Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40151620›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2025

Pesticides and public health: discussing risks in Brazilian agro-industrial growth.

Juliana E Perobelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Juliana E PerobelliLaboratory of Experimental Toxicology, Marine Institute, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, UNIFESP, Santos, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The benefits of pesticides in enhancing agricultural yields are widely accepted by the general public. However, it is essential to address the limitations of the current agricultural model to develop more sustainable practices that prioritize environmental and human health. Brazil, a major global agricultural player, ranks among the top five agro-food producers and exporters, making it one of the largest consumers of pesticides worldwide. Notably, approximately 30% of pesticides used in Brazil are banned in the European Union. Paradoxically, some of these banned agrochemicals re-enter Northern markets through imported agro-food products. Addressing the regulatory disparities between Northern and Southern countries necessitates global initiatives and research to better understand the real biological risks associated with pesticide exposure, particularly concerning reproductive health, endocrine disruption, and carcinogenesis-key targets of these chemicals. Since 2001, the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) has operated the "Reports on Pesticide Residue Analysis in Food (RPRAF)" program to evaluate pesticide residues in food samples collected across Brazil. Despite its limitations, the program has been crucial in identifying the chemical exposome related to Brazilian agro-foods, facilitating studies on relevant pesticides, their doses, routes, and exposure schedules, and enabling the development of pre-clinical studies based on real-life exposure scenarios. A thorough understanding of the main mechanism of toxicity is crucial for raising awareness about the health risks associated with pesticide exposure, fostering tailored health strategies and guiding informed regulatory policies.

Indexed as

agrochemicalsbrazilian agricultureendocrine disruptorsexperimental toxicologymale reproductionone health

Identifiers

PMID40151620
PMCPMC11947944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.