YourVoiz

BR-319: Paving the Way for Indigenous Displacement and Environmental Catastrophe

Monica Piccinini

28 March 2025

Since European colonisers set foot in Brazil, Indigenous people have fought a relentless battle to protect their lands and preserve their way of life. Centuries of oppression have forced them to alter their cultures, traditions and beliefs, yet their resilience remains unbroken. Today, they still endure violent invasions by farmers, loggers, miners, and organised crime, keeping their communities locked in a constant fight for survival.

The protection of Brazil’s Indigenous lands is crucial for the survival of the Amazon rainforest. However, multiple projects – including oil and gas exploration, agribusiness expansion, cattle farming, biofuel production, legal and illegal mining, logging, and organised crime – threaten this vital ecosystem.

The reconstruction of Amazon’s BR-319 highway, one of the world’s most environmentally damaging projects, serves as a catalyst for these destructive activities. Stretching 885 km, the highway connects the capital of Amazonas, Manaus, to Porto Velho, cutting through pristine areas of the rainforest. A proposed 408 km reconstruction would open a gateway to deforestation, crime, and corporate exploitation, directly impacting over 18,000 Indigenous people.

The Amazon plays a critical role in regulating global climate and generating water vapour that brings rain across Brazil through the “flying rivers.” The reconstruction of BR-319 will disrupt this vital system, threatening the region’s health and overall environmental balance.

Deforestation and degradation along BR-319 will disrupt the “flying rivers,” potentially leading to devastating droughts, food and water shortages, and a collapse of Brazil’s agribusiness sector, including family farming – ultimately destabilising the country’s economy.

Violation of Indigenous Rights Along BR-319

Indigenous territories are not merely land – they are living, breathing places, rich with history, culture, and meaning. These lands hold the heartbeat of traditions, where communities coexist in a delicate, sacred balance with the animals, the water, the forests, and the earth itself. Their bond with nature is deep and sacred, as their very survival depends on its health and strength. It is a bond built on respect and care, a promise to nurture the land that sustains them, ensuring that it flourishes for generations to come.

However, this bond is now under threat. In the areas surrounding the BR-319 highway, Indigenous leaders from Lake Capanã Grande and Baetas have reported serious violations of their rights and growing threats due to the degradation of their territories and the expansion of the highway. There has also been an alarming attempt by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) to validate the consultation protocol with the communities.

This concerning situation emerged during an event at the Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), which included the participation of the federal prosecution office, a representative from the ministry of the environment, an NGO, and Indigenous leaders. The meeting was organised by researcher Lucas Ferrante and covered by Revista Cenarium.

The issue was further detailed in the article “BR-319: Narratives, Business and Power”, published by Revista Cenarium in February. According to the article, NGO Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil (IEB) produced a document falsely claiming that the Indigenous community had been consulted and had agreed to the reconstruction of the highway, provided that an extractive reserve was created to protect them. Shockingly, the community only learned of this approval after they had signed the document.

In 2020, Ferrante travelled along the BR-319 highway, interviewing several Indigenous people and leaders impacted by the road. Since then, their views on the highway’s effects have remained consistent. One Indigenous leader from Lake Capanã shared his concerns about the highway’s impact on his village (his name has been withheld to ensure his safety):

I would like to express my indignation in front of everyone regarding the impact of the BR-319 highway on the Indigenous lands of Lake Capanã. This brings us problems, manipulation of rights, violation of our traditional areas, occupation by land grabbers, pollution of our river, destruction of our nature.

And this is causing major problems in the flow of our rivers. Streams are being buried. Here we use the water from the river. The result of this BR will become an open door for the entry of criminals, drug dealers, all types of drugs, as already exists.

The Indigenous population lives off food from nature, the Indigenous population does not live off livestock. The Indigenous people live off traditional objects. They live off the subsistence of nature and subtract nature for itself for their survival and protect their own nature. I am against this paving.

The expansion of BR-319 is driving the rapid growth of agribusiness in the region, particularly on unallocated public lands. Soybean farmers from Mato Grosso do Sul are increasingly moving into Rondônia, buying land from livestock farmers who are then shifting southward within the BR-319 corridor to plant soybeans. These lands are often seized illegally through land grabbing, illegal deforestation, or violent evictions of Indigenous and traditional communities.

This situation brings attention to critical issues like the Soy Moratorium, especially as there have been growing attempts to abolish it, which could have devastating effects on the environment and Indigenous and traditional communities.

Soy Moratorium

Brazil’s Soy Moratorium, established in 2006, is an agreement where signatory companies pledge not to buy soy grown on land deforested in the Amazon after July 2008. This agreement has been a vital tool in the fight against deforestation. Yet now it faces a threat, as Brazil’s powerful agribusiness lobby intensifies efforts to dismantle it. As the world’s largest producer and exporter of soybeans, Brazil’s agricultural policies hold immense global consequences.

In October 2024, the state of Mato Grosso, leading soy producer, enacted Bill 12.709/2024, effectively cutting tax incentives for companies that adhere to the Soy Moratorium. On February 19, Brazil’s Legislative Assembly president, Max Russi, made the following statement:

We are all united in defence of one of the most important pillars of our economy – agribusiness.

During the same month, a troubling report from Repórter Brasil revealed that Cargill, one of Brazil’s largest grain exporters, was suggesting distancing itself from the Soy Moratorium rules.

On 11 March, Brazil’s agriculture minister, Carlos Fávaro, arranged a meeting with agribusiness leaders and supreme court minister Flávio Dino, who is overseeing the case concerning the Soy Moratorium. Among the key figures were Blairo Maggi, chairman of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) and Fávaro’s political mentor, as well as representatives from major agricultural giants such as Grupo Bom Futuro and Amaggi, the nation’s largest agricultural trading company.

Concerns emerge from the overlapping roles and connections involved. Maggi’s significant influence in both policymaking and agribusiness, coupled with family ties and Amaggi’s vested interests in the Soy Moratorium, raise questions about impartiality of these discussions.

Fávaro has expressed strong opposition to the Soy Moratorium, calling it “discrepant” and “unprofessional,” and has firmly declared his position:

I tried to demonstrate that the Soy Moratorium is also not constitutional, and I am confident that Minister Dino will act in this sense.

If the Soy Moratorium is lifted, soybean farmers will migrate to the Amazon, triggering rampant deforestation, environmental degradation, pollution, and violation of Indigenous rights, including violence and land invasion. This could also result in a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions, leading to disastrous social and environmental consequences.

In a nation where agribusiness drives the economy, Indigenous territories are seen as obstacles to relentless capitalist growth. With Brazil’s Congress dominated by the powerful rural caucus, the “ruralistas,” there is little concern for Indigenous rights as they push relentlessly for laws that serve their own interests. For them, the survival of Indigenous communities is a mere roadblock in their pursuit of profit.

The future of the Amazon, its Indigenous communities, and our planet is at risk. Rebuilding BR-319 isn’t just about a road – it’s a dangerous move that could destroy centuries of heritage and harm the environment beyond repair. If Brazil takes this path, the damage will be permanent, leaving deep scars on the land, its people, and the world.

As the world prepares for COP30, the urgency for protecting the Amazon and its ecosystems has never been clearer. The decisions made at this summit will have a profound impact on the preservation of the Amazon, and we must ensure that sustainability, Indigenous rights, and environmental protection take centre stage in these discussions.

Brazil’s New Pesticide Law: No Safe Distance from Toxic Exposure

Monica Piccinini

20 March 2025

Brazil’s current pesticide legislation currently mandates a minimum safety distance of 90 metres during chemical applications to reduce exposure risks. This regulation aims to safeguard both human health and the environment from the harmful effects of pesticides.

However, a new proposal – Bill 1833/2023 – seeks to significantly reduce this buffer zone, allowing just 25 metres for large properties. For small and medium-sized properties, there would be no mandatory safety distance at all. This would enable pesticide applications without any protective distance around traditional communities, rivers, or conservation areas, raising serious concerns about the potential dangers to public health and ecosystems.

This drastic reduction raises alarming concerns among experts, as it could lead to increased contamination risks for ecosystems and nearby communities, amplifying the threats to public health and the environment.

If passed, the proposal would allow farmers to apply pesticides dangerously close to small properties, putting surrounding communities at risk and potentially resulting in severe health repercussions.

The existing regulations in the state of Mato Grosso, which govern the use, production, storage, trade, application, transportation, and monitoring of pesticides, play a crucial role in protecting water resources, soil quality, animals, and the region’s most vulnerable populations – especially small family farmers and residents living near agricultural areas.

A weakening of these protections would open the door to catastrophic environmental degradation and irreversible harm to public health. As one of the world’s largest pesticide users, Brazil – and particularly Mato Grosso – cannot afford to take such a dangerous step backward.

Several studies have demonstrated that pesticide exposure significantly affects the health of the Brazilian population across all age groups and genders. Health consequences include central nervous system damage, cancer, poisoning, birth defects, and disruptions to the endocrine system.

A study published in the journal Acta Amazônica by scientists Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside stresses the importance of maintaining a safety distance of at least 300 meters between pesticide areas and sensitive locations, such as conservation areas, water sources, and rural communities. This recommendation is based on findings that negative effects, including local extinctions, genetic mutations, and deformities in wildlife, were observed more than 250 meters from treated areas, as shown in various studies across Brazil.

Ferrante said:

“Bill 1833/2023 represents a threat to Mato Grosso’s own agriculture by allowing the application of pesticides without respecting adequate safety zones.

“We conducted measurements in the pesticide application area without a safe distance and observed extinctions, mutations, and anomalies. These effects extended at least 250 metres, indicating that a minimum safe distance of 300 metres is necessary”.

The impact of pesticides on wildlife is not only a concern for researchers but is also acknowledged by the industry. Syngenta, on its official website, admits that pesticides contribute to the decline of pollinators, noting that “75% of crops intended for human consumption depend on bees” and that “they are the most important pollinators on the planet. In addition to allowing plants to reproduce, pollination also increases crop productivity levels and results in the production of better-quality fruits and a greater number of seeds”.

Syngenta points out that “the disappearance of bees and other pollinators could eliminate crops such as melon, watermelon, and passion fruit,” highlighting that the decline of pollinators due to pesticide use in sensitive areas directly threatens agricultural productivity and food security.

Approximately 80% of the pesticides approved in Brazil are banned in at least three countries within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the European community.

On average, each Brazilian consumes seven litres of pesticides annually, a staggering figure tied to the 70,000 cases of both acute and chronic poisoning reported across the country. This alarming statistic is highlighted in a dossier compiled by the Brazilian Association of Public Health (ABRASCO).

The proposed Bill 1833/2023 not only dismisses solid scientific evidence but also endangers the sustainability of agriculture in Mato Grosso and puts public health at risk by amplifying the potential for widespread pesticide contamination.

Ferrante warned about the risks associated with this new proposal, stressing the potential implications it may have:

“The approval of Bill 1833/2023 marks a severe regression in environmental and public health protection, sanctioning pesticide use at alarmingly close distances to vulnerable areas such as rural communities, water sources, and ecosystems. This reckless decision not only endangers local biodiversity but also jeopardises global food security.

“Nations that import Brazilian commodities, like soy and other pesticide-reliant agricultural products, must urgently reevaluate these imports. The dilution of environmental safeguards amplifies the risk of chemical contamination and breaches international food safety standards.”

Supermarkets Turn a Blind Eye to Methane Emissions from Meat and Dairy

Monica Piccinini

13 March 2025

Despite mounting evidence of the environmental impact of methane emissions, the world’s largest supermarkets are failing to take responsibility for their role in the crisis.

A new report by Changing Markets Foundation and NGO Mighty Earth reveals that 20 major supermarkets – including Carrefour, Lidl, Tesco, Walmart, and Ahold Delhaize – are ignoring the need to track or reduce the methane emissions linked their supply chains. With meat and dairy responsible for at least a third of their total emissions, this alarming failure raises serious questions about their commitment to sustainability and climate action.

The findings expose a troubling lack of transparency, as none of these industry giants publicly report their methane emissions, despite methane being 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the short term.

As global efforts intensify to curb greenhouse gases, the failure of these companies to acknowledge and address their methane footprint puts them under increasing scrutiny. With pressure mounting from regulators, investors, and consumers, these retailers must move beyond greenwashing and take concrete steps to slash emissions before it’s too late.

Gemma Hoskins, global methane lead at Mighty Earth, said:

Food retailers are ignoring the methane problem hidden in the meat and dairy aisles and risk losing consumer trust. Methane is a superheater greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of the heating the planet has already experienced. But it’s short-lived, so rapid cuts would be a win for climate and nature.

Retailers are uniquely positioned to urgently drive down agricultural methane emissions in their supply chains. That starts with being honest about the impact of the products they sell and working harder and faster to reduce that impact.

The report reveals that over 90% of European food retailers’ emissions come from their supply chains, with meat and dairy accounting for nearly half. Yet, none of the retailers analysed disclose methane emissions or the footprint of the meat and dairy products they sell.

Food retailers also fail to commit to deforestation-free supply chains for key commodities like beef, soy, and palm oil, despite the 2025 EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) deadline. Livestock farming is a leading driver of the Amazon’s destruction, responsible for 88% of deforestation.

While fossil fuel companies face intense scrutiny, the climate impact of the meat and dairy industry remains largely neglected. Rapidly cutting methane emissions by transforming this sector – alongside phasing out fossil fuels – could be a game changer in the fight against climate disaster.

Methane Alert

Methane levels have more than doubled in the past 200 years, with around 600 million tonnes released into the atmosphere annually – roughly 40% from natural sources and 60% driven by human activity.

As a greenhouse gas, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, responsible for 25% of global heating. Though it remains in the atmosphere for a shorter time than CO2, it is far more effective at trapping heat, earning its reputation as a ‘super-heater’.

Animal agriculture is a major contributor, responsible for 16.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 32% of human-caused methane emissions – largely from a byproduct of livestock digestion process (burps) called enteric fermentation, and manure. Each year, 83 billion land animals are slaughtered for meat production, further driving these emissions.

Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth are calling on food retailers to take responsibility by publicly reporting their emissions, setting science-based climate targets, and reducing methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030, in line with the Global Methane Pledge adopted at COP26. With their vast influence over supply chains and consumer choices, food retailers must lead the shift toward a sustainable food system, rather than placing the burden on consumers.

As key players in the global food industry, major food retailers have the power – and the duty – to pressure dominant meat and dairy producers, including JBS, Tyson, and Cargill, to adopt more transparency and sustainable practices, and cut methane emissions at the source.

Maddy Haughton-Boakes, senior campaigner at the Changing Markets Foundation, said:

Methane emissions are a major blind spot of supermarkets. Our scorecard reveals a complete lack of action, with the most powerful players in the food supply chains completely ignoring their government’s commitments to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. This must change urgently.

Some retailers acknowledge the problem and have taken small steps, but none are treating it with the urgency it demands – there are no real leaders here. Cutting methane this decade is our emergency brake on runaway global heating, yet retailers are barely pressing it. The companies that dominate our food system must step up now and take real action to slash their methane emissions.

Scorecard assessed the 20 largest food retailers in Europe and the US to evaluate their progress towards reducing methane emissions. Graph: Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth.

Health Impact

Excessive meat consumption is a major threat to both the planet and human health. It drives greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and destroys ecosystems rich in biodiversity. But the dangers don’t stop there – scientific studies reveal that high intake of red and processed meat significantly increases the risk of ischaemic heart disease, pneumonia, diabetes, colon polyps, and diverticular disease.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has found compelling evidence that processed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer, a finding further reinforced by research from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS).

Adding to these dangers, the meat industry’s rampant use of antibiotics in livestock farming has accelerated the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a looming public health catastrophe.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) results in higher mortality rates, prolonged illness, the spread of epidemics, and an overwhelming strain on global healthcare systems.

Action

Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth are urging food retailers to urgently develop climate plans to reduce methane from meat and dairy sources, adopt public transparency in climate reporting and disclose methane emissions, and set a target for methane reductions.

The pressure is mounting for food retailers to confront the methane problem head-on. As consumers become more aware of the environmental and health implications of their food choices, the demand for transparency and accountability will only grow.

Food retailers can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of the products they sell. By taking quick and decisive action to reduce methane emissions, they not only have the chance to be at the forefront of the sustainable food movement but also to regain consumer trust and position themselves as true leaders in the fight against climate change.

With the urgency of the climate crisis at an all-time high, it is crucial that these companies step up to the challenge. If they fail to address methane emissions now, they risk locking in further damage to the planet, compromising both our future, our health, and their role in the global economy.

COP30: Will Brazil Step Up as a Climate Leader?

Monica Piccinini

6 February 2025

As the host of the 30^th United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP30, Brazil stands at a crucial moment in history. This is more than just a global summit; it’s an opportunity for the nation to establish itself as a leader in the climate agenda and set an example for the world.

This November, the spotlight will be on Belém, the capital of Pará, as it hosts COP30, bringing together world leaders, activists, corporations, and policymakers to tackle the world’s most urgent environmental challenges, where the stakes have never been higher.

With climate disasters intensifying and deforestation threatening the planet’s most critical ecosystems, Brazil has both the responsibility and the power to drive real change.

For Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, COP30 presents a defining moment. It is a chance to take bold, decisive action, protecting Brazil’s rich biodiversity, halting deforestation and degradation in the Amazon rainforest, and shutting the door on further fossil fuel expansion.

The world is watching to see whether Brazil will step up with concrete policies and enforcement that safeguard its natural resources. If Lula seizes this moment, Brazil won’t just be hosting COP30, it will be leading the charge toward a more sustainable and resilient future.

Cássio Cardoso Pereira, ecologist, conservation biologist, and editor of BioScience, Biotropica, and Nature Conservation journals, shared his perspective on COP30:

Brazil stands at a crossroads. Events like COPs may generate ideas, but without real commitment, they will fail to drive the urgent change we need. Empty declarations about having the world’s largest tropical forest and abundant renewable resources mean nothing if we ignore the fires, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and relentless destruction that threaten them.

Oil and Gas

In 2024, the world has witnessed alarming new records in greenhouse gas levels and rising air and sea surface temperatures, as tracked by the Copernicus Climate Change Service. These shifts have triggered extreme weather events across the globe, including in Brazil, highlighting an urgent need for nations to phase out fossil fuels. Yet, instead of taking decisive action, countries, including Brazil, are ramping up fossil fuel production, pushing the planet further into crisis.

Brazil’s path is deeply concerning. According to the country’s trade ministry, oil exports surged to $44.8 billion this year, surpassing soybeans as the nation’s top export. Projections from Rystad Energy indicate that by 2030, Brazil’s oil production will exceed 7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd), elevating the country from the seventh to the fifth-largest oil producer in the world.

In 2024, state-owned oil giant Petrobrás reached a staggering production level of 2.4 million barrels of oil per day. Having Lula’s full support, the company is moving forward with controversial plans to expand oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River, an ecologically fragile region. This project threatens vital coral reefs, extensive mangroves, and the livelihoods of Indigenous and local communities. Beyond these immediate dangers, the risks of oil spills and increased greenhouse gas emissions could have catastrophic global consequences.

Pereira emphasised that Brazil’s choices today will determine whether it curbs environmental collapse or accelerates a climate catastrophe:

Brazil must foster an inclusive, transparent dialogue, one that listens to all voices, especially Indigenous communities, instead of being drowned out by misinformation and intolerance. While deforestation grabs headlines, the deeper crisis of forest degradation continues unchecked.

And now, reckless projects, including the BR-319 highway, the Ferrogrão railroad, and the disastrous proposal to drill for oil at the mouth of the Amazon, push the rainforest closer to collapse.

If these threats are ignored and buried beneath diplomatic pleasantries, Brazil will not only fail its emissions targets but betray its responsibility to the planet. The time for real action is now.

Amazon’s BR-319 Highway

The BR-319 highway, an 885 km stretch connecting the capital of Amazonas, Manaus, to Porto Velho, runs through one of the most pristine regions of the Amazon rainforest. Now, with a proposed reconstruction of 406 km, this project threatens to unleash a chain of destruction, turning an intact ecosystem into an open gateway to deforestation, crime, and corporate greed. The consequences wouldn’t just be local, they would ripple across Brazil and the world, accelerating climate collapse and putting Indigenous communities at extreme risk.

At the heart of this looming disaster is the AMACRO region, a deforestation hotspot covering the states of Amazonas, Acre, and Rondônia. If BR-319 is rebuilt, it would carve open a direct path between these heavily deforested lands and the untouched heart of the Amazon. With the rainforest already approaching an irreversible tipping point, this highway could be the trigger that pushes it over the edge.

The rainforest, long considered the “lungs of the Earth,” plays a crucial role in stabilising global temperatures. Destroying it would speed up climate change, making extreme weather events even more frequent and devastating.

Beyond environmental catastrophe, the human cost is staggering. The highway would expose 69 Indigenous communities, over 18,000 Indigenous people, to land invasions, violence, and displacement. Illegal land grabbing, mining, and logging have already inflicted damage on the Amazon, but with a newly reconstructed BR-319, these activities would expand uncontrollably.

Over 6,000 km of illegal roads have already been built off BR-319, and with further expansion, organised crime will only strengthen its hold on the region, putting both Indigenous lives and rainforest defenders in danger.

The threat extends beyond land. The destruction of the rainforest could disrupt the “flying rivers”, air currents heavy with water that bring rain to vast areas of Brazil. Without them, droughts could devastate agriculture and water supplies, affecting millions of people. Worse still, deforestation could create conditions for new zoonotic diseases to jump from wildlife to humans, increasing the risk of another global pandemic. In a world still struggling with the effects of COVID-19, this is a risk too great to ignore.

Despite urgent warnings from leading scientists Lucas Ferrante and Phillip Fearnside, the Brazilian government remains unmoved. With the president’s full support and backing from politicians, business leaders, and even some NGOs, BR-319 has being pushed forward in the name of economic growth. But the real beneficiaries are the powerful industries behind oil and gas, agribusiness, and mining, both legal and illegal, while the Amazon and its people suffer the ultimate price.

Lucas Ferrante, researcher at the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), said:

This is more than a road; it’s a turning point. Deforestation and degradation are already seen around BR-319. If the highway is rebuilt, it could set off an irreversible chain reaction that will devastate the Amazon, harm Indigenous communities, and accelerate climate change beyond control.

The choice is clear: either listen to the science and protect the rainforest, or let short-term profits destroy one of the world’s last great ecosystems. The world is watching and what happens next will define the future of the Amazon, Brazil, and the planet.

Biofuels

At COP30, Brazil will showcase its commitment to building a strong bioeconomy, an opportunity to unlock its vast natural wealth and drive economic growth. Central to this ambition is the aggressive expansion of biofuels, a key pillar of Brazil’s decarbonisation strategy, reinforced by President Lula’s Fuel of the Future Law, increasing biofuel mandate in the country.

Yet, this path is not without consequence. The soaring demand for biofuel crops, sugarcane, soy, corn, and palm oil, threatens food security, drives deforestation, and puts immense pressure on vital ecosystems. Land conversion accelerates greenhouse gas emissions, while water depletion, soil erosion and pollution by using pesticides raise serious concerns about sustainability.

In Pará, the expansion of palm oil has sparked conflict, marked by allegations of environmental crimes and violence against Indigenous and traditional communities.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, mentioned:

Brazil’s ethanol diplomacy aims to portray the nation as climate-conscious, using biofuel as leverage in climate negotiations. Many countries have followed Brazil’s ‘successful’ example by integrating bioenergy into their climate policies, even though its social and environmental costs are widely acknowledged.

Brazil stands at a defining moment. Will its bioeconomy set a global example for true sustainability, or will progress come at an irreversible cost?

Livestock

In 2024, Brazil witnessed a catastrophic environmental crisis. According to MapBiomas’ fire monitor, a staggering 30.8 million hectares (119,000 square miles) of land were consumed by fires, an area larger than Italy, marking a shocking 79% increase from 2023.

The Amazon, already under immense pressure, faced its worst year for fires in 17 years. At the heart of this devastation are cattle farmers, clearing vast tracts of land for agriculture and pasture.

Meanwhile, Brazil set a grim record, exporting the largest quantity of beef in its history: 2.89 million tons valued at $12.8 billion, as reported by the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC). Most of this beef went to China, followed by the US, UAE, and the EU.

Livestock farming is a leading driver of the Amazon’s destruction, responsible for 88% of deforestation.

Global NGO Global Witness holds three major Brazilian meatpacking giants, JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva, accountable for much of this devastation. These companies are linked to the destruction of vast stretches of forest in Mato Grosso, an area larger than Chicago.

JBS, the world’s largest beef exporter and second-largest beef producer, employs over 250,000 people globally and generated an estimated $77 billion in revenue in 2024, contributing about 2.1% of Brazil’s gross domestic product (GDP). Yet, the company’s profits are built on a foundation of environmental degradation, deforestation, and exploitation.

JBS has been accused of greenwashing, promoting unsustainable practices, and violating human rights, including child labour at meatpacking plants in the US.

A report from NGO Mighty Earth revealed the shocking extent of these crimes. JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva sourced cattle from a farmer accused of illegally clearing 81,200 hectares of land, an area nearly four times the size of Amsterdam. This farmer was also linked to the use of a toxic chemical, 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange), to deforest his land, marking the largest deforestation case ever recorded in Mato Grosso.

João Gonçalves, Mighty Earth’s Senior Director for Brazil, said:

Our recent analysis shows JBS is still linked to rampant deforestation in its beef supply chains in Brazil and is at the bottom of Mighty Earth’s Scorecard when it comes to tackling the issue. It’s admission a couple of weeks ago that it has ‘zero control’ of its supply chain means JBS doesn’t care where it gets it meat from, including from farms destroying the Amazon.

JBS is tinkering at the edges of requiring traceability to cattle suppliers, while at the same time massively expanding its climate-wrecking meat operations. This includes a huge deal with China, which has the backing of President Lula, who promised to end deforestation in the Amazon by 2030, but his support for JBS’ expansion could push the Amazon closer to an irreversible tipping point.

The eyes of the world will be on Brazil for COP30 and already the optics aren’t good with the mixed messages and contradictory actions of government.

Corporate Power Shaping Brazil’s Policies

In 2023, Brazil’s president, Lula, established “Conselhão,” a council aimed at promoting sustainable socioeconomic development (CDESS). This group, comprising around 250 representatives from various sectors and civil society, was formed to provide guidance on the development of economic, social, and “sustainable” policies and strategies.

Among the members of the CDESS advisory group are major corporations like JBS, Copersucar, Cargill, Cosan, Raízen, Comgás, Novonor (formerly Odebrecht), Unilever, Braskem, Meta, Google, Microsoft, as well as prominent figures such as Eraí Maggi Scheffer, one of the largest cotton and soybean producers in Brazil; businessman linked to agribusiness and biodiesel production, Erasmo Carlos Battistella; and Rosana Amadeu da Silva, president of the national centre for sugarcane and biofuel industries, among others.

How much influence do these corporations truly hold over Brazil’s economic, social, and environmental policies? Will their power extend to shaping the course of COP30?

No More Greenwashing

As the world gathers at this critical moment, the question remains: will COP30 become yet another stage for polluting industries to continue business as usual, or will Brazil seize the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the planet’s future?

This is a chance for Brazil to stand strong and prioritise environmental protection, Indigenous rights, and bold climate actions over the forces of reckless development, profit, and greed. The stakes are higher than ever, and the world is watching closely.

Will President Lula’s promises be more than just words, and will they evolve into the bold, transformative actions our planet so urgently needs?

The time for decisive action is now. The world is waiting for Brazil to lead with integrity, courage, and a vision for a sustainable future.

Solar Geoengineering: Risks and Geopolitical Challenges

Monica Piccinini

23 January 2025

In 2024, the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) reported alarming new records in global greenhouse gas levels, alongside unprecedented rises in air and sea surface temperatures. These escalating climate indicators have triggered extreme events worldwide, wildfires ravaging forests, heatwaves sweeping across regions, and catastrophic floods reshaping landscapes.

Confronted by the growing severity of this global crisis, an influential coalition of scientists, billionaires, and technocrats has emerged with an ambitious proposal: the deployment of solar geoengineering (SG), or solar radiation modification (SRM) technologies. Their mission is clear, to alter the global climate system itself in a desperate bid to halt the relentless advance of global warming.

The fossil fuel industry continues to refuse any commitment to reducing global production, deliberately ignoring the devastating consequences they inflict on our planet. Will the adoption of SG give the industry and polluters a convenient excuse to maintain their business-as-usual approach?

SG fails to address the root causes of the climate crisis, merely treating the symptoms while allowing greenhouse gas concentrations to keep rising unchecked.

Olaf Corry, professor of global security challenges at University of Leeds with focus on the security implications of geoengineering technologies, said:

There is a political risk that SG could be used or misused, potentially contributing to a broader effort to delay or avoid the radical decarbonisation and social and economic transformations necessary to properly and sustainably address the climate crisis.

SRM, or SG technologies, include marine cloud brightening (MCB), space-based approaches involving placing mirrors, shades or reflecting particles in the space between the sun and earth, and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which involves the injection of particles into the stratosphere.

The most extensively studied method is SAI, where sulphur dioxide is released into the stratosphere at altitudes of 20-25 km. This technology simulates the effect of a volcano eruption, like the eruption of Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines on 15 June 2001. The injected particles help form clouds that reflect some of the incoming solar radiation back into space, resulting in a cooling effect.

In an interview with climate tech expert, Dan Miller, on 12 January, David Keith, professor in the department of the geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, stated that geoengineering is more effective at cooling the planet than CO2 reduction. He added:

Research is accelerating. I think nobody has any idea what’s going to happen.

A bunch of the data shows that cold northern places actually benefit a little bit from climate change. I think it’s a mixed bag. I personally oppose climate change because I care about the natural environment.

I think tipping points are primarily a political construction, people in the mainstream science community don’t take them very seriously. Tipping points were constructed carefully to produce a kind of political outcome.

On January 17, 2022, over 60 senior climate scientists and governance experts worldwide initiated a global effort advocating for an international agreement to prohibit the use of solar geoengineering (SG). To date, a coalition of more than 500 academics from over 60 countries has signed an open letter supporting this initiative. They argue that deploying this technology as a potential climate policy option presents an unacceptable risk.

Frank Biermann, professor of global sustainability governance at Utrecht University, said:

The recent developments around solar radiation modification are deeply disturbing. The complete risks of eventual SRM deployment are unknowable, and there are at present no plausible global governance mechanisms to deal with such planetary-scale intervention technologies.

Furthermore, there is a high risk that the current proposals for more SRM research will eventually delay or even derail all efforts to mitigate climate risks by bringing down greenhouse gas emissions.

Risks and Doubts

The Royal Society of Chemistry’s scientific assessment, along with various other reports and articles, indicates that the implementation of SAI could result in numerous negative consequences, such as heatwaves, droughts, ozone depletion, and disruptions to weather and climate patterns.

Stratospheric ozone depletion contributes to higher levels of UV-B radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, which can adversely affect human health, marine and terrestrial species, causing DNA damage and raising the risk of cancer.

The deployment of SAI could also disrupt hydrological cycles and influence extreme weather events, including tropical cyclones, hurricanes, and an increase in the frequency of storms.

Moreover, the potential impacts are projected to be particularly severe for communities most vulnerable to climate change, such as those in coastal regions and tropical areas.

SAI could pose significant health risks due to the inhalation of suspended particles and the ingestion of particles through water and food sources.

Additionally, excessive cooling from volcanic eruptions, like the effects of deploying SAI technology, has led to events like volcanic winters, such as the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, which caused the “year without a summer” and resulted in a global food shortage, as seen in 1816.

Once SAI is implemented, we could become permanently reliant on it with no option to reverse the process. This is known as “termination shock.” If SAI were suddenly halted, the natural climate cycle would resume, leading to a rapid temperature increase, potentially two to four times higher, which could be difficult to manage.

Corry highlighted additional risks associated with research, development, and deployment of SG technologies:

Geopolitical dynamics are already at play and have been recognised; decision-making around research, development, and potential deployment of SG technologies is unlikely to be guided solely by climate risk management. We cannot assume these technologies will be deployed rationally or for purely altruistic global purposes – they will also serve geostrategic interests. The world doesn’t think – let alone act – like a climate scientist.

SG technologies are likely to be driven not solely by climate concerns, but by factors such as security, control, and economics.

Geopolitical Unrest

One of the most alarming aspects of SG lies in the geopolitical risks and governance challenges it presents. A dominant nation or a coalition of powerful countries could take the lead in deploying this technology, potentially inflicting immediate and profound harm on other regions. At present, there is no comprehensive multilateral governance framework to oversee the research or deployment of SG, leaving the world vulnerable to its unchecked consequences.

Corry explained:

I’m not opposed to SG research or the technology per se – but not the current unilateral free-for-all, hoping for some unspecified ‘governance’ down the line. If there were a global moratorium coupled with a coordinated multilateral research effort that considered legal, ethical, and geopolitical concerns, as well as other forms of knowledge beyond just scientific, I would support such research. As things stand, I believe any responsible researcher should be on board with a moratorium on deployment, with a push for responsible, governed research.

SG modelling experiments leave out geopolitical and governance challenges, according to a research article co-authored by Corry, and published at Review of International Studies (RIS).

Concerns about the weaponisation of SG have been dismissed as either false or vastly exaggerated, largely due to the perceived geophysical “imprecision” of the technology.

If SG is weaponised, it has the potential to deepen global inequality and escalate conflicts worldwide. It could be used as a strategic tool in negotiations, targeted in conflicts, or even provoke new sources of conflict. We already exist in a political landscape incapable of reaching fair, collective agreements. Some nations may view unilateral SG initiatives as a direct threat to their national security, prompting retaliatory actions that could destabilise international peace and security.

In his interview with Miller, Keith was asked how world leaders, unable to reach a consensus on climate change action, could possibly agree on a governance framework for SG. He replied:

World leaders never agree on anything, and world leaders didn’t perfectly agree on climate action, and yet we have climate action, so basically nothing in the world has actually been done by some magic consensus, and yet a lot still happens, so SG, I think if it’s implemented in the next decades, it’ll be implemented by some small coalition of countries and the question is, what’s the coalition of countries that want to do it , how stable is that coalition, how representative is it of the kind of south versus north, and what would the coalition look like that oppose it or why would they oppose it, but that’s the way in practice that international rules will work, it won’t work by some UN level single unanimous vote.

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), the global body responsible for making key decisions on environmental matters, consists of 193 member states. However, governments have been unable to reach a consensus on a multilateral governance framework concerning the research and deployment of SG technologies, both during UNEA’s fourth session in March 2019 and its sixth session in March 2024.

Corry highlighted another troubling concern regarding the deployment of SG:

Disinformation or propaganda about SG could be generated and disseminated by a range of actors, including major powers like the USA, Russia, or China. Imagine the political strain it would put on climate and atmospheric science and the potential for controversy.

Moreover, SG could be blamed for negative weather or climate events – such as droughts, floods, or storms – and framed as a form of atmospheric colonialism, exacerbating disruptions in climate-vulnerable regions of Asia and Africa.

Key Stakeholders

Billionaires, state and private investors, NGOs, and financial and technology institutions from Silicon Valley and Wall Street are backing research into SG technology. This coalition includes individuals and organisations with significant ties to both corporate and political power.

Prominent private funders of SG technologies include the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (FICER), Bill Gates’ personal fund managed by Ken Caldeira and David Keith, and Silver Lining, a non-profit backed by LowerCarbon Capital, with executives from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan on its board. The Simmons Foundation, established by hedge fund billionaire Jim Simmons, and his wife, is also supporting SG initiatives.

Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook, along with partners Cari Tuna and Holden Karnofsky, funds the SG project, Open Philanthropy Project. William Hewlett, founder of Hewlett-Packard, is another investor in SG technologies. The Environmental Defence Fund (EDF), which has corporate ties with companies like Citigroup, GE, McDonald’s, Shell, Tyson and Walmart, is another prominent backer.

Other funding organisations include the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of General Motors, the Pritzker Innovation Fund, founded by the Hyatt Hotels Corporation’s founders, and the VK Rasmussen Foundation.

US-based start-up Make Sunsets and Israeli company Stardust Solutions are actively working to commercialise SG. In 2023, Make Sunsets released aerosol-filled balloons in Baja California, Mexico, without the Mexican government’s consent. This led Mexico to announce it would ban ban such experiments in its territory. Stardust Solutions has reportedly begun indoor testing of a system designed to disperse reflective particles, with funding sources linked to the Israeli military and security sectors.

In his research article published in the Journal of Political Ecology, Kevin Surprise, senior lecturer in environmental studies at Mount Holyoke College, points out that the US is currently the only nation with the capacity for unilateral SG deployment in the foreseeable future.

Surprise’s article suggests that the Harvard Solar Geoengineering Research Programme (HSGRP) is the global leader in SAI research. It maintains connections with the Weatherhead Centre for International Affairs and the Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, both of which have long-standing relationships with the defence and intelligence sectors.

HSGRP is developing the first outdoor SAI field experiment, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCOPEX), in collaboration with Raven Aerostar, a Department of Defence contractor specialising in border security and surveillance, with contracts involving the US Navy and Air Force.

Corry highlighted further risks tied to the potential radical measures the new US administration might choose to implement:

The risks seem clear to me – it’s all too tempting for figures like Trump or Musk to claim it’s a solution or frame the problem purely as one of temperature and propose a solution that directly targets it.

We’ve already seen right-wing U.S. figures claim that climate change discussions are driven by communists or ideologues aiming to take away your beef, SUV, or even dismantle capitalism. If the issue is narrowly defined as temperature alone, this approach could easily be presented as a cheaper or even preferable ‘solution’.

He added:

Comparing risks can enhance decision-making but choosing which versions of the future to compare and which risks to take out can be very arbitrary, and you need to be super careful.

SG should be evaluated specifically in relation to the climate risks it aims to address, not all climate risks. Alternative approaches, such as degrowth or the phase-out of fossil fuels, should also be assessed alongside SG.

Comparisons need to include geopolitical, ethical, and social risks, in addition to environmental ones even if they are harder to quantify. Furthermore, public participation is crucial throughout the process, from identifying risks to determining the appropriate actions.

Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer: A Silent Killer

Monica Piccinini

8 January 2025

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is second most common type of breast cancer, representing up to 15% of all breast cancers cases, and is the sixth most prevalent cancer among women. This type of cancer may be hard to detect with a screening mammogram or ultrasound, as it spreads in straight lines rather than forming lumps. As a result, these tumours can grow significantly and diagnosed at more advanced stages.

Over the next 10 years, approximately 3.75 million people globally are expected to be diagnosed with ILC. Currently, 22 individuals in the UK and 1,000 women worldwide are diagnosed with ILC each day. Unfortunately, specific treatments for ILC are yet to be created for this type of cancer.

Lack of Hope in Diagnostics and Bespoke Treatments

During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Heather Cripps, a public servant at the Home Office, experienced severe back pain and was prescribed pain medication for what was initially believed to be a musculoskeletal issue. Unfortunately, her condition worsened rapidly, and she was eventually diagnosed with stage four ILC (the cancer had spread from its primary site). By the time of diagnosis, the cancer had already spread to her spine. Heather underwent chemotherapy for three years but tragically passed away on 30 August at the age of 48.

At a parliament debate on ILC on 10 December 2024, Helen Hayes, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, said:

“We need to do better for women affected by lobular breast cancer, in memory of Heather and many more women like her who will not live to see their children grow up.”

Like Heather, many women are diagnosed with ILC too late and with poorer long-term outcomes. This is due to the difficulty of detecting these tumours through physical exams or standard imaging techniques such as mammograms and ultrasounds. ILC cells typically spread through breast tissue in a diffuse pattern, rather than forming a distinct lump.

Most ILCs are diagnosed at a more advanced stage with up to 30% of patients with early-stage primary ILC may experience metastasis to other organs, which can occur many years after the initial diagnosis.

Currently, there are no specific treatments designed for ILC, which is known to have poorer long-term outcomes. The available therapies were not tailored made for the unique biology of this cancer type. Moreover, although MRIs are widely recognised as significantly more effective than mammograms at detecting and monitoring ILC, they are not recommended for use under the NICE guidelines for detection or ongoing monitoring.

Women’s health in the UK has been neglected and underfunded. A report by the NHS Confederation highlights that prioritising women’s health could contribute £319 million in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy.

Research from Breast Cancer Now shows that breast cancer currently costs the UK economy £2.6 billion, a figure expected to increase to £3.6 billion by 2034.

Lack of Research Investment

ILC remains poorly understood, as it is a type of cancer that has received limited research and funding. To provide accurate diagnostics and effective treatments for patients with ILC, further research and financial support are essential to fully uncover its basic biology.

The Manchester Breast Centre has announced its plans to conduct research aimed at understanding the basic biology of ILC, which could lead to the development of targeted treatments. This research is expected to take around five years and require an investment of £20 million. The Centre is collaborating with the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

The Lobular Moon Shot Project was founded in 2023 by Dr Susan Michaelis, a former Australian pilot, to address the urgent need for ILC research funding. This is a £20 million research project and a volunteer-driven initiative supported by an increasing number of women diagnosed with ILC and their families.

Dr Michaelis was first diagnosed with ILC in 2013 and later diagnosed with stage four metastatic lobular breast cancer in 2021. Her cancer has since spread to her neck, spine and pelvis area, head, eye area, and ribs.

In December 2023, Dr Michaelis, along with several MPs supporting her cause, met with former health secretary, Ms Victoria Atkins. Convinced of the need for action, Ms Atkins agreed to fund the Lobular Moon Shot Project and integrate it into England’s 2024 women’s health strategy, but a change of parliament has not yet seen this become a reality. Currently, the Lobular Moon Shot Project has the backing of over 200 MPs.

Several MPs have written to the government expressing their concerns, only to receive generic responses from civil servants stating that £29 million has been allocated to the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). However, these responses fail to clarify that the funding is not specifically targeted at lobular breast cancer. Despite repeated efforts from MPs to reach out to the health secretary, Wes Streeting, regarding the project, they have yet to receive a reply.

Dr Michaelis commented:

“Each year, 11,500 people die from secondary (metastatic) breast cancer, yet none of the studies referenced by the government tackle the unique biological challenges of invasive lobular carcinoma. This area remains a scientific black hole, with crucial work still undone. That’s precisely why we are calling for dedicated funding.

“The 10 National Institute for Healthcare Research Network studies cited in the government’s letter to MPs are a smokescreen. A closer examination reveals that nine out of 10 of these studies do not appear to address lobular breast cancer. We need to focus on understanding the basic biology of the disease through a ‘Moon Shot’ approach, instead of attempting to repurpose drugs that were not designed for this disease.

“Cancer Research UK has allocated no funding to ILC research, and Breast Cancer Now has dedicated less than 1% of their research budget funding. This means the government needs to step in and resolve this unmet clinical need. This would equate to under £240 per person in the UK who would be diagnosed with the disease over the next 10 years.

“The former health secretary, Victoria Atkins, had agreed to fund the project. Since the general election in 2024, 180,000 people globally have been diagnosed with ILC, and we are still waiting to hear from the new health secretary, Wes Streeting.”

Katie Swinburne, diagnosed with ILC at the age of 47, endured a double mastectomy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy and is now on a 10-year endocrine treatment therapy. Her experience was shared during the parliament debate on 10 December, 2024:

“It’s very hard to accept that none of my treatment is specific to lobular breast cancer and no one can tell me if it’s working or has been effective… I find myself living in fear of recurrence. I deserved to have an early diagnosis; I did not get this. I deserve a specific treatment; I do not have this. I have three young children; they deserve to have a mum. I deserve effective follow up; I do not get this. I need you to change this for me, my husband, my family, all the women with a lobular diagnosis and all the women who will be diagnosed in the future.”

Health secretary Wes Streeting, and under-secretary at the department of health and social care, Baroness Merron, did not respond to a request for comment.

Alarming Increase in Cancer-Linked Pesticides Associate with UK Food Imports

Monica Piccinini

11 December 2024

According to a new analysis by Pesticide Action Network (PAN UK), food brought into Great Britain contains a far higher concentration of pesticides linked to cancer than domestically grown produce.

Recent UK government testing revealed 46 cancer-associated pesticides on imported food, compared to just 19 found on homegrown items, raising serious concerns about the safety of the food on our plates.

Imported foods had two to three times more “developmental or reproductive toxins” (which can affect sexual health and fertility) and neurotoxins (which harm the nervous system) compared to UK-grown food. Imported foods also had more than twice the number of endocrine disrupting chemicals (29 compared to 12), which can mess with hormone systems and cause health issues like cancer and birth defects.

Recent findings revealed that while five PFAS “forever chemicals” were detected in UK-grown food, the number spiked to 12 in imported products. These chemicals, known for their persistence in the environment and the human body, are often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they accumulate in blood, bones, and tissue, remaining for years.

PFAS exposure has been linked to numerous serious health risks, including a heightened risk of cancers and a weakened immune system, making it harder for the body to fight off infections. This troubling increase in their presence in food highlights the urgent need for more stringent controls on food imports and pesticide use.

Nick Mole, PAN UK’s policy officer, mentioned:

“While the results for UK produce are also concerning, when it comes to pesticides that pose a risk to consumer health, imports tend to be far worse than food grown here in the UK. The imported food tested by the government contained almost three times the number of highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), including carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and neurotoxins.

“With rates of diseases such as cancer and Parkinson’s on the rise, we should be doing everything we can to reduce our chemical exposure. But the UK government is allowing larger amounts of chemicals to appear in an ever-growing list of common food items. They urgently need to reverse this current trend,” he added.

PAN UK’s annual “Dirty Dozen” report, which reveals the fruits and vegetables most likely to be contaminated with multiple pesticides, has just been released. This year’s top contender is soft citrus fruits like satsumas, tangerines, and clementines. Alarmingly, some of these food items contain residues from up to 12 different pesticides. Yet, government safety regulations still only account for the risks of individual chemicals, ignoring the fact that pesticide mixtures, the “cocktail effect”, can be far more dangerous than a single chemical.

The UK government tested 917 samples of domestically grown, non-animal origin food, with 286 (31%) found to contain multiple residues. Additionally, 1,046 samples of imported non-animal origin food were tested, and 577 (55%) contained multiple residues.

Imported produce was three times more likely to exceed the UK’s legal pesticide limits. Indian beans were the most problematic, with 10 of 25 samples testing positive for illegal residue levels. As the UK negotiates a trade deal with India, food imports from there are expected to rise.

“We’ve long been concerned that new trade deals signed by the UK since EU exit pose a major risk to the health of British consumers. This is especially true when it comes to countries like India that struggle with high pesticide residues in their food exports.

“There are major questions over whether British border controls are robust enough to detect food imports contaminated with pesticides and prevent them from reaching our plates. And yet, when we’ve pointed out these risks to the UK government, they refuse to take them seriously. Given that today’s findings are based on imports that have already made it past our borders, we strongly urge the government to take action to protect British consumers,” said Mole.

Device in hand measuring pesticides on market vegetables and fruits. Photo credit: ID 208941092 © Anastasiia Soloveva | Dreamstime.com

The presence of 48 pesticides banned in the UK on imported food gives foreign growers an unfair advantage, as they can use cheaper, dangerous chemicals that British farmers are forbidden to use. These pesticides, including cancer-linked carbaryl and diazinon, pose significant health and environmental risks.

Even more concerning, the bee-killing pesticide imidacloprid, banned in the UK since 2018, was found on imported potatoes, peas, and grapes, further threatening both human health and biodiversity.

Mole issued a powerful warning about the grave consequences of permitting banned toxic pesticides in UK food imports:

“By allowing banned pesticides in our imports, the UK is exporting its environmental and human health footprint abroad. Farmworkers and wildlife in countries where our food is grown are exposed to these dangerous chemicals and will suffer the associated harms. It also undermines British farmers at a time when we are asking them to produce more sustainably.

“But any drop in British pesticide standards will be a major problem for trade with the EU, which could also devastate UK farming. If the government is serious about protecting British consumers and supporting our farmers, it can kill two birds with one stone by not allowing food imports grown using pesticides banned for use domestically to enter Great Britain.”

Exploiting Brazil’s Biodiversity: Who Profits from its Genetic Resources?

Monica Piccinini

9 December 2024

At the COP16 UN biodiversity summit in Colombia, the role of genetic heritage in shaping Brazil’s bioeconomy was a central theme. Brazil’s genetic resources and traditional knowledge are vital for generating economic value, with the government keen on exploring opportunities to monetise these assets.

How will genetic resources drive the development of new technologies, and what negative impacts could emerge? What ethical considerations are at stake, and most importantly, who will truly benefit?

Brazil’s Biodiversity

With over 20% of the world’s species, Brazil is home to more than 46,000 plant species and 129,000 animals spread across six biomes, including the Amazon rainforest, Pantanal, Cerrado, and the Atlantic Forest.

Henry Philippe Ibanez de Novion, director of Brazil’s genetic heritage department of the ministry of environment and climate change (MMA), spoke about the value of Brazil’s biodiversity and traditional communities during a webinar hosted by the Brazilian Embassy in Berlin in September:

“According to the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), 80% of the biodiversity that is still conserved is found in the territory of these peoples (traditional communities). The traditional knowledge and sustainable practices of these people allow biodiversity to be protected.”

Brazil’s rich biodiversity makes it a prime target for biopiracy, the unlawful exploitation and commercialisation of natural resources and traditional knowledge for profit, without the consent of authorities or traditional communities. This illegal practice not only harms the communities dependent on these resources, but also disturbs the delicate balance of plant and animal life. The most sought-after species are Amazonian frogs, macaws, snakes, and spiders.

Global companies have been collecting genetic material from plants and animals in biodiverse countries like Brazil, patenting it without recognising the rights of local communities. As a result, these communities are left out of any benefits, whether economic, health-related, or social.

In Brazil, foreign researchers often gather plant and animal samples for study and take them overseas. These samples are then used in research and turned into products like medicines, clothing, cosmetics, food, furniture, paper, insecticides, among others.

A study published in the journal World Patent Information found that 92% of patents related to Atlantic Forest plants were developed and filed outside of Brazil, primarily by China, the United States, Japan, and Korea. At least 1,258 patent applications are focused on sectors such as agriculture and livestock, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, food and beverages, and waste treatment.

By 2022, Brazil’s national institute of industrial property (INPI) had recorded 43,400 patents for innovations using Amazonian plants filed worldwide. China topped the list with 18,965 applications, followed by the USA with 3,778.

The patenting of products made from Amazonian genetic resources without fairly sharing the benefits with local communities or respecting their rights, raises serious concerns.

Some experts argue that Brazil has not adopted a stronger industrial intellectual property policy or increased investment in research, development, and technology, which has made the country more reliant on others. For example, about 90% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used in Brazil are imported. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies worldwide have been earning large profits from open access to genetic heritage data.

Brazil’s Biopiracy Legacy

The first case of biopiracy in Brazil dates to the 16th century during Portuguese colonisation, when brazilwood (pau-brasil) was extracted and sold to Europe for use in furniture making and fabric dyeing.

In the 19th century, Brazil became the world’s leading producer of latex from rubber trees. In 1876, British explorer and botanist Henry Wickham smuggled over 70,000 seeds from Brazil to England, where they were transported to Malaysia. This led to the establishment of rubber tree plantations in Malaysia, disrupting Brazil’s dominance in the rubber market.

In 1962, Brazilian scientist Sergio Ferreira discovered the bradykinin-potentiating factor (BFP) in the venom of the Bothrops snake (jararaca). This discovery led to the development of captopril, a hypertension drug, by the American pharmaceutical company Squibb, generating billions in revenue for the industry.

Another case of biopiracy involved cupuaçu, a fruit used in the production of chocolate (cupulate). In the early 2000s, Japanese company Asahi Foods Co Ltd. patented the fruit in Japan and Europe. The patent was later revoked after Brazilian authorities and national mobilisation challenged it, ensuring cupuaçu remained a Brazilian product.

In 2000, the BioAmazônia research centre entered into an agreement with Novartis laboratory to collect bacteria from Brazil’s biodiversity for research in Switzerland. The contract granted the pharmaceutical company the right to manipulate, license, and sell compounds derived from Brazil’s genetic resources. This sparked a national and international controversy, prompting the Brazilian government to suspend the contract and enact law MP 2.186/2001, which established regulations on access to the country’s genetic heritage.

Patent and Genetic Resources Registration Requirements in Brazil

In Brazil, patent applications for cosmetics, medicines, ointments, and foods derived from substances extracted from the country’s flora and fauna are subject to special screening by the national institute of industrial property (INPI).

The genetic heritage management council (CGen) was established in 2015 under Law 13,123 and is chaired by the ministry of the environment. CGen is responsible for developing and enforcing regulations on the use of genetic resources, ensuring that traditional communities are properly compensated.

The national system for the management of genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge (SisGen) was created in 2016 by Law 13,123 as a tool to assist CGen in managing genetic heritage and related traditional knowledge. SisGen is operated and maintained by CGen, and any access to Brazilian genetic heritage or associated traditional knowledge must be registered in this system.

Multilateral Agreements and Ongoing Concerns

The Nagoya Protocol, an international agreement adopted in 2010, seeks to ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. It came into force on 12 October 2014, with 142 countries, including Brazil, as signatories.

In May, a diplomatic conference on genetic resources and traditional knowledge, organised by the world intellectual property organisation (WIPO), led to the approval of a new treaty by 190 countries. This treaty mandates that patent applications based on genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge must disclose, at the time of filing, the country of origin, the original source of these resources, and the indigenous peoples or local communities that contributed the knowledge.

There have been multiple efforts to reach a consensus on the distribution of benefits from the use of digital sequence information (DSI) – a practice where genetic data is digitised, stored, and shared in open-access online databases for researchers and companies. This issue was a central topic at COP16.

Some of the technologies that use DSI commercially include industrial, medical, agriculture, DNA barcoding, and synthetic biology (designing synthetic genes using AI-powered programmes).

In an interview to NGO Instituto Escolhas in February, Novion spoke about some issues concerning DSI:

“Anyone who develops products or processes from sequences available in digital databases, without knowing their origin, will have difficulty knowing what legal framework they are linked to, which makes it impossible for the user (company or researcher) to seek their regularity and thus provide legal security for their result, be it a publication, a patent or a product. The use of this sequence therefore falls into a legal limbo.

“Another layer of complexity arises from the fact that, today, we do not use just a single sequence, from a single genetic resource, from a single country. And addressing this form of use without making it unviable is the greatest challenge we will have to face, both in Brazil and internationally, particularly in relation to shared or cosmopolitan sequences and genetic resources,” he added.

A proposal from the ad hoc open-ended working group on benefit-sharing from the use of DSI on genetic resources suggests that countries accessing this material should contribute to a voluntary and not legally binding mechanism, a global fund (Cali Fund), to conserve biodiversity and compensate traditional communities. Some advocate for contributions based on a percentage of revenue from products that utilise DSI, while others propose a fixed 1% of revenue generated by these companies.

However, many questions remain unanswered, such as how benefit-sharing would function in practice, the equitable distribution of funds, storage architecture, who holds the rights to the data, who owns the technology (intellectual property rights), how to trace the origin of digitalised genetic resources, how would products deriving from novel synthetic DSI fit in, determining if DSI is naturally occurring or the product of synthetic biology or even AI, and the possibility of a negative outcome and ethical concerns related to the application of AI to synthetic biology.

Additionally, what is the significance of traditional knowledge in the context of DSI, and how will this multilateral mechanism incorporate the principles of consultation, consent, and benefit-sharing with Indigenous communities? Why have traditional communities been excluded from the decision-making process? What are the steps and process involved in ensuring these benefits reach the traditional communities?

Is this simply another tool to control, exploit, and profit from the world’s most biodiverse regions? And who will truly benefit in the end?

BR-319: A Highway to Climate Chaos in the Heart of the Amazon

Monica Piccinini

20 November 2024

As Brazil prepares to host the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP30, the Brazilian government is sending a powerful message about its commitment to environmental conservation and sustainable development. Central to this message is the protection of the Amazon rainforest, vital to the planet’s ecological balance. Yet, a controversial project hangs over these declarations: the planned Amazon’s BR-319 highway, a proposal that has sparked intense debate over its potential to disrupt one of Earth’s most critical ecosystems.

The reconstruction of the Amazon BR-319 highway in Brazil, connecting Manaus, the capital of Amazonas, to Porto Velho, on the southern edge of the forest, cutting through one of the most preserved blocks of the rainforest, could trigger a climate crisis chain reaction with severe irreversible impacts on the Amazon, Brazil and the entire planet.

Although the Brazilian government promotes the BR-319 project as essential for regional economic development, it represents one of the most significant threats to the Amazon’s survival. This project endangers at least half of Brazil’s remaining rainforest, putting 69 Indigenous communities, 64 Indigenous territories, and over 18,000 Indigenous people at risk.

Map of Indigenous lands and communities impacted by Brazil’s BR-319 Highway. Reference: Ferrante et al., 2020.

During a visit to Amazonas in September, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, showed his commitment and full support for the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway by saying, “this road will now begin to be built.”

“BR-319 is a necessity for the state of Amazonas, it is a necessity for Roraima, and a necessity for Brazil,” he added

Lula’s ambition to lead on the climate agenda appears to conflict with his own policies and actions.

Philip Fearnside, a senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research (INPA), and Nobel peace prize winner, mentioned:

“In Manaus, every politician supports the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway – on the condition that the federal government, and by extension, the 99% of taxpayers who live outside Manaus, foots the bill. After more than two decades of consistent misinformation about the project, nearly the entire local population now favours it, and questioning the initiative would be political suicide for any candidate.

“Repaving the BR-319 highway would link the relatively undisturbed central Amazon to the AMACRO region – a deforestation hotspot named after the states of Amazonas, Acre, and Rondônia. Although AMACRO is promoted as a sustainable development zone (ZDS), it has become a major driver of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest,” he added.

The BR-319, an 885-km highway, was inaugurated in 1976 during Brazil’s military dictatorship, but was abandoned in 1988. In 2015, under Dilma Rousseff’s government, a maintenance program was launched to revive the highway. Since then, various governments have made multiple attempts to reconstruct a 406-km section of the highway.

Catastrophic and Irreversible Consequences

The fishbone effect results from the opening of illegal branches on both sides of the BR-319 highway, created by land grabbers. This phenomenon is already unfolding around the highway, with over 6,000 km of illegal extensions, which is more than six times the length of BR-319. Furthermore, proposed roads along BR-319, such as the AM-366, would provide deforesters with access to a vast area of rainforest in the Trans-Purus region, west of BR-319.

Brazilian Amazonia and Highway BR-319 (Manaus-Porto Velho). Source: map produced by researcher Lucas Ferrante in the ArcGIS software, deforestation data from INPE 2021.

The reconstruction of the BR-319 highway could lead to catastrophic and irreversible consequences, including widespread deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and environmental degradation. It may also fuel an increase in illicit activities such as organised crime, illegal logging, mining, and encroachment on Indigenous lands. Furthermore, the risk of zoonotic leaps and the emergence of new pandemics could rise. These impacts could push the rainforest beyond its ability to survive, causing it to cease functioning as a carbon sink and disrupting its role as a regional and global climate regulator.

Lucas Ferrante, researcher at the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), discussed the critical role of flying rivers in climate regulation:

“In this forest region, a crucial environmental ecosystem service occurs, known as flying rivers, plays a crucial role in regulating Brazil’s climate. Moisture from the Atlantic Ocean is carried into the continent through the North region, where it enters the Amazon. Evapotranspiration from the preserved forest generates high-pressure systems that produce rainfall, which then travels southward, supplying water to the southeast, central-west, and southern regions of Brazil.

“For instance, 70% of the rainfall that supplies the Cantareira system – responsible for providing water to São Paulo, the most densely populated area in South America – originates from this forested region. However, deforestation along BR-319 poses a serious threat to these flying rivers, and continued destruction could lead to devastating consequences for the entire country.

“We will face severe water shortages in densely populated regions, leading to the death of the most vulnerable populations, industrial disruptions, and devastating impacts on agriculture, rendering these areas uninhabitable. Essentially, the collapse of the flying rivers will trigger the breakdown of the country’s economic sectors, potentially causing annual losses of up to $ 500 billion (R$3 trillion),” Ferrante warned.

Wildfires, Drought, and Disease

*Brazilian Amazon Forest burning to open space for pasture. Credit: ID 69667961 @ André Costa | Dreamstime.com*

A survey by MapBiomas‘ Fire Monitor reveals that from January to September this year, Brazil saw 22.38 million hectares burn, marking an increase of 13.4 million hectares compared to 2023. This represents a 150% rise from the previous year. Over half of the burned area (51%, or 11.3 million hectares) occurred in the Amazon.

Commenting on the fires in the Amazon and across Brazil, Ferrante stated:

“It’s crucial to recognise that Brazil has surpassed its greenhouse gas emissions targets, with the highest levels originating from the Amazon due to widespread fires in the biome.”

The fires and drought in the Amazon are expected to worsen due to climate change and other factors, including the rampant expansion of agribusiness, particularly cattle farming, both legal and illegal mining, logging, and large-scale biofuel production – especially with the recent biofuel mandate increase announced by Lula. This is further intensified by Lula’s push to extract “every last drop” of oil. The BR-319 highway plays a central role in facilitating these developments in the region.

The Amazon rainforest is recognised as one of the largest reservoirs of zoonotic diseases. Scientists consistently warn that reconstructing the BR-319 highway, in conjunction with climate change, will accelerate forest degradation driven by agribusiness expansion, mining, oil and gas exploration, illicit activities, and infrastructure projects. This would lead to increased human mobility and urbanisation, heightening the risk of zoonotic spillovers -diseases stored in the forest potentially jumping to humans, which could trigger a global pandemic or a series of them.

Deforestation along the BR-319 has already resulted in a 400% increase in malaria cases in the region, highlighting the potential environmental damage caused by this project and its role in the emergence of a new global pandemic.

An article in Nature reported that the western Brazilian Amazon is facing its largest confirmed outbreak of the Oropouche virus (OROV), with over 6,300 cases recorded between 2022 and 2024. Researchers identified a novel genetic variant of the virus and highlighted fragmented forest landscapes and vegetation loss caused by deforestation and expanding agricultural activities as significant factors driving its transmission. Most OROV-positive cases in 2022–2023 were concentrated in the AMACRO region, a hotspot for deforestation.

“Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and other tropical regions increase the risk of emergence of new human diseases by increasing contact between rainforest wildlife and the human population and its domestic animals. It also contributes to climate change, which can create conditions favouring the emergence of parasitic, fungal, viral, and bacterial infections,” explained Fearnside.

Profit Driven

*Deforested and burned area long the middle stretch of BR-319 highway. Credit: Lucas Ferrante.*

The BR-319 highway will serve an expanding range of national and international industries, particularly those focused on the significant profits that a ‘bioeconomy’ can generate. Additionally, it will play a crucial role in facilitating oil and gas exploration in the region, including Petrobras’ operations along the equatorial margin, a project that has the full backing of Lula.

Russian oil and gas company Rosneft will also benefit from the BR-319 project, as it holds drilling rights to 14 oil and gas blocks situated west of the highway, around 35 km from the Purus River, within the Solimões Sedimentary Basin. This pristine area is larger than the state of California.

Other sectors would also gain from the BR-319 project, such as the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, both legal and illegal mining, logging, and organised crime.

Ferrante elaborated on how BR-319 is facilitating the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, and mining:

“BR-319 is accelerating the growth of agribusiness in the region, especially on unallocated public lands (‘terras devolutas’). Soybean farmers from Mato Grosso do Sul are migrating to Rondônia, purchasing land from livestock farmers who, in turn, are moving south of Amazonas within the BR-319 corridor. These lands are often occupied illegally, either through land grabbing, illegal deforestation, or violent eviction of traditional communities.

“Since 2023, Manaus has experienced a rise in smoke levels during the dry season, primarily due to forest fires spreading along the newly paved sections of BR-319, where cattle farming is rapidly expanding. The presence of asphalt accelerates deforestation, and fires are commonly used to clear land for pasture.

“Moreover, there is a well-documented connection between land grabbers and organized crime along BR-319. Criminal groups seize land, expelling legitimate owners and traditional communities, and often use the profits to force these displaced communities into labour in illegal mining operations.”

Smokescreen

Supporters of the BR-319 project, including politicians, corporations, and individuals, have presented various justifications for the highway’s reconstruction, citing the ongoing drought in the region. However, Ferrante points out that despite the drought, the Madeira River remains navigable. Furthermore, the BR-319 does not connect to any of the municipalities impacted by the drought, as they are located across the Rio Negro.

The Madeira River has long been the primary transportation route in the region, running parallel to the BR-319 highway, and offering a safer, cleaner, and more cost-effective means of transporting goods.

Rodrigo Agostinho, president of Brazil’s environmental protection agency, Ibama, told AmazoniaReal on November 14 that without good governance, the BR-319 project could become a “major deforestation front.” He further noted that those who construct a road do not take on responsibility for managing the surrounding area, which remains a highly contentious issue.

(A) Deforestation along BR-319 highway from 1988 to 2020 (PRODES data). Deforestation in red represents cumulative deforestation from 1988 to 2014 before the highway “maintenance” program began. Deforestation in purple represents cumulative deforestation from 2015 to 2020 (i.e., during the “maintenance” program). (B) Points with land grabbing, illegal logging, illegal mineral prospecting and illegal land sales observed on BR-319 highway. The inset map of South America shows Brazil’s “Amazon Biome” region in green, Highway BR319 as a black line, and the area of the larger map as a red rectangle. Image provided by researcher Lucas Ferrante.

The Brazilian government continues to advocate for governance along the BR-319, with support from a few NGOs backed by an international philanthropic organisation. These groups, however, refuse to oppose the BR-319 project.

Meanwhile, members of the Brazilian federal police and army have made it clear that any future governance scenario is unrealistic, as the inspection bodies would lack the necessary resources to monitor the area due to its vast size, complexity, and danger. Organised crime already controls land grabbing and mining in the region, which has had a devastating impact on traditional communities.

Who stands to benefit from the BR-319 project? The primary beneficiaries are those financing illicit activities, such as illegal mining and organised crime, as well as the expansion of agribusiness, large-scale biofuel production, cattle farming, oil and gas exploration, and the development of a “bioeconomy.” These highly profitable ventures are financed by both national and international stakeholders.

“The 2009 environmental impact assessment (EIA) indicated that business leaders did not view this project as a priority for Manaus’s industrial hub. In the years following, the unanimous political support for the project naturally prompted businesspeople to adopt the same position, given their reliance on political backing.

“However, academic studies assessing the project’s feasibility have found it to be economically unjustifiable. Notably, it remains the only major project in Brazil without an official economic feasibility study (EVTEA), which is unlikely to be a coincidence,” mentioned Fearnside.

The reconstruction of the BR-319 highway lacks the required economic feasibility study (EVTEA) mandated by Law 5917/1973, and has failed to conduct crucial consultations with Indigenous communities, as stipulated by both the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 and Brazilian Law 10.088/2019, making the BR-319 project unconstitutional.

Following Ferrante’s presentation at the ministry of the environment on October 29 highlighting the negative impacts of the BR-319 project, he is calling the suspension of all licenses and tenders until consultations are held with all affected Indigenous communities.

Additionally, he urges the suspension of the maintenance license for the entire highway due to significant environmental harm already inflicted by the national department of transport infrastructure (DNIT) on ecosystems, streams, and traditional communities. He further requests the removal of the illegal branches, and the expropriation of all areas occupied along the BR-319 highway since 2008.

Brazil’s Biofuel Boom: Green Growth or Greenwashing?

Monica Piccinini

7 November 2024

Brazil’s push to expand biofuels is central to its strategy to “drive the decarbonisation agenda” and build a robust “bioeconomy,” setting the stage for this to become a major focus at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (COP 30) in Brazil in November 2025.

During a ceremony at the Brasilia Air Base in October, president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva declared:

“Brazil will lead the world’s energy revolution”

This statement came as he signed the Fuel of the Future Law, a set of initiatives aimed at advancing the country’s bioenergy sector. Lula added:

“Brazil will get a head start because you, the entrepreneurs, who have the capacity to produce, to research. Enacting this law demonstrates that none of us have the right to continue disbelieving that this country can be a large economy.”

Lula announced a rise in ethanol blending with gasoline from 22% to 27%, with a target of 35% by 2030. Biodiesel blending, currently at 14%, will increase by one percentage point annually, aiming to reach 20% by March 2030.

Biofuel mandates have generated a relentless demand for crops, including sugarcane, corn, soybean, and palm oil.

Ethanol and biodiesel production in Brazil reached nearly 43 billion litres in 2023, according to the 2024 Brazilian Statistical Yearbook on Oil, Natural Gas, and Biofuels, published by Brazil’s National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas, and Biofuels (ANP).

In Brazil, biofuels make up 25% of transportation fuels – a remarkably high share compared to other nations – and this proportion is still increasing. Bioethanol leads the biofuel sector, representing an average of 49% in terms of energy of the total gasoline and ethanol consumption.

“Historically, Brazilian energy policy has achieved significant success, largely due to the development of the oil industry alongside biofuels and other energy sources. This diversification has enabled Brazil to rely less on energy imports from the global market, fostering a degree of energy independence and security critical for economic stability.

“By reducing dependence on external energy sources, Brazil’s economy is less vulnerable to external shocks, such as fluctuations in oil and gas prices. Sugarcane ethanol, in particular, has been pivotal in these developments, positioning bioenergy – a renewable energy form derived from recently living organic materials known as biomass – at the forefront of national strategies to combat climate change,” he added.

Green Sheen

Although bioenergy has been promoted as a climate strategy, there is ongoing debate within the scientific community regarding the actual sustainability of biofuel production.

Some scientists argue that the production of biofuels is an energy-negative process that may lead to various socio-environmental consequences. These include rising food prices that threaten food security and the conversion of forestlands for biofuel cultivation. Some state that presenting bioenergy as a climate strategy has served as a justification for the industry’s expansion in Brazil and globally.

“Despite its success, the biofuels industry in Brazil developed within broader developmental and territorial security goals, often placing significant pressure on ecosystems and communities in an institutional environment that generally overlooked socio-environmental concerns.

“This unsustainable co-evolution of development pathways and bioenergy – marked by deforestation, land colonization, and agricultural expansion – has limited the adaptation space in agriculture. As a result, current climate policy is largely oriented toward path-dependent and potentially maladaptive strategies, such as relying on sugarcane ethanol for transportation,” explained Morales.

A report by the Royal Society raises concerns about expanding biofuel production, highlighting issues such as the impact on food prices, the potential rise in greenhouse gas emissions due to direct and indirect land use changes (LUC) associated with biofuel feedstock production, and the risks of land, forest, water resource, and ecosystem degradation.

The Royal Society report recommends comprehensive auditing of biofuel supply chains as essential, along with enhancing transparency, data availability, and sharing. These elements are crucial for ensuring that the life cycle assessment (LCA) of biofuels is reliable and beneficial for policymaking.

The use of feedstocks like sugarcane, palm oil, corn, and soybean – predominant in Brazil – has sparked significant controversy, primarily due to competition with food production and concerns about converting agricultural land into fuel production. Rising demand for agricultural products poses a risk of increased deforestation and the use of land with high biodiversity value to satisfy this demand, along with related freshwater consumption.

The EU Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) identifies soybean as one of the world’s leading drivers of deforestation. Trade interests appear to be the main barrier to removing soy biofuels from the Renewable Energy Directive, as Europe imports nearly 90% of its soy for biodiesel production from Brazil, Argentina, and the United States.

Dr David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University, asserted that there is insufficient land, water, and energy available for biofuel production. He also highlighted environmental issues associated with converting crops into biofuels, such as water pollution from fertilisers and pesticides, air pollution, soil erosion, and contributions to global warming.

Pimentel conducted calculations that accounted for all the inputs needed to produce ethanol, including machinery, seeds, labour, water, electricity, fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides, fuel, drying, and transportation. He found that producing one litre of fuel-grade ethanol (5,130 kcal) requires an energy input of 6,600 kcal, indicating that biofuel production is an energy-negative process.

A report published in the Biofuel journal states that measuring greenhouse gas emissions linked to ethanol fuel should account for emissions at every stage, including production, processing, distribution, and vehicle use. This comprehensive assessment is known as the core “well-to-wheels LCA emissions, along with any additional emissions resulting from LUC.

Morales discussed some of the impacts of implementing a climate policy that relies on biomass fuels:

“Current climate policy positions biomass-based fuels as a replacement for fossil fuels in the transport sector, with sugarcane ethanol as a flagship solution for greenhouse gas reduction in international climate negotiations. However, scaling up bioenergy production can have serious socio-environmental impacts.

“Like food production, ethanol requires land, water, and nutrients, meaning that a large-scale expansion could intensify the negative side effects of agricultural growth. These include significant socio-environmental challenges related to sustainable development goals, such as deforestation (SDG 15), CO2 emissions from land-use change (SDG 13), nitrogen losses (SDGs 13, 14, 15), unsustainable water withdrawals (SDG 14), and food security risks (SDG 2), among others,” he added.

Biofuel Policies

Postage stamp printed in Brazil shows Ethanol, Alternative Energy serie, circa 1980.
Credit: ID 235489969 © Alexander Mirt | Dreamstime.com

During Brazil’s colonial period (1500-1822), sugarcane plantations established the basis for political power through land monopoly and slavery. Policies were implemented to promote the economic interests of the agribusiness sector.

In response to the energy and sugar crisis of the 70s, Brazil launched a national ethanol program called “Pró-Álcool” in 1975. This initiative included tax breaks, subsidies, and lower financing costs to benefit the sugarcane industry, including producers, planters, distillers, and the automotive sector.

The “Pró-Álcool” policy led to significant repercussions, such as the exploitation of workers (bóias-frias) and environmental degradation, which the Brazilian government neglected out of concern that environmental regulations might hinder economic growth and development.

From 1992 to 2004, while Brazil’s total greenhouse gas emissions rose by 80%, the government defended its support for ethanol on environmental grounds, positioning bioenergy as a “sustainable energy source.” This approach framed bioenergy as part of a climate strategy, leading to its promotion at international levels to combat climate change.

However, the socio-environmental impacts of bioenergy production were largely overlooked, including direct and indirect LUC, water and biodiversity loss, deforestation, fertiliser pollution, and soil erosion.

In 2017, the “Renovabio” initiative was launched as a new government program aimed at promoting the growth of the bioenergy sector, with an emphasis on various types of biofuels, such as biodiesel, biomethane, bioethanol, and biokerosene.

A report published in the Biofuels journal indicates that Brazil’s RenovaBio programme does not account for direct or indirect LUC in its emissions calculator, potentially leading to an overestimation of decarbonisation levels and encouraging biofuel production with greater environmental impacts. To ensure the program is environmentally effective and delivers appropriate signals to decision-makers, it is crucial to incorporate LUC parameters into the calculator.

“Brazil’s ethanol diplomacy aims to portray the nation as climate-conscious, using biofuel as leverage in climate negotiations. Many countries have followed Brazil’s ‘successful’ example by integrating bioenergy into their climate policies, even though its social and environmental costs are widely acknowledged,” mentioned Morales.

Biofuel Expansion

Raízen, formed from the merger of Cosan and Shell, along with BP Bunge, Atvos, São Martinho, Tereos, Lincoln Junqueira, Cofco, Coruipe, Adecoagro, Katzen, Millenium, Brasil BioFuels (BBF), and Agropalma, represent some of the leading bioenergy companies in Brazil.

In October, Katzen International, a prominent bioethanol company, announced the successful completion and launch of the INPASA Agroindustrial S/A bioethanol plant expansion project in Sinop, Mato Grosso. This expansion boosted the plant’s production capacity to 2.1 billion litres per year, establishing it as the largest grain-based dry mill bioethanol facility in the world.

Corn ethanol production in Brazil is projected to reach 7.7 billion litres in 2024/25, representing a 20% increase compared to previous years.

The biofuel industry is making significant investments in the state of Pará. Governor Helder Barbalho has announced plans for a biofuel refinery to be established in the municipality of Redenção, located in the southeastern part of the state. A collaboration between the Mafra Group and Companhia Mineira de Açúcar e Álcool (CMAA), which together comprise Grão Pará Bioenergia, will contribute over $350 million to this project.

“These are the agendas that will be challenging for us: the forest agenda, the energy production agenda. These are different agendas in which each one of them can present their solutions,” said Barbalho.

Alongside the refinery, a fattening service for cattle will be provided to partner ranchers, allowing them to use the refinery’s facilities for confining their animals. The primary feedstock for cattle confinement will be Dried Distillers Grain (DDG), a by-product of corn ethanol production.

Conflicts

A report by NGO Imazon revealed that Pará accounted for 57% of the degraded forest areas in the Amazon. Forest degradation surged from 196 km² in September 2023 to 11,558 km² in the same month this year – nearly a 60-fold increase.

The state of Pará, which will host COP30, is marked by conflicts, including those related to the palm oil industry. Palm plantations in Pará cover an area that was once rainforest, approximately 226,834 hectares, nearly equivalent to the size of Luxembourg.

An investigation by the NGO Global Witness revealed that two major Brazilian palm oil companies, Agropalma and Brasil Biofuels (BBF), were implicated in conflicts with local communities in the state of Pará. BBF faced allegations of environmental crimes and violent efforts to suppress indigenous and traditional communities. Meanwhile, Agropalma was associated with community evictions and land grabbing.

A study by scientists Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside revealed that biofuel companies, such as Millenium Bioenergia, are establishing a production chain for biofuels and food products derived from monocultures on Amazonian Indigenous lands and within other traditional communities.

Millenium announced plans to “partner” with Indigenous and traditional communities, proposing unpaid labour to produce corn, fish, chickens, pigs, and confined cattle. This approach not only infringes on human rights but also poses a risk of triggering new pandemics due to zoonotic leaps linked to environmental degradation.

Brazil must expand biofuel production to meet growing demand, which will increase logistical pressures nationwide. Critical to this expansion are infrastructure projects, such as the construction of highways like the Amazon’s BR-319, connecting Manaus to Porto Velho, and the Ferrogrão railway project, linking Sinop in Mato Grosso to the port of Miritituba, situated across the Tapajós River from Itaituba in Pará. These developments are likely to cause irreversible environmental degradation and adversely affect numerous indigenous and traditional communities in these areas.

Morales highlighted the Brazilian government’s position and priorities concerning the expansion of biofuel production:

“In foreign environmental policy, the Brazilian government has historically been reluctant to prioritise environmental protection over economic growth, often attributing major environmental issues to developed countries. Although various administrations have made efforts to address environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss and climate change, these issues remain secondary concerns, frequently viewed as obstacles to short-term political and economic goals.

“Positioning bioenergy as a climate strategy has effectively justified broader policies supporting the biofuel industry and contributed to the greenwashing of Brazil’s climate policy on the international stage. Several countries have mirrored Brazil’s approach, adopting bioenergy into their climate agendas in response,” he added.

Brazil’s Indigenous Crisis: Violence and Rising Suicide

Monica Piccinini

17 October 2024

Suicide is a major global public health issue, leading to approximately 700,000 deaths each year. While the global suicide rate decreased by 36% from 2000 to 2019, Brazil saw a dramatic 43% rise in suicide cases during the same period.

A study conducted by the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), in collaboration with Harvard University, found that Brazil recorded 147,698 suicides between 2011 and 2022. In 2022, the Indigenous population had the highest rates of self-harm notifications (103.72 per 100,000) and suicides (16.58 deaths per 100,000), compared to the overall population, which reported rates of 70.06 and 7.27 per 100,000, respectively.

Territorial conflicts, the expansion of agribusiness, oil and gas exploration, infrastructure projects, both legal and illegal mining and logging activities, along with discrimination, inequality, climate change, violation of Indigenous rights, inadequate state protection, and lack of permanent policies, are significant contributors to the increasing suicide rates among Indigenous people in Brazil.

Daiane Borges Machado, one of the authors of the Fiocruz study, mentioned:

“Increasing suicide rates among Indigenous communities are deeply rooted in a complex web of systemic challenges. These populations have long been dramatically exposed to violence, territorial disputes, and the expansion of industries like agribusiness, mining, and logging, all of which severely impact Indigenous lands and ways of life. These activities not only threaten physical spaces but also disrupt the social and cultural connections that are vital for well-being.

“Additionally, longstanding issues such as inequality, discrimination, and inadequate state protection highlight the failure to implement effective, permanent policies that safeguard Indigenous rights and health. Addressing these interconnected issues requires a holistic approach, focusing on cultural preservation, sustainable development, and equitable policy implementation.”

Brazil’s Indigenous population exceeds 1.7 million, with more than half living in the Legal Amazon, based on the 2022 Census by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).

A report from Brazil’s Indigenous Missionary Council (Cimi) reveals that suicide among Indigenous people in Brazil rose by 56% in 2023, totalling 180 cases compared to 115 the previous year. This data may be underestimated due to flaws in Brazil’s death verification and registration system.

From 2019 to 2022, Brazil recorded a total of 535 suicides among Indigenous people. The highest number of cases occurred in Amazonas (208), followed by Mato Grosso do Sul (131) and Roraima (57). In 2023, Amazonas again had the highest number of suicides (66), followed by Mato Grosso do Sul (37) and Roraima (19). More than a third of all cases, totalling 59, involved individuals aged 19 and younger.

Jacyra Azevedo Paiva de Araujo, one of the authors of the Fiocruz study, stated:

“It is essential to ensure that government agencies are actively engaged, adequately funded, and properly equipped to maintain a strong presence and function effectively in the region. This would help reduce violence, protect Indigenous lands, and lower the risk of suicide. Since suicide risk is closely linked to mental health disorders, providing access to mental health care must be a priority. While Brazil’s public health system offers mental health treatment to the entire population, these services need to be tailored specifically to the needs of Indigenous communities in these areas.”

Jesem Orellana, an epidemiologist at Fiocruz, highlighted that suicide rates among Indigenous populations are associated not only with depression but also with socioeconomic factors such as inequality, economic crises, discrimination, and the decline of Indigenous traditions and practices, including hunting, fishing, and agriculture.

“Suicide is known to be a complex and multicausal phenomenon. However, in indigenous contexts, sociocultural factors associated with the symbolic and cosmological universe or even with the clash between ancestral traditions and antagonistic worldviews, such as Western ones, tend to play an important role in the tragic statistics of indigenous suicide, especially among younger people,” explained Orellana.

Territorial Conflicts and Violence

The invasion of Indigenous lands and territorial disputes continue to be major issues that contribute to the ongoing pressures these communities face. Numerous cases of intimidation, threats, sexual assaults, and violent attacks against Indigenous communities have been reported in Brazil. The states of Roraima, Mato Grosso do Sul and Amazonas have recorded the highest rates of assassinations.

The Cimi report indicates that invasions of Indigenous lands rose by 252% from 2019 to 2022, compared to earlier years. This period also saw an increase in cases of homicide, sexual violence, and death threats against Indigenous people.

The key factors behind the violence against Indigenous communities include the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, oil and gas extraction, both legal and illegal mining, fishing, hunting, and logging, as well as infrastructure projects such as road, railway, and dam construction, along with the private appropriation of their territories. Indigenous people frequently feel pressured to leave their land due to concerns for their safety.

Of the 1,381 Indigenous lands and territorial claims in Brazil, 62% are still facing administrative obstacles to their regularisation, with 850 pending resolutions, and 563 having received no action from the state regarding demarcation.

The Brazilian government’s support for expanding oil and gas projects in the Amazon, along with agribusiness, cattle farming, mining, and infrastructure projects like the Ferrogrão railway – linking the port of Miritituba in Pará to Sinop in Mato Grosso – and the recently approved BR-319 highway, is expected to have devastating impacts on the environment and Indigenous communities.

The reconstruction of Amazon’s BR-319 highway, which connects Manaus, the capital of Amazonas, to Porto Velho, will affect 64 Indigenous territories. This project is key for the expansion of agribusiness, oil and gas exploration, illegal mining, logging, and organised crime, all of which will directly threaten Indigenous communities in the region.

In Brazil, Indigenous communities are confronted with a multitude of challenges, frequently left to face life-threatening conditions without sufficient state protection. This lack of support undermines their ability to defend their rights and has driven some to such desperation that they resort to extreme actions, including tragically taking their own lives.

Climate Change and Mining

*Indigenous child from the Asurini tribe of Baixo Amazonas, Rio Xingu, Brazil. Credit: ID 245527629 | Brazil Indigenous © J Brarymi | Dreamstime.com*

Climate change and global warming leads to environmental degradation, posing yet another threat to Indigenous communities. Their livelihoods, dependant on agriculture, fishing, and hunting, have been affected by rising temperatures, droughts, and extreme weather events.

The rise in fires and droughts is pushing Indigenous people to leave their lands and seek work in urban centres. However, they often struggle to find employment, leading to economic difficulties and, at times, an inability to sustain themselves. The lack of job opportunities and a sense of purpose can lead to substance abuse, with drugs and alcohol becoming an escape, often resulting in severe depression and, tragically, sometimes suicide.

Illegal mining is a critical issue affecting Indigenous communities in Brazil. A Fiocruz study discovered alarming mercury concentrations in hair samples and oral swabs from 293 Yanomami individuals in nine villages located in the upper Mucajaí River area of Roraima. The mercury levels were three times higher than the recommended safety limits, primarily due to fish contamination, which is a staple in the Yanomami diet. Additionally, cognitive impairments were found in 55.2% of the children across these villages.

Mercury is a neurotoxin, and high levels of exposure can lead to damage to the nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, and kidneys. Symptoms of high exposure include cognitive disturbances, memory impairment, mood swings, muscle weakness, and skin conditions such as rashes and dermatitis.

A study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that maternal consumption of mercury-contaminated fish during pregnancy over three generations contributed to children’s poor mental health, with emotional and behavioural issues linked directly to an increased risk of attempted suicide.

The degradation and contamination of Indigenous lands and water sources drive the Indigenous communities to move to the cities in search of work, exposing them to a range of challenges that can have devastating outcomes.

Preserving Indigenous knowledge and practices is vital for safeguarding the physical and mental well-being of Brazil’s Indigenous populations. The contamination of their land and water forces these communities to relocate to urban areas in search of survival, disrupting their traditional lifestyles. As they adapt, many turn to ultra-processed foods, alcohol, and drugs – substances foreign to their bodies – which can severely affect their health. This shift often results in increased rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide, highlighting the urgent need to protect their heritage and support their communities.

Protection and Action

It’s crucial to establish and enforce permanent policies that safeguard Indigenous people and their sacred lands, while ensuring their participation in the decision-making process. The demarcation of Indigenous territories must be a priority, followed by empowering these communities to defend their rights and protect their land.

“A Brazilian program has demonstrated significant effects in reducing suicide rates among impoverished populations and could potentially be applied as a preventive measure within Indigenous communities as well. By providing financial support, educational resources, and access to healthcare, such programs can help reduce socioeconomic inequalities and promote mental well-being. Strengthening these measures and ensuring access within Indigenous communities, while respecting their cultural and territorial autonomy, could be a crucial step toward mitigating the factors contributing to rising suicide rates,” explained Machado.

Indigenous communities must be protected by the loss of their territories to deforestation and environmental degradation caused by agribusiness expansion, including cattle farming, legal and illegal mining, logging, oil and gas exploration, and harmful infrastructure projects. These activities not only violate Indigenous rights, but also have devastating effects on their physical and mental health. Protecting ecosystems is crucial for Indigenous communities, as their very survival is inextricably tied to the health of the natural world.

The pursuit of profit and the persistence of an extractive colonial mindset must never outweigh the survival of Indigenous communities and the lands they defend. The alarming rise in self-harm and suicide among these communities is a stark indicator of our collective failure to protect them. We must act urgently to reverse this destructive path before it’s too late.

Cabin Contaminants: The Dangerous Truth About Toxic Air on Planes

Monica Piccinini

2 October 2024

Since the 1950s, fume events have impacted the health of thousands of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers globally, as toxic chemical compounds from the air supply, known as “bleed air,” contaminate the air in the cockpit and cabin.

Synthetic engine oils and hydraulic fluids drawn from the engine or auxiliary power unit (APU) can leak into the aircraft breathing air supply (except for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner), posing a direct risk to the health of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, and jeopardising flight safety by potentially impairing the crew’s ability to operate the aircraft safely.

A Pilot’s Personal Journey

At the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024 in London, an event organised by the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), a non-profit organisation representing airline employees in relation to the issue of contaminated air on aircraft, former pilot Thorsten Bush delivered a poignant and powerful personal account of his challenging journey as a pilot who experienced fume events.

Bush had a 23-year career as an airline pilot before being placed on indefinite medical leave due to the significant effects of not just one, but two fume events.

“The loss of self, the loss of mental abilities, the loss of physical function, that happens to many flights’ crew, me included, all because of fume events,” described Bush.

Bush experienced two fume incidents on the Airbus A320, in 2019 and 2022. During the first incident in 2019, he detected a foul odour like dirty socks for about a minute. Shortly afterward, he struggled to form coherent sentences, his body temperature soared to 40-42°C, his blood pressure soared to 170 over 110, and he felt extremely intoxicated for the next three weeks. This was just the beginning of his challenges; it took him 842 days, along with extensive occupational physical therapy and cognitive assessments, to regain his pilot certification. Fortunately, he succeeded in returning to his career as a pilot.

To Bush’s astonishment, a second fume incident occurred on the same aircraft in 2022. Once again, he faced the challenges of intense rehabilitation. Following these two occurrences, Bush struggled to maintain his focus and found it difficult to carry out his daily activities. He experienced various symptoms, including memory loss, blurred vision, tremors, fatigue, and dizziness.

Bush is on a path to recovery, alongside thousands of other pilots, cabin crew, and passengers who have been impacted by fume events globally.

Bush stated:

“Aerotoxicity must be recognised as an occupational disease so pilots can receive the necessary medical support through a network of informed doctors. How many more people need to be injured for the airplane manufacturers to make changes?”

Powerful Toxic Contaminants

Pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, often unknowingly, are exposed to contaminants via the breathing air supply. These contaminants include tricresyl phosphate (TCP), an organophosphate (OP); volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as aldehydes and solvents; ultra-fine particles (UFPs); carbon monoxide; de-icing fluids; among other chemical substances.

Inhaling oil and fluids that leak into the aircraft’s breathing air supply can lead to both immediate and long-term neurological, cardiological and respiratory health problems. This condition is known as ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome’ (AS).

Emeritus Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, professor of pathology (toxicology) at University of Ulster, has been studying the toxic properties of OP mixtures and the impact of low dose exposure. His research suggests that even at low dose exposure to these chemicals may adversely affect the developing foetus, potentially resulting in functional deficits and an increased risk of cancer in adulthood.

“Repeated exposure to OPs shows clear signs of acute toxicity. This type of exposure has been associated with prolonged impairments in attention, memory, and cognition, as well as chronic illnesses,” explained Professor Howard.

During Professor Howard’s presentation at the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024, he mentioned that the toxicity of the OP mixture, including TCP, in cabin bleed air has been significantly underestimated, meaning that the cabin bleed air is more dangerous than previously thought.

“There is an increasing number of workers compensation legal cases in France and Australia, where cabin bleed air is formally recognised as a cause of Aerotoxic Syndrome (AS). We need to get AS registered with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD),” he mentioned.

Doctor’s Orders

Dr Jonathan Burdon, a consultant respiratory physician, has been supporting aircrews affected by AS for the past 25 years, in addition to conducting research and publishing studies on the topic.

In his speech at the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference, Dr. Burdon stated:

“It’s not just TCP, but there’s a cocktail of VOCs and they’ve been heated up to several hundred centigrade. Furthermore, even at low level concentrations of these chemical compounds, some individuals will be more susceptible to them than others.

“One of the things that I think has not been addressed, or not being realised, or not being admitted to by the industry, is that on the Dreamliner (Boeing 787), we have not yet had a single fume event sickness,” he added.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner uses electric compressors (bleed-free architecture) to supply clean air to the cabin, rather than depending on air sourced from the engines or the auxiliary power unit (APU).

Misdiagnoses and Incorrect Treatment

Professor Sarah Mackenzie Ross, clinical phycologist and neuropsychologist at University College London (UCL), states that neurotoxic conditions are frequently misdiagnosed or left undiagnosed. Many individuals with neurotoxic injuries often receive incorrect diagnoses.

Professor Ross noted that functional scans (PET, SPECT, fMRI), which assess functional changes in the brain – such as altered blood flow, uptake of oxygen or glucose, or neuronal response to chemicals – are typically not available in emergency departments across the UK. She also pointed out that many neurotoxic chemicals do not result in structural brain damage; rather, they affect brain function.

Professor Ross explained:

“CT and MRI scans often fail to detect structural abnormalities in patients exposed to toxic chemicals. Additionally, many chemicals are rapidly excreted by the human body and don’t show up in urine and blood tests, unless the patient is examined shortly after exposure.”

In the UK, many healthcare professionals receive minimal training in toxicology, because it’s not part of undergraduate medical programs. As a result, the toxicological causes of patients’ symptoms are often overlooked, leading to missed and inaccurate diagnoses and inappropriate treatments.

Common misdiagnoses for AS include chronic fatigue syndrome, psychiatric disorders, functional neurological disorders, or the nocebo effect or mass hysteria.

“This is catastrophic, a cessation of exposure is required to prevent further injury,” said Professor Ross.

Potential Solutions

*Jet engine of an aircraft – Photo credit: ID 99969932 | Aircraft © Andose24 | Dreamstime.com*

Several solutions aimed at addressing and preventing fume event issues were introduced during the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024. These included the creation of a less toxic oil to replace Mobil (ExxonMobil) and Eastman oils; innovative sensor technology that can be installed in the aircraft to detect bleed air contamination from engine oil, hydraulic fluid, and de-icing fluid; the development of a biomarker for blood tests to identify organophosphates; filtration systems; and VOC/Ozone converters.

Professor Byron Jones from the mechanical and nuclear engineering department at Kansas State University (KSU), has been conducting research on chemical sensors capable of detecting bleed air contamination in aircraft. No aircraft currently flying has any form of detection system fitted to warn when these events occur.

According to Professor Jones’s study, “The Nature of Particulates in Aircraft Bleed Air Resulting from Air Contamination”, the development of sensors for detecting oil contamination in aircraft bleed air should prioritise ultra-fine particle (UFP) detection. It suggests that sensitivity to extremely small UFPs, specifically those measuring 10 nanometres or smaller, is essential for sensing low levels of contamination. This focus is crucial, as identifying chronic low-level leakage can prevent prolonged exposure and potential malfunctions before they escalate into critical flight situations.

French engine oil manufacturer NYCO has been conducting extensive research in their development of a new ‘less hazardous’, biobased, low carbon and biodegradable jet engine oil designed to replace toxic and CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic) products that can be suitable for use in the aviation industry. The company is waiting for commercial engine manufacturers to ‘qualify’ the new oil for use in commercial aircraft.

GCAQE board member Captain Nicholas McHugh BSc (hon) stated:

“We hope jet engine manufacturers will prioritise the introduction of the reported new ‘less hazardous’ NYCO oil and any new oils that come to market that reduce the hazard for the aviation workers and passengers routinely exposed to engine oil and engine oil decomposition products on passenger aircraft. Government agencies responsible for aviation safety and public health should also be helping to expedite the introduction of these reported ‘less hazardous’ oils.”

During his speech at the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024, Professor Clem Furlong, from the University of Washington’s medical genetics and genome department, explained that the exposure to fume events can have catastrophic consequences, leading to tremors and various effects on the nervous central system. These may include impaired short-term memory, fatigue, headaches, nausea, dizziness, balance impairment, chest pain, long-term cough, breathing difficulties, and irritation of the eyes, nose and throat.

Professor Furlong’s research has led to the development of a new blood test that detects protein decoration following exposure to contaminated air.

The airline industry has numerous solutions and protocols available to be adopted and implemented to protect the health of pilots, cabin aircrew, and passengers, as well as improve flight safety. At the same time, corporations responsible for developing these innovative technologies must be mindful of the financial challenges facing the industry and strive to find a reasonable balance in pricing their products.

Ultimately, the airline industry should prioritise greater investments in the health and safety of its pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, as well as in new technologies to tackle environmental concerns.

What Needs to be Done

Experts emphasise the urgent need to tackle various issues at a global level, including the development of a unified reporting system for medical data and protocols. Additionally, it is crucial to implement training protocols for aircrew, maintenance staff, airline operators, manufacturers, and senior management.

Captain Rudy Pont, who chairs the Air Safety Committee of the Belgian Cockpit Association (BeCA), spoke about reporting issues:

“People report only when they feel something is important, i.e., it’s worth going through the trouble of writing it. When they feel their report makes a difference and when they don’t fear repercussions.”

Industry professionals and experts have highlighted underreporting as a significant concern. Without a unified and reliable reporting system, accurately measuring data and implementing effective solutions becomes challenging.

Moreover, airlines need to adopt and implement health and safety measures, such as installing sensors and filters, as well as adopting bleed-free technology, to safeguard the health of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, while also ensuring flight safety.

Encouraging Steps, but Still Falling Short

There are several developments underway in the UK and US, suggesting that with the right determination, the industry can implement positive measures.

In August, the UK Civil Aviation Authority announced that active carbon monoxide detectors will be required in piston engine aircraft, with implementation set for 1 January, 2025.

In May, US Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost proposed “The Safe Air on Airplanes Act’, a bill aimed at mandating the installation of filters in all commercial airplanes and phasing out bleed air systems.

It is crucial for regulators, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, oil companies, medical professionals, scientists, health and safety agencies, politicians, governments, unions, and the media, to step up and take decisive action. The health of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, as well as the safety of flights is at stake, and immediate measures are necessary.

Aircraft manufacturers have not recognised the term ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome’ and consistently claim that cabin air quality is superior to that found in homes. However, they continue to overlook recommendations from air accident departments to install contaminated air warning systems on all passenger aircraft. Despite repeated calls from air accident investigators, no passenger aircraft is currently equipped with technology to monitor the quality of the air being supplied from the engines to passengers and crew.

In the past 20 years, more than 50 recommendations and findings from 12 air accident departments worldwide have addressed contaminated air exposure on passenger jet aircraft. The British Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has twice urged the installation of contaminated air warning systems on all large passenger aircraft. Despite the global backing of unions, these crucial safety recommendations have been disregarded by aircraft manufacturers and aviation regulators, including the FAA, EASA, and the UK CAA.

Between 1954 to 2024, over 100 published papers have highlighted the issue of contaminated air, alongside numerous reports from individuals suffering severe health effects from repeated exposure to fume events. This is a significant and persistent problem that will likely affect thousands more unless effective solutions are implemented.

Captain Tristan Loraine, GCAQE spokesperson, stated:

“In my view, it is neither morally nor ethically justifiable to keep debating the health and safety risks of contaminated air exposure, while still subjecting aircrew, paying passengers – including pregnant women – and others to these harmful conditions. Immediate action is essential; lives and well-being should not be compromised any longer.”

Right of Reply: Regulators and Manufacturer’s Statements

Boeing declined to comment on the article and provide a statement.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) were approached for comments regarding the steps they are taking to expedite the introduction of a less hazardous oil developed by a French company. They were also asked if they would support research into a new blood test capable of detecting protein decoration after exposure to contaminated air, and their stance on requiring airline manufacturers to implement bleed-free technology.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commented:

“The FAA is committed to protecting the safety and health of passengers and cabin crews on our nation’s airlines. The FAA has strict cabin air standards, and studies have shown cabin air is as good as or better than the air found in offices and homes.”

Part of the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) statement included:

“The qualification process for a new oil would not be something we could comment on and should be addressed to the manufacturer.

“Based on the available data submitted through our Mandatory Occurrence Reporting process, occurrences relating to engine bleed air are rare, forming only a very small proportion of the total number of fume event reports we receive each year.

“It is acknowledged that people who experience a fume event (of any type) may report symptoms such as irritation to the eyes, nose and throat. These symptoms usually resolve once the fumes or smell have disappeared. Long term ill health due to any toxic effect from cabin air is understood to be very unlikely, although such a link cannot be ruled out.

“Our priority is always the safety of passengers and crew, and we continue to work with airlines, manufacturers and international regulators to drive improvements in safety standards across the industry.”

Part of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) response included:

“EASA and the European Commission (EC) is dedicating a lot of attention to the concerns reported by some stakeholders with regard to the cabin air quality on board large transport aeroplanes.

“Historically, EASA first conducted an analysis (between 2009 and 2012) of all available scientific knowledge and stakeholders’ opinions/experiences. This resulted in 2012 in an ED Decision concluding that, based on currently available reports and evidence at that time, there was no safety or health threat that would justify an immediate and general rulemaking action (for example to mandate design changes).

“As informed by NYCO company about scientific results obtained on their side, EASA will facilitate the exchanges with the CAQIII team of toxicological experts. Other scientific research projects will benefit from and complement the CAQIII results, for instance projects undertaking biomonitoring exercises (e.g. blood testing) of aircrews exposed to so called ‘fume or smoke events. Such biomonitoring is not in the scope of the CAQIII project itself.

“At this stage, EASA does not have elements to justify a mandate for implementing a ‘bleed-free’ environmental control system architecture, similar to the one used by the Boeing 787 aircraft.”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: