27 January 2026

When it comes to crop protection, Brazil and the European Union are often compared as global agricultural heavyweights. Yet in 2025, their portfolios of active substances tell a story shaped less by ideology and more by climate, farming systems, and regulatory philosophy. On the surface, both regions rely on herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. Dig deeper, and the comparison quickly becomes less straightforward (source).

In the European Union, around 420 active substances are approved under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. (EU pesticides database). Approval is based on strict hazard- and risk-based criteria, with strong emphasis on human health, environmental protection, and sustainability. The EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy and Green Deal reinforce this approach by explicitly aiming to reduce reliance on synthetic pesticides and promote integrated pest management, low-risk products, and biological alternatives. As a result, the EU maintains a relatively curated and tightly controlled list of substances.

Brazil presents a very different picture. In 2025 alone, the country recorded more than 900 pesticide product registrations, alongside a record number of bio-input approvals (www.global-agriculture.com). While registrations are not the same as unique active substances, the scale reflects a broader and more flexible crop protection toolbox. Brazil’s regulatory framework prioritises availability and effectiveness, responding to intense pest pressure driven by tropical climates, large-scale monocultures, and double-cropping systems, such as reflected in recent legislative changes, particularly Law 14.785/2023. Soybeans, sugarcane, maize, and coffee dominate production (www.grokipedia.com), and these crops demand robust, often broad-spectrum solutions to protect yields.

These differences are especially visible in how substances are used. In the EU, several neonicotinoid insecticides have been banned or severely restricted since 2018 due to risks to pollinators, with only narrow exemptions allowed in specific cases [(https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/neonicotinoids\_en]). European farmers are increasingly encouraged to adopt biological control agents such as _Bacillus thuringiensis_ or _Beauveria bassiana_, as well as pheromones and other non-chemical tools. In Brazil, while biologicals are growing rapidly, conventional chemistry remains central, and new active ingredients continue to be approved to address resistance and emerging pest challenges (source).

Farming structure plays a decisive role in this divergence. Brazil’s agriculture is dominated by vast, mechanised monocultures operating under high disease and insect pressure year-round (www.wikipedia.com). In this context, chemical crop protection is often essential to maintain productivity and economic viability (source 1) , (source 2). Europe, by contrast, operates largely under temperate conditions, with smaller farms, greater crop rotation, and a strong focus on quality and value-added markets such as wine grapes, fruit, and vegetables. These systems generally allow for more targeted and preventive pest management strategies.

For these reasons, direct comparisons between Brazil and the EU can be misleading. Pest pressure, climate, farm size, regulatory goals, and market priorities differ fundamentally. Brazil focuses on yield maximisation and global commodity supply, while the EU increasingly prioritises sustainability, environmental protection, and food system resilience. The overlap in active substances exists, but the context in which they are approved and used could hardly be more different.

In the end, comparing crop protection in Brazil and the EU is less about counting active substances and more about understanding the systems behind them. Both regions protect crops, but they do so under vastly different conditions. In that sense, the comparison really is apples and pears: similar on the surface, shaped by entirely different environments underneath.