Most quality managers know that pest control on a food-manufacturing site must satisfy HACCP, SANS 10049, Regulation R638 and, increasingly, GFSI schemes such as FSSC 22000 and BRCGS. Fewer know that all of those standards sit on top of one piece of national legislation that has quietly governed South African pesticide use since before most plants in Gauteng and the Eastern Cape were built: the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947.
This is not a food-safety document. It is a chemical registration and control law administered by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD). But because every rodenticide, insecticide and fumigant used in commercial pest control is legally classified as an "agricultural remedy" under it, this Act is the bedrock of legal pest control in South Africa. If a pest programme is not compliant with Act 36 of 1947, it cannot be compliant with HACCP, R638, SANS 10049 or any GFSI scheme, however good the paperwork looks. This article breaks down exactly what the Act requires, in plain language, for the people who answer for it in an audit.
Key takeaways
- Act 36 of 1947 classifies pesticides and rodenticides as "agricultural remedies", every one must be registered with the Registrar before sale or use.
- Every registered remedy carries an L-number; its label is a legal document, and off-label use (wrong pest, site or dose) is a criminal offence, not just bad practice.
- Anyone applying remedies for reward must be a registered Pest Control Operator (PCO); an unregistered operator is illegal and an automatic audit failure.
- Contraventions carry fines, imprisonment and deregistration, Act 36 compliance is the foundation under HACCP, R638, SANS 10049 and SANS 10133.
What Act 36 of 1947 actually is
The full title says most of it: the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, Act No. 36 of 1947. It is one of South Africa's oldest pieces of agricultural legislation still in force, written to control four categories of products that cause harm if mismanaged: fertilizers, farm feeds, stock remedies (veterinary products) and agricultural remedies. The fourth category governs pest control.
An "agricultural remedy" is any substance intended for controlling organisms harmful to human or animal health that kills, repels, attracts or otherwise controls pests. In practice this sweeps in every rodenticide used against Rattus norvegicus (Norway rat) and Mus musculus (house mouse), every insecticide used against Blattella germanica (German cockroach) and Musca domestica (house fly), every fumigant used on stored-product pests, and every bird deterrent product with an active ingredient. If it kills, repels or controls a pest and is sold or applied commercially in South Africa, it falls under Act 36 of 1947.
Registration of agricultural remedies: what an L-number means
No agricultural remedy may lawfully be sold, advertised or used in South Africa unless it is registered with the Registrar of Act 36 of 1947, a post within DALRRD. Registration is not a formality: the manufacturer submits efficacy, toxicology and environmental impact data plus proposed label wording, and the Registrar assesses whether the product does what it claims without unacceptable risk to the applicator, bystanders, food or the environment. Once approved, the product receives a unique registration number, the L-number, which must appear on the label.
The label is a legal document, not marketing copy. Everything printed on it, target pests, approved application sites, dosage, re-entry intervals and safety precautions, is a condition of the product's registration. The table below sets out what a compliant L-number label must specify.
| Label element | What it fixes | Why it matters on a food site |
|---|---|---|
| L-number | Confirms registered status | Unregistered/counterfeit use is a criminal offence |
| Target pest(s) | Organisms it may lawfully target | Using it on an unlisted pest is off-label and illegal |
| Approved sites | Where it may be applied | Applying in an unlisted food-contact zone breaches both law and HACCP |
| Dosage / dilution | Maximum lawful concentration | Over-dosing is a contravention regardless of severity |
| Re-entry period | Time before re-entry/re-application | Ignoring it risks product contamination or staff exposure |
| Safety directions | Handling and first-aid information | Required for SDS alignment and emergency planning |
The legal duty to use only registered products, strictly on-label
The Act and its regulations make it an offence to sell, acquire or use an unregistered agricultural remedy, and equally an offence to use a registered remedy contrary to its label directions. This is a stricter standard than most people assume: it is not enough that the chemical is "the right type of poison for a rat problem", the specific product must be registered for that pest, at that site, at that dose. A technician who uses a registered rodenticide correctly against rats but places it inside a production area not listed as an approved site has still committed a contravention.
This is exactly where legal compliance and food-safety compliance become the same test. HACCP-based pest programmes prohibit chemical application inside food-handling and food-contact areas for this reason, and the label, backed by Act 36 of 1947, is the legal instrument that enforces it. The table below contrasts common field practices against what the law permits.
| Practice | Legal? | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Valid L-number product, on-label, correct dose | Legal | Compliant and auditable |
| Unregistered or counterfeit chemical used "because it's similar" | Illegal | Criminal offence; seizure; audit failure |
| Registered product used against a pest not on its label | Illegal | Contravention despite legitimate product |
| Registered product applied in a food-contact zone against label directions | Illegal | Dual breach: Act 36 and HACCP/R638 |
| Dilution strengthened "to be sure" it works | Illegal | Contravention regardless of pest outcome |
Pest Control Operator (PCO) registration under the Act
Registration is not limited to products. Any person or business applying agricultural remedies for reward, any commercial pest control technician or company, must themselves be registered with the Registrar as a Pest Control Operator (PCO), administered through DALRRD, typically against defined classes of work such as structural pest control or fumigation, matching the operator's training and the chemical categories they may handle.
A PCO certificate confirms DALRRD has assessed the operator's competence to store, transport, apply and dispose of agricultural remedies safely. Engaging an unregistered operator, including informal contractors who undercut on price, is illegal, voids the legal basis for any chemical applied on site, and is treated as a critical non-conformance in food-safety audits, because it undermines every other document in the file. Auditors under HACCP, FSSC 22000 and BRCGS routinely check the PCO certificate against the technician who signed the service report. It is also the first check we recommend before signing any commercial pest control agreement.
Record-keeping duties under the Act
Beyond registration, the Act imposes ongoing record-keeping duties independent of any food-safety scheme. A registered PCO is expected to maintain, at minimum:
- Records of which registered remedies were purchased, stocked and applied, including L-numbers.
- Records of where, when and at what dose each remedy was applied, matching the label's approved sites and dosage.
- Proof of current PCO registration for every technician applying remedies.
- Safety data sheets for every product held or applied, available for inspection.
- Records showing application followed label directions specific to the target pest.
These are the same records HACCP-aligned auditors expect in a pest control file, not a coincidence. Food-safety schemes did not invent the chemical register; they inherited it from Act 36 of 1947 and added trending and traceability on top. See our article on food safety audit tips for pest control for the full document set.
The role of the Registrar and DALRRD
The Registrar's office, housed within DALRRD, evaluates and approves agricultural remedies, issues and can suspend or cancel L-number registrations, registers and can deregister PCOs, and investigates contraventions. DALRRD has changed names over the decades, it was previously the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), but its statutory function under Act 36 of 1947 has remained continuous. Any product or operator claiming registration should be verifiable against the Registrar's current lists; a facility manager with doubts is entitled to ask for proof directly.
Penalties for contravention
Act 36 of 1947 is a criminal statute, not merely an administrative one. Contraventions, using an unregistered remedy, using one off-label, operating as an unregistered PCO, or obstructing an inspector, can result in fines, imprisonment, or both, on conviction, alongside the Registrar's power to suspend or cancel a registration. For a food business the practical exposure is usually broader than the criminal penalty: a contravention uncovered during a recall investigation or customer audit can trigger loss of certification, loss of retailer approval, and civil liability well beyond any fine imposed on the operator.
How Act 36 of 1947 underpins food-safety pest programmes
Every major food-safety framework touching pest control in South Africa assumes Act 36 of 1947 compliance as a precondition, even where it is not named explicitly. HACCP prerequisite programmes require chemical controls to be legally applied and traceable. Regulation R638 and SANS 10049 both expect pest control carried out by competent, registered persons using approved products. SANS 10133, the code of practice for applying pesticides in and around buildings, operationalises Act 36's requirements: how stations are sited, chemicals stored, technicians trained, and records kept. GFSI schemes such as FSSC 22000 and BRCGS build their pest clauses on the same assumption, none of these standards can be satisfied by a programme that is not first legal under Act 36 of 1947. See our companion articles on HACCP-compliant pest control Regulation R638 and SANS 10049.
This is why ASC Pest Control was built the way it was. As the only pest control company in South Africa owned by accredited food safety specialists, we design IPM programmes around HACCP principles, applied by PCOs registered under Act 36 of 1947, to the SANS 10133 standard, with every L-number, certificate and application record captured in myASConline. Clients in Gauteng and the Eastern Cape get a programme that is legally defensible first, the only way it can be food-safety defensible second. That thinking runs through every one of our food and beverage pest control programmes.
Frequently asked questions
What is Act 36 of 1947 and why does it matter for pest control?
Act 36 of 1947 is the Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, South Africa's primary law regulating the registration and legal use of pesticides, rodenticides and insecticides, classed as "agricultural remedies". Every product and every operator applying it for reward must be registered under it. It matters because it is the legal foundation every food-safety pest standard, HACCP, R638, SANS 10049 and SANS 10133, is built on.
What is an L-number and why does it matter?
An L-number is the unique registration number the Registrar issues to every legally registered agricultural remedy. It appears on the label with the target pests, approved sites, dosage and safety directions the product may lawfully be used for. Using an unregistered product, or a registered one off-label, is a criminal contravention, not just an audit finding.
Can any technician apply pesticides in South Africa, or must they be registered?
Any person applying agricultural remedies for reward, including pest control technicians, must be registered as a Pest Control Operator (PCO) with the Registrar under Act 36 of 1947, via DALRRD. Using an unregistered operator is illegal and is treated as a serious non-conformance in HACCP, FSSC 22000 and BRCGS audits.
