South Africa weighs alternatives to hazardous crop pesticides

The story in brief

What you need to know

• A two-year study analysed 1,814 urine samples from 533 children in three Western Cape agricultural areas. Recent household pesticide use was associated with higher levels of 12 biomarkers, while reported spray drift was associated with higher levels of eight. These findings indicate exposure associations, not that exposure caused illness.2
• The report discusses biopesticides and genetically engineered pesticides, alongside calls from campaigners for farming approaches that reduce reliance on pesticides. An African Centre for Biodiversity compendium includes biological control, botanicals and integrated pest management, but says evidence strength and field readiness vary.15
• RNA interference, or RNAi, is one emerging approach in the discussion. A laboratory study found that gene-specific double-stranded RNA treatments increased mortality in the tested South African mealybugs. The experiment does not establish how well such treatments work in fields or their safety for non-target organisms.16
• South Africa has official guidance on data required to register biological and biopesticide agricultural remedies. The guidance confirms a registration framework exists, but does not show how long applications take or whether regulatory capacity is limiting approvals.4
• The report repeats an estimate of 385 million annual unintentional pesticide poisonings worldwide. A 2026 review gives a higher estimate, 402–433 million cases a year, including around 11,000 fatalities. The review says both under-reporting and limitations in study quality and extrapolation affect estimates.13

Conservation context

Why this matters

The South African child study documents associations between reported exposure factors and pesticide biomarkers, while the global review identifies acute poisoning as a substantial public-health concern. Assessing alternatives therefore involves both reducing exposure and understanding whether proposed options work, and what risks they may bring.2356

The developing story

What happens next

The sources do not set out a specific next decision or timetable. Questions for further evidence include which alternatives are working in South African fields, the time and capacity involved in biopesticide registration, and what field and non-target testing exists for proposed RNAi products.146

Established evidence

What we know

• The Western Cape study followed 533 children in three agricultural areas from 2017 to 2019 and collected 1,814 urine samples.2
• The 2026 global review estimates 402–433 million unintentional acute pesticide poisonings annually, while warning that data limitations can affect the total in either direction.3
• South Africa’s Department of Agriculture published data requirements for registering biological and biopesticide agricultural remedies in 2015.4
• The African Centre for Biodiversity’s compendium covers multiple alternatives and cautions that its collection is partial, with evidence and readiness varying between approaches.5

Open questions

What we don't know

• The supplied sources do not establish which crop-specific alternatives are already in use in South Africa, or what field and economic evidence supports them.15
• The official registration guidance does not establish typical processing times for biopesticide applications or the regulator’s capacity to assess them.14
• The laboratory mealybug experiment does not establish field effectiveness or ecological safety for RNAi treatments proposed for use in South Africa.16
• The supplied reporting does not establish what protections and exposure monitoring are available to farmworkers during spraying or when they re-enter treated fields.1

Source coverage

Read the reporting