On the issue of adding the insecticide chlorpyrifos to Appendix A of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (literature review)

The Russian Science Citation Index and CyberLeninka, as well as the Internet resources of international organizations (WHO, etc.) and regulatory agencies of the countries listed in the review (US Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) with a search depth from 2018-2025 revealed differences in the approaches of global regulators to minimizing potential risks from the use of chlorpyrifos (CPFS), despite the European Union’s proposal to include it in the list of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) of the Stockholm Convention after new information emerged about its potential danger to the unborn child. To date, a complete ban on CPFS has been introduced by countries with a cold or temperate climate (Canada, EU), as well as exporting countries trading with the EU (Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Peru, Thailand, Turkey, Chile, Sri Lanka). At the same time, the Russian Federation, along with the United States of America and Australia, have significantly restricted the use of CPFS. The use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture remains unchanged in Mexico, China, and Brazil. Despite the affordability of some alternative chemical plant protection products available for some applications of CPFS, there is no complete analogue with the same broad spectrum of action on the market, which may deter developing countries from restricting or banning CPFS until it is officially included in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, despite the potential risks it may pose to the safety of the unborn child.Contribution: Rakitskii V.N., Veshchemova T.E. – concept and design of the study, collection and analysis of literary data, writing the text; Chkhvirkiya E.G., Masaltsev G.V. – concept and design of the study, collection and analysis of literary data, writing the text. All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.Funding. The study was carried out within the framework of the industry programs of Rospotrebnadzor “Scientific justification of the national system for ensuring sanitary and epidemiological well-being, health risk management and improving the quality of life of the population of Russia” (2021-2025).Received: October 13, 2025 / Accepted: December 2, 2025 / Published: January 15, 2026