Pesticide and pharmaceutical pollution in South Africa: a review of sources, impacts, and policy gaps

TL;DR

This paper reviews pesticide and pharmaceutical pollution in South Africa, highlighting inadequate regulations and suggesting improvements to protect public health and the environment.

Contribution

The study identifies specific policy gaps and compares South Africa's regulatory framework with international best practices.

Findings

Pharmaceuticals like acetaminophen and pesticides like atrazine are commonly found despite being banned.

South Africa's regulatory systems lack risk assessments, monitoring, and enforcement compared to other countries.

Improved interagency coordination and monitoring are recommended to align with global standards.

Abstract

South Africa faces environmental and public health risks due to pollution of various environmental systems by pesticide and pharmaceutical residues resulting from anthropogenic activities. However, regulatory and monitoring mechanisms remain inadequate. This review aimed to assess occurrences, sources, regulatory frameworks, and policy responses related to pesticide and pharmaceutical pollution in South Africa. The review of published (peer-reviewed) articles and government and policy documents found that pharmaceuticals such as acetaminophen and diclofenac, and pesticides such as atrazine, endosulfan, and chlorpyrifos, are commonly reported micropollutants, even though they are banned. The spatial distribution of the reviews shows that Western Cape, Gauteng, and KwaZulu-Natal appear to have more research conducted on these pollutants. Related laws and policies managed by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) and the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) are insufficient and lack thorough environmental risk assessments, regular monitoring, and strict enforcement. Comparison with the EU, USA, Switzerland, Australia, Japan, and South Korea reveals that these countries have stronger regulatory systems, including obligatory risk assessments, national take-back schemes, and integrated monitoring, which are mostly absent in South Africa. The informal sale of pesticides, misuse, improper disposal of pharmaceutical waste, and the slow implementation of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach further exacerbate the problem. To prevent future risks to ecosystems and public health, the review recommends regulatory adjustments, improved interagency coordination, and enhanced environmental monitoring systems to align South Africa’s regulatory framework with world best practices.

Figures