19 October 2026, São Paulo: Brazil’s National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) has issued six resolutions covering toxicological assessments for dozens of pesticide products involving approximately 30 companies. The decisions were published in the October 7, 2026, edition of the Diário Oficial da União, Brazil’s federal official gazette.
The resolutions, numbered RE 3.940 to RE 3.945 and dated October 2, 2026, were issued by ANVISA’s General Toxicology Directorate (GGTOX). They cover technical-equivalent pesticides, formulated products, microbiological products, temporary registration requests and amendments to existing registrations.
Brazil’s pesticide registration system involves three authorities. ANVISA assesses toxicological risks, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) evaluates environmental risks, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA) handles agronomic registration. Toxicological clearance alone does not constitute full authorisation for commercial sale.
Technical-Equivalent Products Dominate the October Batch
Resolution RE 3.941 covered the largest group of products, with approximately 20 assessments, most involving technical-equivalent versions of active ingredients already registered in Brazil. The resolution included products from companies such as Adama, Albaugh, Biorisk, BRA Defensivos, Brilliance, CHDS do Brasil, Cropchem, Gharda, Hemani Agro, Nortox, Perterra, Pilarquim, Proregistros, Proventis, Rainbow Defensivos, Sharda, Simbiose, Syncrom, Tide do Brasil and Total Biotecnologia.
The products covered several established active ingredients used in crop protection, including herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. The table below lists the companies and products identified in the resolution.
Company
Product / Active Ingredient
Product Type
Adama
Indoxacarbe Técnico Ada BR
Technical equivalent
Albaugh
Tiametoxam FS Albaugh 01
Formulated product, Category 5
Biorisk
Fluxapyroxad Técnico VT
Technical equivalent
BRA Defensivos
Fluroxipir + Triclopir EC BRA
Formulated product, Category 4
Brilliance
Imazethapyr 106 g/L SL Brilliance
Formulated product, Category 5
CHDS do Brasil
Sulfentrazone Técnico CHDS H
Technical equivalent
Cropchem
MALFA
Formulated product, Category 3
Gharda
Fipronil Técnico 95 Gharda
Technical equivalent
Hemani Agro
Sulfentrazone Técnico
Technical equivalent
Nortox
Dimethomorph, haloxyfop, indoxacarb and metribuzin technical products
Technical equivalents
Perterra
Diclosulam Técnico Perterra
Technical equivalent
Pilarquim
Piraclostrobin Técnico Pilarquim
Technical equivalent
Proregistros
Metalaxyl-M Técnico YN
Technical equivalent
Proventis
Dimethomorph Técnico Proventis
Technical equivalent
Rainbow Defensivos
Comuidar Xtra, Oxivan
Formulated products, Category 5
Sharda
Sulfentrazona Técnico SD
Technical equivalent
Simbiose
Simbi BS 10
Microbiological product, Category 5
Syncrom
Dimethomorph Técnico NGC
Technical equivalent
Tide do Brasil
Paclobutrazol Técnico Tide
Technical equivalent
Total Biotecnologia
DEF-MIC-052-23A-1
New microbiological product, Category 5
<text color=”secondary” size=”sm”>Source: ANVISA Resolution RE 3.941, dated October 2, 2026. The product categories are reproduced from the supplied source material.</text>
The range of products reflects continued regulatory activity across conventional chemical pesticides and biological crop protection solutions. Technical-equivalent products accounted for most of the entries, while formulated and microbiological products also featured in the assessment.
Court-Ordered Assessments and Temporary Registration Requests
Two other resolutions addressed assessments undertaken in response to court orders. Resolution RE 3.942 covered Proregistros’ chlorantraniliprole technical-equivalent product, while RE 3.943 covered Gowan’s EXT 348-1 formulation. The latter was classified in Category 5, indicating that the product was considered unlikely to cause acute harm under Brazil’s classification system. <Cite refs={[“turn160101search1”]}/>
Resolution RE 3.940 covered preliminary toxicological assessments associated with requests for Registro Especial Temporário (RET), or Special Temporary Registration. Companies included Agrivalle, BASF Agricultural Solutions, Gowan, Lemma Agronegócios, Nissan Chemical, Stoller do Brasil, UPL do Brasil and Vittia.
The resolution approved preliminary assessments for temporary registration purposes. These procedures relate to specified activities and do not, by themselves, establish unrestricted commercial authorisation. <Cite refs={[“turn160101search0”]}/>
Changes to Existing Product Registrations
The remaining resolutions addressed amendments to products already in the registration system.
Resolution RE 3.944 covered post-registration changes, including crop-label expansions for Syngenta’s Arvatico, Certano and Reverb. Such amendments can extend the approved uses of a pesticide, subject to the conditions established by the relevant authorities.
Resolution RE 3.945 approved a formulation change for Sumitomo Chemical Brasil’s Leale SC and reclassified the product into Category 5, Brazil’s lowest acute-toxicity category. The resolution specifically covered the formulation amendment and the resulting toxicological reclassification. <Cite refs={[“turn160101search3″,”turn160101search2”]}/>
Generic Competition in Brazil’s Crop Protection Market
The October batch highlights the continued importance of technical-equivalent products in Brazil’s pesticide registration pipeline. Active ingredients such as sulfentrazone, dimethomorph, indoxacarb, fipronil and imazethapyr featured in the assessments, reflecting ongoing activity around established crop protection chemistries.
Technical-equivalent registrations can increase the number of suppliers competing in established pesticide markets. Once all required regulatory approvals are secured, additional suppliers may compete with existing manufacturers, potentially increasing price pressure in specific active-ingredient and formulated-product segments.
For multinational crop protection companies, generic manufacturers and technical-grade suppliers, Brazil’s regulatory decisions offer insight into the products moving through the registration process. The October batch also illustrates the diversity of activity, spanning conventional chemical pesticides, microbiological products, temporary assessment requests and amendments to existing registrations.
However, toxicological assessments alone do not establish when a product will enter the market or how much competition it will generate. Commercial outcomes will depend on completion of the remaining regulatory requirements, market-entry timelines, demand and suppliers’ pricing and distribution strategies.
Global Agriculture is an independent international media platform covering agri-business, policy, technology, and sustainability. For editorial collaborations, thought leadership, and strategic communications, write to pr@global-agriculture.com
