4.7 Review

Pesticide Use and Degradation Strategies: Food Safety, Challenges and Perspectives

期刊

FOODS
卷 12, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods12142709

关键词

organophosphate pesticides; pesticide use; biotic degradation strategy; abiotic degradation strategy; food safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article points out the gaps in pesticide regulations that affect consumer safety and discusses the public health concerns associated with pesticide contamination of foods. Strategies and research directions to prevent and/or reduce the adverse effects of pesticides on human health and the environment are proposed. Special attention is given to organophosphate pesticides, widely used insecticides in agriculture, veterinary practices, and urban areas. Biotic and abiotic strategies for organophosphate pesticide degradation are discussed from a food safety perspective, highlighting the associated challenges and potential for improvement. As food systems face unprecedented challenges globally, there is an urgent need to harmonize pesticide regulations and improve methodologies in the area of food safety to protect human health.
While recognizing the gaps in pesticide regulations that impact consumer safety, public health concerns associated with pesticide contamination of foods are pointed out. The strategies and research directions proposed to prevent and/or reduce pesticide adverse effects on human health and the environment are discussed. Special attention is paid to organophosphate pesticides, as widely applied insecticides in agriculture, veterinary practices, and urban areas. Biotic and abiotic strategies for organophosphate pesticide degradation are discussed from a food safety perspective, indicating associated challenges and potential for further improvements. As food systems are endangered globally by unprecedented challenges, there is an urgent need to globally harmonize pesticide regulations and improve methodologies in the area of food safety to protect human health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据