanged since 1947, lacks provisions for modern pest management or environmental justice, failing to meet constitutional mandates for public health protection. Civil society groups, supported by the United Nations, have called for urgent bans on HHPs and the destruction of existing stockpiles, citing “racist and colonial patterns” in the EU’s export of banned pesticides to South Africa.
The Future of Agrichemical Companies
The future of agrichemical companies in South Africa hinges on navigating these challenges while adapting to global trends toward sustainability. Several factors will shape their trajectory:
- Regulatory Reform and Bans: The proposed HHP phase-out by June 2025 could force companies to reformulate products or shift to less toxic alternatives. However, delays in implementation, as seen with the unresponsive DALRRD, may prolong the use of hazardous chemicals. Companies face pressure to demonstrate negligible real-life risks, a difficult task given South Africa’s weak enforcement and worker protections.
- Shift to Biological Solutions: Companies like BioBee and Madumbi are gaining traction with biological pest control and biostimulants, supported by South Africa’s Group III fertilizer regulations requiring scientific backing. Integrated pest management (IPM), as practiced by Mahela Group, reduces pesticide reliance while maintaining yields, signaling a market shift toward eco-friendly solutions. Agrichemical companies must invest in R&D for biopesticides to remain competitive, especially as global demand for sustainable agriculture grows.
- Economic and Trade Pressures: The U.S.’s 30% tariff on South African exports, effective August 7, 2025, and disruptions like Maersk’s suspension of direct shipping to the U.S. threaten agricultural profitability, indirectly affecting agrichemical demand. Companies may need to support farmers in diversifying export markets, such as to Asia or intra-African trade, to maintain sales.
- Public and Civil Society Pressure: Growing activism from groups like Unpoison SA and Women on Farms, coupled with public health incidents, is increasing scrutiny. The 2024 Soweto tragedy amplified calls for stricter regulations and transparency, pushing companies to address environmental justice concerns or risk reputational damage.
- Technological and Training Investments: To mitigate side effects, companies could invest in precision application technologies and farmer training to ensure proper use and reduce exposure. However, high costs and limited infrastructure in rural areas pose challenges, particularly for smallholder farmers.
The agrichemical industry’s claim that pesticides are essential for food security holds weight, as crop losses without them could jeopardize South Africa’s ability to feed its growing population. However, the narrative often glosses over long-term costs. The environmental justice lens, as applied by researchers like Leslie London, highlights how marginalized groups—farmworkers, women, and rural communities—bear disproportionate health risks. The industry’s resistance to bans, citing economic impacts, ignores evidence that countries have phased out HHPs without compromising productivity, as noted by the FAO and WHO.
Agrichemical companies in South Africa must pivot to survive. Investing in biological alternatives, supporting IPM, and aligning with global sustainability goals are critical to maintaining market share. Collaboration with regulators to update the FFFAR Act and enforce training and PPE use could rebuild trust. Transparency, such as making pesticide registries public, as Unpoison SA has done, is essential to address public concerns. Simultaneously, companies should advocate for infrastructure improvements to support precision agriculture and reduce environmental contamination.
For farmers, adopting agroecological practices—such as crop rotation and organic pest control—could reduce reliance on synthetic pesticides while maintaining yields. Government support, including subsidies for biostimulants and training programs like plant clinics, could ease this transition. Ultimately, the future of agrichemical companies depends on balancing profitability with responsibility, ensuring that food security does not come at the cost of human health or environmental integrity.
Moreover, the export of EU-banned pesticides to South Africa raises ethical questions about global double standards. While companies argue that label compliance ensures safety, real-world practices—such as inadequate PPE, improper storage, and “street pesticide” misuse—undermine these claims. The lack of monitoring and underreporting of pesticide-related illnesses further obscures the true extent of harm, necessitating robust surveillance systems.
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of any entities they represent. The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by CRA and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk. You welcome to become part of our VIEWPOINT.
