MPF asks for fine on Anvisa for delaying pesticide analysis

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) has asked the court to fine Anvisa (the national health watchdog) R$15,000 per day for delaying analysis of the pesticide carbendazim.

Like the UOL Show, defensive, a Suspected of causing cancer and malformation of childrenIt has already been banned in Europe, the United States and in Brazilian orange plantations destined for export.

Prosecutor Ana Carolina Roman told the judge of the Sixth Federal Court in Brasilia, Ivani da Luz, on Friday (13) that Anvisa had exceeded the two-year deadline for pesticide analysis, had not completed even six of the nine stages of the process and “refused” to provide a timetable for completion of the work.

List of Anvisa Advisory Listed in UOL A series of necessary stages in the process, but they do not have a deadline for completion: “This should happen at the end of these steps that are part of the regular process.” In court, Prosecutor Flavio Macedo said that “a reassessment of the active ingredient carbendazem is consistent with all regulatory steps” (see below).

But Prosecutor Anna Roman stated that there was a delay in the process (see full). In July 2019, Judge Ivani da Luz ordered the agency to begin the process of reassessing the pesticide, a procedure that began in December of that year.

“Even after nearly three years have elapsed since the Resolution (…) – and just over two years after the end of the period granted to comply with the Resolution, which expired in February 2020 – Anvisa has not even reached the sixth of the nine stages planned in Resolution RDC No. 221 /2018 for the toxicological reassessment of carbendazim”, writes Anna Roman.

The lack of the required reassessment puts the health of the Brazilian population at risk.”
Anna Carolina Roman, MPF plaintiff

Carbendazem is used to kill fungi in crops such as soybeans, corn, apples, and citrus fruits. It is one of the 20 most widely used pesticides in Brazil. In 2010 it was banned in Europe, and since 2012 the United States has rejected oranges or fruit juice from producers who use the poison on their farms.

Days before Ana Roman’s request, on May 10, Anfisa’s attorney, Flavio Macedo, said the agency was working on a “strong and safe” decision.

Compliance with all steps provided for in current legislation ensures full assessment of the available scientific data and evidence, with qualified, robust and safe technical analysis for decision making.”
Flavio Macedo, lawyer for Anfisa

to rule

The Anvisa has postponed the ruling that would ban or keep the product on country farms. The meeting, which was intended to decide on the use of carbendazim, began on February 23, with director Christian Jordan voting to approve the technical district’s report called “AIR”, which calls for the product to be banned. There was a request for an offer (more term) of two directors.

However, companies that make the product have met with the Ministry of Agriculture and Anfisa and asked to hear from other bodies before the agency’s decision.

On 27 April the trial resumed. Director Alex Campos voted for the USDA, as well as IBAMA. The motion won by four votes to one.

The agency will listen to the Ministries of Agriculture and Health, Ibama and Embrapa before making a decision. Campos said to UOL That Anvisa will put “energy” into the process so that answers arrive as quickly as possible.

Yesterday Anvisa told UOL That process takes place in the Department of Toxicology (GGTOX). Outstanding process steps are listed. Except for the first, there is no set deadline.

• Collect technical information with the company named “TPS” for a period of 30 days.
• Gathering information with ministries and government agencies.
• Anvisa Board Resolution on AIR Technical Report, TPS and Information from the Government
• Choosing a new course of action
• Opening public view
• Decision of the College Board to decide whether to ban or keep carbedazim in use

The agency did not comment on the Public Prosecution’s request to impose a daily fine. The counsel only stated that the commission respected and complied with court decisions.