Author: YourVoiz

Independent insights on the environment, health and human rights

Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ Turns 60, as UK Government Turns Cold on Pesticides

Monica Piccinini

27 Sept 2022

Sixty years ago, Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, alerted the world to the dangers of chemical pesticides to the environment and our health. The environmental degradation predicted by Carson, who warned of a future “silent spring” unless pesticides were tackled, continues to unfold.

Since records began in 1990, the UK has covered over 700 million hectares in pesticides – enough to dose every inch of the country 14 times over. Meanwhile, local councils, up and down the country, still routinely use pesticides linked to cancer in parks and playgrounds.

The UK Government’s “dither and delay” approach to pesticide policy is failing to adequately protect human health and the environment from pesticides.

Despite its promises to publish a national action plan on pesticides, the Government is now talking about deregulation, with UK’s prime minister, Liz Truss, promising a “red tape bonfire”, which is likely to put human health and wildlife at further risk.

Synthetic pesticides are some of the most toxic substances in use today, persisting in the environment for weeks, months or even years.

Polar Bears have been found to have pesticides residues in their system, despite those chemicals never having been used in the Arctic. Ice sheets and glaciers melting as a result of climate change, are thought to be releasing pesticide residues that have been accumulating since the 1940s.

“How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and death even to their own kind? Yet, this is precisely what we have done.”- Rachel Carson, Silent Spring.

Food & Farming

Photo 57373630 © Walter Arce | Dreamstime.com


“Rachel Carson would turn in her grave if she could see how pesticide use has proliferated since she wrote Silent Spring. Most crops are now treated with a blizzard of insecticides, molluscicides, fungicides and herbicides, which damage soils, pollute streams, and chronically expose wildlife and people to complicated mixture of toxins. We urgently need to transition to more sustainable farming methods.” – said Dave Goulson, Professor of Biology, University of Sussex and author of Silent Earth.

According to the United Nations, the world’s population is set to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, with huge concern on the need to ensure universal access to healthy food, but at the same time making sure food is produced in a sustainable way.

Pesticides are putting long-term food security at risk by damaging our soils and the creatures that help plants to grow. Despite industry claims, pesticides are not necessary for food security, and there are other ways to farm with nature.

Approximately 75% of global crop types rely on animal pollination. The UK government decided to authorise, for “emergency use”, the poisonous bee-killing pesticide neonicotinoid on beet crops. A single teaspoon of neonicotinoid is enough to deliver a lethal dose to 1.25 billion bees.

Josie Cohen, Head of Policy & Campaigns, Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), mentioned:

“The agrochemical industry continues to tout the long discredited myth that we cannot feed the world without pesticides. But three quarters of the world’s food crops depend, at least in part, on pollinators. We now know that the recent crashes in populations of bees and other pollinators that are being driven by pesticide, pose a much greater and more existential threat to global food security.”

In the meantime, the UK farmland biodiversity continues to decline, with bird populations more than halving since 1970 and arable wildflowers becoming one of the most threatened groups of plants in the UK. The use of pesticides is the leading cause of this decline.

Martin Lines, an arable farmer and UK chair of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, explains:

“Government policy has taken farmers down a path that doesn’t view or reward nature as integral to sustainable food production. The government has not acted with the necessary urgency to address the biodiversity crisis, and it continues to drag its feet in delivering a new pesticide National Action Plan. We are concerned that this new government will turn a blind eye to importing products that use pesticides, which are illegal in this country and will contribute to the decline of nature.”

Human Health

Photo 154316559 / Health Pesticide © Monikabaumbach | Dreamstime.com


“We are very concerned about the effects of certain pesticides still in current use. Some may act as carcinogens by inducing gene mutations. Others can act as endocrine (hormone) disrupting chemicals that may affect hormones – including oestrogen – which may also increase breast cancer risk”, mentioned Thalie Martini, CEO of Breast Cancer UK.

Pesticides used in agriculture can leave traces of chemicals in our food known as residues. Residues detected on a specific food item will depend which pesticides are used and how persistent they are. Some food may contain one single residue or multiple ones (‘cocktail effect’).

We should all be aware of the implications caused by exposure to pesticides by spraying throughout towns, parks and playgrounds, and ingesting food containing not only one but also multiple pesticides, especially if consumed over a long period of time, during our childhood, adult life and especially during pregnancy.

Carey Gillam, investigative journalist and author of Whitewash – The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science and The Monsanto Papers – Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice, mentioned during our last communication:

“There is abundant scientific evidence dating back decades that clearly establishes the serious health risks pesticide exposures create for people, especially children. It is simply irresponsible to ignore those risks, which include cancers, neurodevelopmental harms, reproductive problems, Parkinson’s disease and other adverse health effects.”

It’s worth highlighting some facts about the effects caused by pesticide exposure to our health:

• Long term pesticide exposure has been linked to the development of Parkinson’s disease; asthma; depression and anxiety; attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); and cancer, including leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

• Some pesticides, known as endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), have the potential to disrupt our hormone systems, and can play a role in the development of cancers, including colorectal and breast cancers. Pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as young children, are particularly vulnerable.

• Neurologists are warning of an impending Parkinson’s pandemic, linked to widespread exposure to herbicides, solvents, and other toxic chemicals used in agriculture and manufacturing. There is currently a class action lawsuit in the US over the link between lethal weed-killer paraquat and Parkinson’s disease.

• UCLA-led research published in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, found that children prenatally exposed to the chemicals acephate and bromacil had an increased risk of developing retinoblastoma, or cancer in one eye, and exposure to pymetrozine and kresoxim-methyl increased the risk of all types of retinoblastoma.

Helen Browning, CEO, Soil Association, mentioned:

“Switching to foods that support healthy and sustainable diets, produced on agroecological farms, is crucial to stabilising our climate, reversing the catastrophic decline in wildlife and preventing public health emergencies. The countryside is still silent. Future generations deserve and need to live in a fertile, productive and naturally noisy world.”

Corporate Power

Photo 142214303 © motortion | Dreamstime.com


“It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged.” – Rachel Carson, Silent Spring.

Rachel Carson was met with fierce resistance from agrochemical companies, dismissing and undermining her scientific studies as nonsense – a tactic that the industry still uses today.

According to Allied Market Research, the global agrochemicals market is projected to reach $315.3 billion by 2030, compared to $231.0 billion in 2020.

Syngenta, one of the top four pesticide manufacturers, reported a 26% increase in profits for the first three months of 2022, a staggering $8.9 billion.

According to US scholars Howard and Hendrickson, up to 66% of the world sales of agrochemicals are in the hand of just four multinationals (Syngenta-ChemChina, Bayer-Monsanto, Basf and Corteva), whereas three of the same companies control half of global trade in seeds.

The UK continues to allow Syngenta manufacturing facility in Huddersfield to produce and export deadly pesticide paraquat to developing countries. Paraquat has been banned for use in the UK and the EU since 2007.

There’s clear evidence that the agrochemical industry is making substantial profits at the expense of people’s health and lives, as well as contributing to damage to environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

Corporate lobby groups continue to deploy “science” to manipulate the public and pour money into the political system to get policy and regulation that tips in their favour and increases their profits.

Pesticide companies have been known to adopt tactics similar to the tobacco industry, including reportedly ghostwriting safety studies, going after scientists who publish unfavourable research, and putting out misinformation designed to undermine evidence that their products cause harm and that effective non-chemical alternatives exist.

Brexit & Deregulation

Photo 67440343 © Ayome Watmough | Dreamstime.com


In the UK, pesticide regulation is another issue of concern. If weakened, as a result of Brexit, there is a real danger of massive increase in pesticide harms.

Weakening of pesticide standards via trade deals with countries where pesticide regulation is less rigorous, like Australia, Brazil, India, Mexico and the United States, means the population in the UK may be consuming products with high level of pesticides, which are already banned in the country. The UK should be banning the imports of food produced with banned pesticides.

UK agriculture and farmers will also be directly affected by allowing crops grown more cheaply on a larger scale to be imported. This could lead to UK farmers having no option but to resort to the use of more pesticides domestically.

Hundreds of environmental laws that protect nature and our health in the UK, including chemical contamination, are set to expire in December 2023 and removed from UK law under a new government bill. This decision could have serious implications to our health and the environment; at a moment we should be doing everything we can to stop the damage we have caused to our planet.


According to a report released in January 2022 by the United Nations Human Rights Council, the toxification of planet Earth is intensifying. While a few toxic substances have been banned or are being phased out, the overall production, use and disposal of hazardous chemicals continues to increase rapidly.

“The chemical war is never won, and all life is caught in its violent crossfire.” – Rachel Carson, Silent Spring.

Climate change, the energy and food crises are real issues and currently affecting most of our lives in one way or another. It’s our duty to get involved and push world leaders, politicians, corporations, regulators, the ones in power and able to make concrete changes, to address these issues immediately, including the chemical war on our health and the environment.

Photo 241966755 © Tracy Immordino | Dreamstime.com

Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest: Possible Solutions, Economic Prospects and the Scientist Behind It, Carlos Nobre

Monica Piccinini

13 June 2022

According to Carlos Nobre, renowned Brazilian earth system scientist, the Amazon rainforest, the most biodiverse places on earth, is on the edge of the precipice, showing clear signs of destruction and perilously close to a tipping point of irreversible collapse, triggered by deforestation, degradation, forest fires, logging, illegal cattle ranching, mining, and oil and gas developments.

“If deforestation and forest degradation of the Amazon rainforest are not halted completely and immediately, in about 30 to 50 years’ time, 60 to 70% of the Amazon, mainly in the central, southern and eastern regions, will be hit by a new drier climate where the dry season will last between five to six months. If deforestation continues at this rate, the rainforest will become a degraded ecosystem with fewer trees, very little biomass and biodiversity”, said Carlos Nobre during our interview this month.

Carlos Nobre spent the last four decades dedicated to research studying the Amazon rainforest and its impacts on the earth system. He’s the first Brazilian to be elected a member of the Royal Society since the 19th century and has made countless contributions towards an understanding of global warming and the impacts of climate change on the Amazon. His pioneering hypothesis on “savannisation” of the Amazon is a worldwide reference of extreme importance.

Nobre graduated in electronics engineering from Aeronautics Institute of Technology (ITA), Brazil, in 1974 and obtained a PhD in meteorology form Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA in 1983. He’s a senior researcher for the Institute of Advanced Studies, University of São Paulo (USP), and director of the Amazon Third Way Initiative/Amazonia 4.0 Project, Brazil. He also co-authored the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Arc of Deforestation


The Amazon rainforest in Brazil has lost more than 830,000 sq km, corresponding to 21% of the forest and roughly 15 to 17% is already degraded.

“In order to halt deforestation, urgent action and measures must be taken, mainly in the region that goes from southern Peru, crossing into the Bolivian Amazon, the state of Acre, Rondônia, southern Amazonas, northern Mato Grosso and southern Pará states, up to the Atlantic, a large area of the rainforest where deforestation rate is the highest, the so-called arc of deforestation”, added Nobre.

According to the Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, INPE, in the first quarter of 2022, an area of 941 sq km was deforested, a record 64% increase compared to the same period last year.

The Amazon rainforest stores between 150 to 200 billion tons of carbon in vegetation above and below ground, in tree trunks, branches, leaves, roots and organic matter accumulated in the soil. If in 15 to 20 years we cross beyond the point of no return, most trees will start to die and, as a result, their decomposition may release over 300 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere In 30 to 50 years. If this happens, the Paris agreement goal to limit global warming to no more than 1.5C will not be met, explained Nobre.

Amazônia 4.0 Project – The Solution

Amazônia 4.0 is an institute that has several goals:

• Developing advanced technologies and methods to transform Amazonian inputs into products of very high added value;
• Developing a powerful bio-industry;
• Empowering local people;
• Creating urgently needed alternatives to deforestation by uniting traditional knowledge with science and industry 4.0 in mobile biofactories, the Creative Laboratories of the Amazon (LCAs);
• Establishing the Amazonia Rainforest Business School; and
• Developing studies for the creation of the Amazonia Institute of Technology

Nobre highlighted the importance of this ambitious project to both the Amazon and the world. The aim is to bring modern technologies, merge the knowledge of traditional and indigenous peoples, all those communities that manage and develop agroforestry systems, combine this knowledge with technological innovation and start to develop a new bioeconomy with aggregation values and industrialisation.

“The economic potential of forest products is much higher than that of pasture and agriculture monocultures. An agroforestry system producing various products such as açaí, cocoa, nuts, cupuaçu (some cooperatives produce over 100 products), profitability is much higher”, explained Nobre.

According to Nobre and various studies, one hectare of forestry system brings US$500 to US$1,000 a year of profit to the economy. One hectare of pasture (the most productive one) in the Amazon brings a maximum of US$100 a year. One hectare of soybeans brings US$200 a year. This shows that an agroforestry system is sustainable, extremely profitable and has enormous potential.

Nobre illustrated how sustainable and profitable this industry can be:

“Let’s talk about the açaí berry. This product brings more than US$1 billion a year to the economy of the Amazon, in addition to improving the lives of more than 350,000 families in the region, who are producers of agroforestry systems. This demonstrates the great potential of this forest bioeconomy”.

A key component of this project is the creation of biolabs. Nobre mentioned that they are currently finalising the construction of a lab, a biofactory in the cacao and cupuaçu chain, and that they will soon be taking it to the Amazon. They will train four producing communities, industrialise this production line, allow them to produce high-quality chocolate, including “cupulate”, which is made from cupuaçu seeds.

This project’s ambition goes further. Their intention is to evolve and create a “Rainforest Business School” focused on this novel bioeconomy. They are currently looking for all the necessary resources, so that they can build an online platform with access to 20 different courses.

Another element of this initiative is the creation of a technology institute, (Amazonia Institute of Technology Institute-AmIT). Five major areas have been identified in which they would develop super advanced labs, including a public/private partnership with MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, so they can assist in designing AmIT, mirroring their model.

The MIT partnership will guarantee a space where the private sector will have an opportunity to invest in applied research that would generate an entire chain of new products from the forest, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Nobre added: “AmIT’s institute would train young people for the development of this novel bioeconomy, as it would become the world centre for the expansion of new economies with the aim to protect and maintain tropical forests across the planet”.

Regeneration – The Reforestation Belt


Livestock is responsible for approximately 90% of deforestation in the region. When livestock is abandoned, part of the pasture is directed to soy cultivation, the remaining area, corresponding roughly to 20% of the total deforested area is abandoned completely, resulting in a secondary forest growing in its place.

“In places where deforestation is close to the forest, natural regeneration occurs, the seeds are quickly brought to the area by animals and wind dispersal, and the biological restoration process begins”,

“If you stop deforestation and concentrate in agriculture in much small areas with greater productivity, much of the forest will be allowed to regenerate naturally. But if the degenerated area is too large and away from the seed source, the forest regenerates at a very slower pace, therefore requiring a reforestation process, plant seedlings, so that the forest grows and animals rein-habit the region. Reforestation with seedlings is costly and requires funding”, said Nobre.

Nobre also highlighted that the economic benefits of restoring the forest will hopefully increase in value. For instance, one hectare of secondary forest growing in the Amazon, removes 11 to 18 tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere for about, let’s say, 30 years. The price of such removal in the carbon market, today at about US$ 10/ton CO2, is estimated to rise as much as US$30-50/ton CO2.

In a matter of decades, for every hectare of restoration, you will be generating income far greater than any income from conventional farming. Restoring forests is much more profitable than ranching and monoculture agriculture in the Amazon rainforest.

Challenges & Divestments

Nobre highlighted some of the current challenges facing the Amazon, including the urgent need to combat organised crime in the region. There are countless national and international organisations financing illegal mining associated with drug and illegal arms trafficking. Organised crime has exploded and taken over the Amazon rainforest.

It’s not uncommon to hear about the recruiting of youths living in riverine communities to work on drug trafficking activities, due to the lack of job opportunities for these individuals in the Amazon.

“In 2012, Brazil had its lowest deforestation levels recorded in history, mainly due to effective policies combined with satellite monitoring systems that captured illegal practices. Effective enforcement actions are essential to prevent illegal practices and put an end to organised crime in the region”, said Nobre.

Divestment is another issue of concern, as Brazil’s federal government cut considerably investment in scientific and educational organisations, mainly the ones linked to the environment and technology. There was a huge drop in investments in INPE (National Institute for Space Research), INPA (National Institute of Amazonian Research), CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development), and federal universities.

Nobre was pleased to say that “even facing a substantial budget drop, INPE continues to carry out all satellite monitoring in the Amazon, as well as distributing all data, as they are public and available on the INPE website. INPE has one of the best and most advanced satellite monitoring systems in the world”.

“Last week, the Brazilian government created a committee to assess deforestation data in Brazil, coordinated by the ministry of the environment, alongside the ministries of agriculture, defense and the economy, leaving INPE, INPA, and the ministry of science and technology out. From now on, all deforestation data will have to be initially approved by this committee. This is an initiative that I hope will not weaken even further the deferral government’s responsibility to act against illegal deforestation and degradation”, said Nobre with a note of real concern.

Message to the International Community


Nobre has a very strong and powerful message to consumers and governments across the world:

“Responsible consumption is key. The international community must continue to play an important role on sustainable consumption and not purchase any products that come from deforested areas. In addition to this, it’s essential for developed countries to start making use and invest in this new standing forest bioeconomy, guarantee the origin of agroforestry products and avoid monoculture practices”,

“We ask international governments to put more pressure on developing countries where deforestation is high, so that they comply and enter a new trajectory of zero deforestation”, added Nobre.

Nobre also sends a strong message to developed countries:

“Likewise, tropical countries also have an obligation to ask and put pressure on developed countries so they can urgently stop burning fossil fuels, which represent 70% of all greenhouse gasses emissions. We must unite and save the planet from the climate emergency, by zeroing all emissions”.

Seeds of Hope for the Global Food Systems and Biodiversity Crises

Monica Piccinini

31 May 2022

According to the United Nations projections, the world population will increase to 8.5 billion by 2030, as humanity faces one of their biggest challenges, food insecurity. Almost 193 million people in 53 countries suffered acute food insecurity in 2021.

Major producers around the world need to turn away from the damaging industrial agrochemicals and pesticides that are magnifying the current issues and explore new innovative techniques to ensure the world’s food security for the future.

Approximately USD 44tn of economic output – more than half of global annual GDP – is moderately or highly reliant on natural capital. Yet, humans have already transformed more than 70% of the Earth’s land area from its natural state, causing unparalleled environmental degradation and contributing significantly to global warming, according to UNCCD Global Land Outlook latest report.

“Our health, our economy, our well-being depends on land. Our food, our water, the air we breathe are all coming from the land, at least partially,” said Ibrahim Thiaw, executive secretary of the UNCCD, in a call with reporters. “Humanity has already altered 70 percent of the land. This is a major, major figure.”

If degradation of the land keeps increasing at this rate, scientists predict that there will be large-scale food supply disruption, increase in biodiversity loss, extinction, more zoonotic diseases and decline human health, giving rise to poverty, hunger and pollution.

“Time is short, and the situation is dire,” said Qu Dongyu, the Direct-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). He added there needed to be a “transformation of agrifood systems to be more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable”.

Agroecology & Biocontrols VS Industrial Agriculture & Pesticides


The world’s industrial food systems haven’t found a solution to the food and biodiversity crises yet, mainly due to the fact that the solution may not appeal to the agribusiness giants, including the agrochemical industry, governments and world development banks, who usually seem to set the agenda and policies for the sector.

According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Public Development Banks invest about $1.4tn per year in the agriculture and food sector.

A report by the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group), ‘Who Will Feed Us?’, mentions that small-scale producers provide food to 70% of the world, while using only 25% of the resources.

After all, there’s a solution to these crises available, a solution that serves people’s interest and the environment, instead of agribusiness corporations, public development banks and governments. We should be supporting agroecology as the solution to the food and biodiversity crises.

According to UNFSS, we don’t need “sustainable intensification”, “climate-smart agriculture” or ‘nature-positive solutions,” which often greenwash corporate agendas. Millions of smallholder farmers, fishermen, pastoralists, agricultural and rural workers, and entire indigenous communities practice agroecology, a way of life and a form of resistance to an unfair economic system that puts profit before life.

Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN-UK) are the only UK charity focused solely on tackling the problems caused by pesticides and promoting safe and sustainable alternatives in agriculture, urban areas, homes and gardens. PAN-UK promotes agroecological practices, guiding and supporting farmers across the world.

Agroecology practices include putting farmers first, promoting soil health, biodiversity and natural ecosystem function, integrating science with knowledge and practice, promoting complexity over simplicity, minimising waste and optimising energy.

According to PAN-UK, less than 0.1% of pesticides applied for pest control reach their target pests (Pimental, 1995). Replacing chemicals that cause harm to our health and biodiversity, including soil degradation, is essential. Agroecology improves farmers’ profitability, yield, health, food security, and better opportunities for women farmers.

Pesticides can damage our health, biodiversity, wildlife, pollute the air we breathe, the water we drink, soil, plants and everything else it touches. It’s also the cause of suicide and accidental deaths mainly in the global south. These toxic chemicals must be replaced with biological control or biopesticides.

Biocontrol

Biological control, or natural control, is a component of an integrated pest management strategy. It’s the reduction of pest populations by natural enemies, biological control of insects, weeds and plant diseases. Biocontrol is safer for the end-user and the environment.

The approval process and authorisation of innovative biocontrol is still slow, complex and differs from country to country. There is an urgent need to rethink data requirements on risk assessments and also create a worldwide integrated and simplified regulatory system, so every country is on the same page. This would also facilitate trade between countries and at the same time help to reverse biodiversity loss globally.

“We need a strong voice lobbying for biocontrols at the highest levels of government”, mentioned Nick Mole, PAN-UK policy officer at the World BioProtection Awards 2022.

Since Brexit, the UK’s deregulation plans on pesticides and GMO food have caused some concern, including possible free trade agreements with countries with lower food standards. The UK population may be consuming products with high level of pesticides, including unlabelled genetically engineered foods that may be available as early as 2023. Are we prepared to accept this?

“The indirect consequence is that people are starving in Africa because we are eating more and more organic products”, said, Erik Fyrwald, the CEO of Chinese-owned agrochemical giant Syngenta, to NZZ. This statement showed his opposition to organic farming.

Syngenta produces pesticides and GM seeds. The company’s Huddersfield factory exported a staggering 12,000 tonnes of the herbicide Paraquat and others in 2020. Paraquat was banned for use in the UK since 2007, as it’s been linked to be lethal to humans causing kidney failure, liver damage, DNA damage, Parkinson’s disease and death.  

A very interesting move from Syngenta Crop Protection AG is their recent acquisition of two products, NemaTrident® and UniSpore®, from UK-based biocontrol technology developer Bionema. Is this a sign that change may be under way?

With the right support from governments, farmers are keen to accept more sustainable solutions to protect their crops, retailers and the public are open and interested in healthier products and protecting the environment, therefore legislators should be on their side facilitating this process, turning this into a win-win situation.

This is time for corporations, scientists, environmentalists, activists, farmers, growers, the public, governments, legislators, regulators, and the entire world to come together and accept that change is essential to our survival and it must happen now!

Beef Obsession and the Rampant Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest

Monica Piccinini

13 May 2022

Despite the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest being constant news headline across the world, no effective actions have been taken to prevent total devastation of the region.

Scientists, activists and the general population across the world are tirelessly asking the ones in the position of power to take this matter seriously and stop this situation escalating further, as it could cause irreversible consequences for the Amazon, our planet and future generations.

According to recent data from INPE, Brazil’s national space research agency, deforestation in the region hit a record high, totaling 1,012 square km (390 square miles) in the month of April 2022, doubling the area compared to the same month in the previous year.

In the first four months of 2022, deforestation of the Amazon increased 69% compared to the same period in 2021. Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, has weakened environmental protection since he took office and firmly believes that more farming and mining will solve poverty affecting the region.

“Some government and business leaders are saying one thing – but doing another. Simply put, they are lying – and the results will be catastrophic”, said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Who’s the culprit?


The livestock industry is responsible for as much as 19% of global greenhouse gases emissions, contributing to deforestation and climate change. No doubt, cattle ranching is responsible for the majority of the Amazon deforestation.

In January 2022, a Bloomberg investigation concluded that JBS, the world’s largest meat processor, was “one of the biggest drivers of Amazon deforestation”.

JBS is the largest meat processor in the world, producing factory-processed beef, chicken and pork, and also selling by-products from the processing of these meats.

Brazilian Jose Batista Sobrinho founded JBS in 1953 and its expansion has come under the leadership of his three sons: Jose Batista Junior (known as Junior Friboi), Wesley Batista and Joesley Batista.

The company employs 250,000 people globally, is listed on the Brazilian stock exchange and desperately seeking an IPO in the United States. Top investors include the state-owned Brazilian development bank BNDES, asset manager Black Rock, Vanguard, Santander and Barclays banks.

In March 2022, JBS announced its fourth quarter and full 2021 results, achieving net revenue of US$72.25 billion in 2021, a year-on-year increase of 29.8%.

The company owns a portfolio of brands globally, including Swift, Pilgrim’s, Moy Park, Tulip, Kerry Meats, Randall Parker Foods, Aberdeen Black, Country Pride, Primo, Great Southern, Danepak, Dalehead, Aspen Ridge, 5Star, Canadian Diamond Beef, Beehive, Blue Ribbon Beef, Clear River Farms, Vivera, Huon, Seara, Friboi, Rivalea, King’s Group, amongst many others.

In 2021, JBS processed 26.8 million cattle, 4.9 billion chickens and 46.7 million pigs, but this is a conservative number, given the lack of transparency in the industry.

JBS’s commitment to be ‘Net Zero’ by 2040 does not seem realistic or achievable, as JBS increased its annual greenhouse gas emissions by 51% between 2016 and 2021, based on the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, IATP’s latest calculations.

Source: IATP 2022*Million Metric Tonnes CO2 equivalent

In order to stop deforestation, a key factor is being able to identify the origin of the meat in the supply chain. This is one of the biggest issues for JBS, as the company has been accused of “cattle laundering”, the shuffling of cattle from ranch to ranch in order to conceal their illegal origins.

The process is tricky and difficult to track. The cattle are bred where deforestation occurs, moved to other properties where it is nurtured through adolescence and then taken to “fattening” farms. The cattle are then transferred to processing plants where they are slaughtered and butchered ready to be shipped/exported.

Source: Greenpeace

In October 2021, Brazilian federal prosecutors concluded that JBS had purchased over 300,000 cattle from ranches with “irregularities” in the previous year, including illegal deforestation in the Amazon region.

The biggest consumers

China/Hong Kong is the largest buyer of Brazilian beef, the United States becoming its second biggest buyer. The US is home to 4% of the world’s population and eats approximately 20% of its beef.

“We should be paying the Brazilians not to cut down their forest. We got to cut ours down.  We got to cut ours down.  We got the benefit of it.  Because we’ve got these third-world countries — not third world; some are — in Africa and in — and in South America — we got to — the industrial countries have to help”, said US president Joe Biden at a speech on Earth Day.

On the same day, Biden signed an executive order to combat commodity-driven deforestation globally, including in forest clearing to produce agricultural commodities like beef, soy, and palm oil.

According to the White House, the department of state would lead development of a report on whole-of-government approaches to reduce or eliminate U.S. purchases of agricultural commodities grown on illegally or recently deforested lands, including through public-private partnerships to incentivize sustainable sourcing.

A recent investigation by The Washington Post reports that the US government is unable to track the beef that has been imported into the country. Once they pass through the inspection process, all labels are removed, making it impossible to identify their origin. Federal agencies don’t track the domestic sale of imported beef and retailers have no obligation to inform consumers about the origin of the beef.

Additionally, US agency that authorises Brazil’s meatpacking plants to export to the US says it doesn’t try to determine whether operations cause environmental damage. The American consumer is unable to identify the source of the beef they are consuming.

JBS and the UK

“JBS is one of the world’s worst climate offenders and that’s why we’re urging its key customers like giant supermarkets Carrefour, Costco and Tesco to drop JBS urgently,” said Alex Wijeratna, campaign director at Mighty Earth. “No company that buys meat from JBS can claim to be serious about climate change”, added Wijeratna.

Paul Morozzo, forests campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: “Here’s yet more evidence of the fact that JBS – a major meat supplier to many UK supermarkets – shows absolutely no intention of ending its climate wrecking activities”.

“Tesco recently claimed that remaining a customer of JBS was the best way to influence it. But the only way to show JBS that destroying the planet for meat production won’t be tolerated is to stop doing business with it immediately”, added Morozzo.

UK supermarkets say they don’t buy directly from JBS, but buy meat from Tulip and Moy Park, both owned by JBS.

Moy Park is one of Europe’s leading poultry producers and Northern Ireland’s largest private sector business. Dalehead is a division of Tulip, supplying Waitrose with over 400 products, including fresh pork, bacon, sausage, cooked meats and lamb.

In 2021, Pilgrim’s Pride, a JBS brand, acquired Kerry Consumer Foods in the UK and Ireland for GB680 million. JBS also acquired Randall Parker Foods (Wales).

“JBS is using the same greenwashing tactics employed by oil and gas majors for decades. It presents itself as a company with genuine climate ambition but fails to disclose its full emissions so they can be compared with the company’s public communications. And as this research shows, JBS’s emissions are increasing substantially, not decreasing”, said Hazel Healy, UK Editor of climate investigative news outlet DeSmog.

Source: IATP 2022*Million Metric Tonnes CO2 equivalent

There are a large number of players, including governments, corporations, PR and media companies, politicians, all trying to distract us from the fact that this is an extremely serious issue requiring total transparency and urgent attention in order to be resolved. Their “greenwashing babbling” won’t help us fight climate change.

In an attempt to stop the relentless and rampant deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, retailers, supermarkets and the food service across the world must drop JBS and its subsidiaries as a meat supplier.

Additionally, financiers, banks and investors must also stop investing in JBS and its subsidiaries. Without these actions, the deforestation will most certainly continue. We are running out of time!

UK Supermarkets Urged to Remove Killer Pesticides from their Soya Supply Chains Linked to Mass Poisonings in the Amazon

Monica Piccinini

28 Apr 2022

Demand from British food consumers are unknowingly fuelling the poisoning of people and wildlife in the Amazon in a “hidden scandal”, according to the Soil Association.

Chicken sold in a number of UK supermarkets is reared on soya feed grown in toxic pesticide heavy lands within Brazil’s Amazon region, highlights the Soil Association‘s new ‘Stop Poison Poultry’ campaign.

Launching a petition calling for action, Soil Association Campaigns Advisor, Cathy Cliff, said: “British shoppers should be able to walk into a supermarket and buy food that isn’t harming children, killing bees, or threatening rare and treasured wildlife thousands of miles away”.

According to a Soil Association survey carried out in January 2022, none of the 10 leading UK supermarkets are monitoring or restricting the use of highly hazardous pesticides in their soya supply chains. Soya linked to pesticide poisonings in Brazil is exported to the UK to feed livestock, primarily chickens.

“Our research has found that the 10 leading UK supermarkets are all ensnared in a broken system that is damaging communities, animals and ecosystems. British retailers are already taking good steps to address deforestation in their soya supply chains, and now we need them to address these hazardous pesticides”, said Cathy.

“The scale of highly hazardous pesticide use in Brazil is terrifying, as is our chicken’s industry reliance on these soya crops. It is a hidden scandal that both British shoppers and farmers are largely blind to, and it must no continue – we must stop the poisoning associated with UK poultry farming”, added Cathy.

Brazil is the world’s third largest user of pesticides, only behind China and the US.

President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration has recently incorporated a presidential decree amending the 1989 pesticides law, by making the approval process of pesticides even more flexible, including the approval of chemicals that have already been banned in other countries.

Most of the pesticides used on Brazilian soya are banned for use in the UK, but some are being produced and sold abroad by companies operating out of Britain and Europe.

One example is highly hazardous pesticide paraquat, which is manufactured by Chinese ChemChina owned Syngenta in Huddersfield, banned for use in the UK and associated with poisonings abroad.

Recently, the Landworkers’ Alliance (LWA), representing smaller and ecological farmers, has demanded the UK government stops the export of paraquat and other pesticides that are banned for use in the UK, but still made here.

Brazil, Soya and Pesticides

The Amazon region has been suffering from deforestation due to many official policies, with large natural areas replaced by monoculture with an indiscriminate spread of pesticides. Soy cultivation is a major driver of deforestation in the Amazon basin, with 80% destined for animal feed.

Soya beans are Brazil’s largest export to the UK, worth approximately 220 million USD in 2020 and these crops account for 60% of the country’s pesticide use. Brazil’s pesticide use has risen to a staggering 900% since 1990.

These chemicals are contaminating surface and groundwater, the soil, killing bees, bugs, and the animals that eat those insects, are being found with a cocktail of chemicals in their bodies. Between 2013 and 2017, more than 1 billion bees were lost due to pesticide poisoning in Brazil, including honeybees and wild bees.

According to ABRASCO, the Brazilian Association of Public Health, 70,000 people, including children, who are usually the most severely affected, suffer from acute and chronic pesticide poisonings in Brazil every year.

There are 150 pesticide products approved by the Brazilian government for use on soya.  Of the 22 most commonly used in Brazilian soya production, 80% are classified as ‘highly hazardous’, and of these 66% are not approved for use in the EU or UK, including:

  • Paraquat, a herbicide which is ‘fatal if inhaled’, associated with farmer suicides, and exported by Syngenta, a company operating out of Britain;
  • Acefate, an organophosphate (OP) insecticide used on food crops, as well as a seed treatment. It’s known to be ‘highly toxic to bees’;
  • Chlorpyrifos (CPF), a broad-spectrum chlorinated organophosphate (OP), known to be ‘highly toxic to bees’ and ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’;
  • Diuron, a herbicide ‘likely to be carcinogenic to humans at high doses’;
  • Imadacloprid, an insecticide known to be ‘highly toxic to bees’.

The Brazilian Association of Collective Health estimates that pesticides contaminate approximately 70% of food consumed by Brazilians, and they drink nearly 7.5 L of pesticides per year – the highest per capita consumption rate in the world.

According to a recent study published by MDPI, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, there are numerous toxic effects of pesticides, particularly inflicting rural workers, inducing from hematological abnormalities, DNA damage, cell death, skin and eye irritations, pain, infertility, altered hormone levels, fatigue, tremours, hearing loss, neurological symptoms, miscarriage, fetal malformation, effects on cardiac, muscular and development of related metabolic diseases, overweight, underweight, insulin resistance, diabetes and various types of cancer.

Source: MDPI – Impacts of Pesticides on Human Health in the Last Six Years in Brazil (March 2022)

The Soil Association is calling for UK supermarkets to ‘clean’ UK supply chains, has lined up some proposals/solutions to be taken by the government in order to address this issue. They are also asking for the British public to get involved and sign the petition.

We are living challenging times and it’s often easy to forget how much we are all connected and how much we influence each other’s lives and the world.  

Our actions as consumers have a strong direct impact not only on our health, but also on the health of people living some 5,529 miles away in Brazil, as well as on wildlife and the environment. It’s up to us to get involved and make powerful positive changes to all living creatures and our planet!

The Soil Association‘s full report: https://www.soilassociation.org/media/23919/stop-poison-poultry-report-final-220222.pdf

London’s Alarming ‘Cocktail’ of Toxic Pesticides

Monica Piccinini

5 Apr 2022

London councils are risking the health of residents and wildlife by spraying ‘cocktail’ of toxic pesticides.

According to Pesticide Action Network UK, recently released information reveals that London’s local authorities are using a staggering 22 potentially harmful chemicals to remove weeds on London’s streets, parks and playgrounds.

The list includes seven pesticides linked to cancer and nine groundwater contaminants threatening aquatic wildlife.

Glyphosate, a synthetic herbicide, was found to be the most commonly used pesticide with over 26,000 litres, equivalent to 130 bath tubs – sprayed in London’s public spaces over the past three years.

In 2017, the World Health Organisation labelled glyphosate a ‘probable human carcinogen’. Since then, the manufacturer, Bayer/Monsanto, has been battling with billion dollar lawsuits from thousands of plaintiffs alleging that exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based products caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

“It is absolutely clear that glyphosate can cause cancers in experimental animals”, affirmed former Director of the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Chris Portier, who worked on the IARC, International Agency for Research and Cancer review on glyphosate.

“And the human evidence for an association between glyphosate and cancer is also there, predominantly for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma”, added Portier.

Pesticides can impact our health; they are capable of causing different types of cancer, including leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, are endocrine disruptors, which interferes with hormone systems, therefore causing birth defects, developmental disorders, infertility and sexual function.

In addition, they are considered a neurotoxin affecting nerve tissues and the nervous system. Children and expectant mothers are the most susceptible to the effects of pesticides.

A recent study published in Environmental Research demonstrates that exposure to glyphosate and its breakdown product reduces pregnancy length, increasing the risk of preterm birth. Preterm births occur when a fetus is born early or before 37 weeks of complete gestation.

“We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis with species such as bees declining rapidly and pesticides named as a key driver. We also know that children are more vulnerable to the impacts of pesticides because their bodies are still developing. But despite these serious public health and environmental concerns, most London councils are routinely using chemical weed-killers for no other reason than keeping places looking ‘neat and tidy’”, said Nick Mole from PAN UK.

YouGov polling released alongside PAN UK’s research reveals that half (49%) of Londoners would support a ban on the use of weed-killers in their local area, with just 18% opposing. Approximately one third (32%) didn’t know whether they would support a ban, highlighting there’s still lack of information on the subject, as councils are not obliged to notify residents when spraying is taking place.

Source: Data presented based on PAN UK collation and analysis of the Freedom of Information requests to thirty-two London borough councils in September and October 2021. 31 councils responded (all but Ealing Council).

The good news is that there are already more than 40 UK councils which have gone pesticide-free, including the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham in 2016, and most recently Lambeth.

“While it’s encouraging to see so many councils take steps to make parks safer for people and wildlife alike, there is a real lack of joined-up thinking. Our capital’s pavements remain largely forgotten and continue to be sprayed often, just meters away from people’s doorsteps and designated ‘wildlife-friendly’ spaces. Councils are letting residents down and undermining their own positive efforts to support nature”, mentioned Emma Pavans de Ceccatty from PAN UK.

In the run-up to the 2021 London Mayoral elections, candidates from all political parties publicly agreed that ending pesticide use was a vital steep to meeting challenges linked to climate, nature restoration and the health and well-being of people using green spaces.

Sadly, PAN UK’s research reveals that more than two-thirds of councils have no plans to stop spraying the streets with toxic pesticides.

Dr. Marcos Orellana, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, identifies a non-toxic environment as one of the substantive elements of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment where people can live, work, study and play.

Orellana highlights State obligations, business responsibilities and good practices related to ensuring a non-toxic environment by preventing pollution, eliminating the use of toxic substances and rehabilitating contaminated sites.

With one month to go until London local elections, Londoners should secure commitments from candidates to phase out pesticide use. PAN UK is urging voters to attend borough events to call on their prospective councillors to support going pesticide-free.

As we continue to face the effects of multiple crises, including the Covid-19 pandemic, a conflict in the Ukraine, an economic, energy and climate crisis, we must make every effort to remain focused on our right to live in a clean and safe environment.

Hidden Hazard in UK Diet a Threat to Your Health

Monica Piccinini

30 Mar 2022

‘Seeing is believing’; a widely used phrase and highlights a human characteristic that is perhaps at the heart of some significant health threats humanity is facing.

The current Covid-19 pandemic has brought many to the realisation that ‘invisible’ threats can be killers and safety can only be achieved through a belief in the invisible, followed by a series of steps to protect oneself against the danger, i.e. mask wearing, social distancing and vaccinations. When there is nothing to see, should we deny existence? Another such obscure killer is the wide spread use of toxic pesticides.

Pesticides have been used for centuries in various settings; in agriculture, sprayed on our lawns, parks and playing fields, streets, pavements, public spaces, etc.

Thanks to science and extensive research, we now have a much deeper and wider knowledge of the damage pesticides can cause not only to our health, but also to biodiversity, the air we breath, the water we drink, soil, plants, wildlife and everything else it touches.

How are we exposed to pesticides and what are their effects?


Exposure to pesticides can occur in various ways: by inhalation (breathing), dermal (absorbed by our skins), or ingestion (water and food).

These chemicals can cause acute toxicity, meaning that after one single episode of inhalation, ingestion or skin contact, it can cause harmful or lethal effects. The results can be presented as an allergic reaction; eye and skin irritation, headaches, and in extreme reactions confusion and loss of consciousness, respiratory complications, seizures and death.

They can also cause chronic toxicity (long term), after being exposed over a long period of time. Long-term exposure has been linked to many health issues, including depression, anxiety, ADHD, Parkinson’s disease, asthma, attention deficit and cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukaemia.

Pesticides used in agriculture can leave traces of chemicals in our food known as residues. Residues detected on a specific food item will depend which pesticides are used and how persistent they are. Some food may contain one single residue or multiple ones (‘cocktail effect’).

An alternative to consuming food containing different types of pesticide residues is to opt for organic products. Obviously, not everyone is able to afford them.

Are pesticides eliminated after peeling and washing fruit and vegetables?

Washing and peeling may reduce exposure, but some residues are present not just on the surface, but within the entire piece. So, by simply washing, it will not eliminate residues within the food item.

According to Pesticide Action Network UK, 123 different pesticide residues were found in our food in the UK, some of which are linked to serious health problems, such as cancer and disruption of the hormone system (endocrine disruption), including reduction of semen quality and fertility, genital malformations, prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, early puberty, cysts in the ovaries, uterus anomalies, breast cancer, hyper and hypo thyroidism and thyroid tumours.

We should all be aware of the implications caused by ingesting food containing not only one but also multiple pesticides (‘cocktail effect’), especially if consumed over a long period of time, during our childhood, adult life and especially during pregnancy.

The ‘Dirty Dozen’

Pesticide Action Network UK have produced a list of the ‘dirtiest’ fruit and vegetables based on UK government data, revealing the percentage of samples that contain residues of more than one pesticide. The list is called the ‘Dirty Dozen’. The results reveal a staggering amount of pesticides found on the ‘Dirty Dozen’ products, more than one hundred different types.

Based on data from PAN UK analysis in September 2021 of the UK Government’s Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) annual reports between 2018 and 2020, the following products are considered to contain the highest levels of pesticides residues:

Grapefruit (99%); soft citrus, such as mandarins and satsumas (96%); strawberries (89%); oranges (87%); dried grapes (82%); herbs (81%); pre-packed salad (81%); grapes (80%); lemons (75%); pears (69%); peaches and nectarines (67%), spinach (57%).

According to PAN UK, inadequacy in the UK government’s pesticide testing has been reported. The number of annual samples was reduced in over a quarter from 3,450 in 2016 to 2,460 in 2020.

There is also inconsistency in the way that some products are tested. For example, tomatoes might be tested one year and not the next, and only a small amount of tomatoes consumed in the UK are tested.

In 2020, the UK government chose to test just three types of fruit and vegetables included on the 2019 ‘Dirty Dozen’, leaving aside three-quarters of the previous year’s produce of concern.

UK trade deals


“How the UK chooses to govern pesticides will have profound implications for the health of citizens, the natural environment, and the future of UK farming”, said Sarah Haynes, collaboration coordinator at Pesticide Action Network UK.

UK trade deals with Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico and the United States, may open doors to more products containing high level of pesticides.

Brazil is the world’s third largest user of pesticides, only behind China and the US, allowing almost double the amount of highly hazardous pesticides to be used (131), compared to the UK (73). For instance, lemons grown in Brazil have 200 times the amount of insecticide dimethoate than in the UK. Dimethoate has been linked to cancer and is banned in the UK.

A total of 33 organophosphates (synthetic compounds that are neurotoxic in humans) are permitted in Australia, 26 in the US and 4 in the UK and EU. Australian grapes can contain 6,000 times the amount of the fungicide iprodione than UK grapes. Iprodione is linked to cancer and is a suspected endocrine disrupter.

Canadian wheat is allowed to contain 100 times the amount of the herbicide diuron than UK wheat. Diuron is a suspected endocrine disruptor with links to cancer. It can also negatively impact sexual function and fertility.

“This flies in the face of Government promises not to sign a trade deal which compromises UK environmental protection and food standards. After all the warm words, it looks like the UK-Australia trade deal will finally reveal which standards the Government is willing to fight for. Any weakening of pesticide standards in an Australia deal makes it all but inevitable we will do the same with the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership), allowing sub-standard imports from 11 countries”, said Josie Cohen, Head of Policy and Campaigns at PAN UK.

These trade deals have greater ramifications. It means UK farmers will have to compete with cheaper products containing higher level of pesticides, forcing them to follow the same route or forced to get out of business altogether. This will be catastrophic for everyone.

According to a report released in January 2022 by the United Nations Human Rights Council, the toxification of planet Earth is intensifying. While a few toxic substances have been banned or are being phased out, the overall production, use and disposal of hazardous chemicals continues to increase rapidly.

Production of chemicals doubled between 2000 and 2017, and is expected to double again by 2030 and triple by 2050. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the result of this growth will be increased exposure and worsening health and environmental impacts unless ambitious, urgent and worldwide collaborative action is taken by all stakeholders and in all countries.

Why is it that pesticides, which are a class of chemicals, do not have to go through a testing regime similar to the clinical trials that pharmaceutical drugs are put through? Someone must urgently answer this question!

Assured Food Standards Red Tractor May Be Failing UK Farmers, Consumers and the Environment

Monica Piccinini

15 Mar 2022

A recent report published by the Nature Friendly Farming Network, with the support of Pesticide Action Network UK and RSPB, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, reveals that Red Tractor, the UK’s largest food standards label, is ‘failing to regulate’ pesticides, which may tarnish their reputation as a label of stronger environmental protection.

“If we’re to have any hope of solving the biodiversity crisis, then we must move away from our dependence on pesticides. But Red Tractor standards continue to prioritise the use of chemicals, without placing limits on how much or where they can be used. Unlike many UK supermarkets, Red Tractor allows its farmers to use any legal pesticide product, regardless of concerns over impacts on human health or the environment”, said Josie Cohen, Head of Policy and Campaigns at PAN UK.

Red Tractor certifies around 50,000 farmers across the UK and covers the entire food supply chain, including animal welfare, food safety, traceability and environmental protection. Their logo appears on a wide range of UK products, including meat, vegetables and dairy.


The report identifies inadequacies within Red Tractor’s approach to pesticides, including the lack of any targets to reduce use, as well as failing to demand certified farmers to adopt some farming standards, such as the use of beneficial insects to control pests, selecting pest and disease resistant crop varieties, rotating crops regularly and applying less harmful bio-pesticides.

Martin Lines, co-author of the report, farmer and Chair of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, said:

“Our interviews with Red Tractor certified farmers have revealed that the standards are barely encouraging, let alone supporting, farmers to reduce their pesticide use. There are many UK farmers working hard to switch to using non-chemical alternatives and its time Red Tractor, as our largest farm and food assurance scheme, becomes a key player in driving the transition to more sustainable farming systems. Farmers want, and need, their support to work with nature instead of against it”.

The authors of the report conducted various interviews and surveys with three of the UK’s largest supermarkets, revealing a significant gap between how Red Tractor is viewed by consumers and retailers.

The public perception of Red Tractor certified farmers is that they operate under stricter obligations compared to their non-certified counterparts, whereas supermarkets view them as a baseline standard, which doesn’t go beyond assuring that farmers are sticking to national pesticides laws and regulations.

“Confirming that farmers are abiding by the law should be a role for the Government, rather than a private company like Red Tractor. People understandably expect standards to go beyond the law to offer a higher level of environmental protection, for wildlife and society. We urge Red Tractor to strengthen its approach to pesticides so that farmers feel supported to reduce their use, and retailers and their customers can rest assured that a Red Tractor means that food has been grown more sustainably”, said Steph Morren, Senior Policy Officer at RSPB.

The authors of the report are prepared and committed to work with Red Tractor in order to implement a set of recommendations, including prohibiting the use of the most harmful pesticides by selecting non-chemical alternatives, placing more emphasis on non-chemical methods for managing pests, diseases and weeds, introducing measures to support farmers, amongst many others.

It’s a well-documented fact that pesticides are silent, invisible and ruthless killers. They can have a long lasting and tragic effect on our health and the environment, causing diseases from mild to severe, such as depression, allergies, cancer, liver disease, DNA damage, reproductive failure, endocrine disruption and many more. They can also impact our environment leading to groundwater contamination, micro biome disruption, air pollution, poisoning of birds, mammals, fish and bees.

The intensive use of pesticides may also influence our immunological system promoting obesity and vulnerability to COVID-19.

Food production is one of the sectors that may be hit the most due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Brexit, therefore we must make sure that food quality standards are not lowered and heavily impacted, and as consumers, we may end up having to compromise on our health and the environment.

“The most alarming of all man’s assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with a dangerous and even lethal materials. This pollution is for the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life, but in living tissues is for the most part irreversible”- Rachel Carson (Silent Spring – 1962).

Toxic Side Effects of a UK-Brazil Free Trade Agreement

Monica Piccinini

23 Feb 2022

A recently released report from Pesticide Action Network (PAN-UK), reveals that a potential trade deal between the UK and Brazil is being considered. If a trade deal between both countries goes ahead, the UK population could be consuming products containing higher level of pesticides, which could have a direct impact not only on public health, but also on the environment.

“The UK Trade Secretary is promoting trade with Brazil as providing ‘real opportunities to go further on green trade’. Meanwhile, Brazil’s overuse of highly toxic pesticides is contributing to the destruction of the Amazon and other crucially important ecosystems, contaminating water and poisoning farmworkers and communities. And yet the government has provided no detail on how it will ensure that Brazilian food sold on UK shelves is not contributing to the global climate and nature crises”, said Josie Cohen, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Pesticide Action Network, PAN UK.

Brazil is the world’s third largest user of pesticides, only behind China and the US, allowing almost double the amount of highly hazardous pesticides, HHP’s, to be used (131), compared to the UK (73). For instance, lemons grown in Brazil have 200 times the amount of insecticide dimethoate than in the UK. Dimethoate has been linked to cancer and is banned in the UK.

The UK already imports large amounts of food (meat, fruit and vegetables) and soya for animal feed from Brazil. Food imports are subject to UK safety limits for the amount of pesticides residues allowed to a particular item, but no limits are placed on feed.

Soya beans are Brazil’s largest export to the UK, worth approximately 220 million USD in 2020. The majority of it is genetically modified (GM), and at least 90 per cent of it is fed to animals.

A large amount of the meat British people buy, including beef, dairy and chicken reared in the UK, have been fed on soya grown on deforested land using toxic pesticides.

“Most UK consumers have no idea that some of the meat they are eating has been fed on soya grown using highly toxic chemicals. Right now, the UK government is talking a good game on reducing pesticide harms in the UK, but appears to have no problem with exporting our environmental and human health footprints to Brazil”, mentioned Vicky Hird, Sustainable Farming Campaign Coordinator at Sustain.

In February 2021, Defra signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Brazilian government with the intention to facilitate trade in agribusiness between Brazil and the UK. The Brazilian agriculture minister, Tereza Cristina Corrêa da Costa Dias, nicknamed by Brazilians as “poison muse”, said that the UK would eventually become more aligned with international rules on food safety.

“The UK government continues to pursue increased agricultural trade with Brazil, but the intensification of agricultural production there has been linked with deforestation and highly hazardous pesticides which harm wildlife and ecosystems. The UK should ensure that it is not contributing to the problem”, said Dr. Emily Lydgate, specialist in environmental law at the University of Sussex.

Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, has continuously developed a close and special relationship with pesticides. He recently incorporated a presidential decree (10.833/2021), amending the 1989 pesticides law, by making the approval process of pesticides even more flexible, including the approval of chemicals that have already been banned in the US and Europe.

With the new amendment, chemicals that cause cancer, genetic mutations and fetal malformation, will be given approval to be used as well as manufactured, if a “safe exposure limit” is determined.

Additionally, the current Brazilian legislation does not provide for a minimum period for the renewal of pesticides licensing. Pesticides that have been in the Brazilian market for more than 4 decades are still being used today, without ever undergoing an assessment of environmental and health issues.

The approval process of pesticides in Brazil has never been made easier, as more power has been given to the Ministry of Agriculture on the decision making process, leaving ANVISA (National Health Surveillance Agency) and IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) excluded from the final decision.



An increase in agriculture exports from Brazil to the UK may also pose a threat to British agriculture, increasing the pressure on farmers to escalate the use of pesticides to compete with cheaper products grown on a larger scale.

Beef and soya production in Brazil plays a major role in the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, as well as devastation of the Cerrado region, the home of 5% of the world’s plant and animal species.

Pesticides have also contaminated Brazilian water. According to a 2021 study, freshwater bodies in 80% of Brazilian states are now contaminated with herbicides such as glyphosate, posing a direct threat to aquatic species and ecosystems.

Drinking water in Brazil can contain glyphosate levels of up to 500 micrograms per litre. In the UK, the current for drinking water is 0.1 microgram per litre, 5000 times lower than the level in Brazil.

Another catastrophe reported on a regular basis is the countless poisoning incidents in Brazil caused by pesticides aerial spraying. A report published by Publica estimated that between 2007 and 2017, pesticides poisoned approximately 6,500 children, all under the age of 14.

In September 2020, Science Direct reported adverse effects of pesticides on the function of our immune system, which could affect how we fight Covid-19. Additionally, a new study performed in human lung airway cells is one of the first to show a potential link between exposure to organophosphate pesticides and increased susceptibility to COVID-19 infection.

“We have identified a basic mechanism linked with inflammation that could increase susceptibility to COVID-19 infection among people exposed to organophosphates,” said Saurabh Chatterjee, PhD, from the University of South Carolina and a research health specialist at the Columbia VA Medical Center and leader of the research team.

Pesticide Action Network UK has made some key recommendations to the UK government, including putting additional measures in place to ensure that Brazilian agricultural imports are not driven pesticide-related harms to either human health or the environment in Brazil.

Another proposal would be not allowing any weakening of UK pesticide standards as a result of an increase in trade with Brazil and preventing UK farmers from being disadvantaged by cheap food imports produced to weaker pesticide standards in Brazil.

The impact pesticides cause to our health and the environment is undeniable. It doesn’t only affect human life, but also the Amazon rainforest, the Cerrado, the soil, the air, wildlife and the water, speeding up the destruction of the world’s most precious ecosystems.

We only have one life and one planet. It is our duty to protect them both in order to guarantee our survival!

“Covid Kit” – Profit Over People

Monica Piccinini

16 Feb 2022

What is the real motivation behind the staggering number of worldwide corporations, organisations, physicians and politicians, still promoting unproven drugs against Covid-19?

Perhaps one single word may be sufficient enough to describe the reason behind this misinformation machine: profit!

Despite the international scientific community advising against the use of several medications, including hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, invermectin, nitazoxanide, azitromycin, and corticosteroids, against Covid-19, some organisations, physicians and politicians continue to promote the use of these drugs as an early treatment against SARS-CoV-2 infection in many parts of the world.

As the world was hit by a pandemic in 2020, many doors were open to fraud, manipulation and the spread of misinformation.

We must go back to the 70s and remind ourselves about the MMR autism fraud, driven by British doctor and anti-vax activist Andrew Wakefield, as a perfect example.

Wakefield’s intention, similar to some of the recent Covid-19 drug promoters, was financially driven, as he planned on developing a replacement vaccine for MMR as well as testing kits that would let doctors diagnose “autistic entercolitis”, with potential annual revenues of over USD 44 million.

Wakefield now lives in the US and has become a misinformation powerhouse receiving millions from wealthy donors.

The Questionable Drugs

Cloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are medications authorised to treat malaria and some autoimmune diseases. The US National Institute of Health, NIH, advises against the use of these drugs for both outpatient treatment as well as prophylaxis of Covid-19.

According to the European Medicines Agency, and The Lancet, both drugs are known to potentially cause heart rhythm problems, including ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, and death, especially if combined with the antibiotic azithromycin.

The FDA made an announcement as early as July 2020 reviewing the safety issues with the use of both hydroxycloroquine and chloroquine when treating hospitalised patients with Covid-19, including reports of serious heart rhythm problems, blood and lymph systems disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure.

The side effects of these medications may not only affect the heart, liver and kidneys, but also cause cutaneous adverse reactions and cell damage leading to seizures.

Invermectin is another drug being promoted as an early treatment of Covid-19 in some countries. According to guidelines published by the FDA in December 2021, invermectin is only approved, at very specific doses, for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms, head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

Some organisations in the US and Brazil, backed up by physicians and politicians, continue with the promotion of these unproven drugs against Covid-19.

The FLCC Alliance (Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care), and “Physicians for Life” released a protocol, translated in various languages, promoting invermectin, with the support of the BIRD Group (the British Invermectin Recommendation Development).

The FLCC Alliance website is filled with a vast amount of content, including articles, videos, graphs, webinars, testimonials, FAQ’s, public statements, a book club as well as a link to a donations and store page, all trying to convince the population of the effectiveness of these unproven drugs against Covid-19.

A popular promoter of these drugs is Guo Wengui, also known as Miles Kwok, an exiled Chinese billionaire who owns G News (Guo Media) and co-founded GTV Media Group with Steve Bannon in 2020.

Guo is anti-vax and one of the key orchestrators of the misinformation network also promoting the use of unproven Covid-19 treatments, such as invermectin, artemisin, hydrochloroquine, dexamethasone, and oxytetracycline, amongst other medications.

How It All Started

Donald Trump was perhaps the one who initiated promoting these drugs as soon as the pandemic hit in 2020. The “Father” of chloroquine was born.

Soon after, Brazil’s president and Trump’s long lasting loyal admirer, Jair Bolsonaro, followed Trump’s footsteps when he visited him at Mar-O-Lago in March 2020. Since then, the sale of these drugs has skyrocketed in Brazil.

“When the first obstacle emerged, Covid-19, it became obvious that the government’s objective was not a technical solution for the problem, but rather a political one. Political work to induce people not to believe in the disease and return to work, transforming Brazil into total chaos, and that was not in line with my principles”, said Brazil’s former health minister, Luiz Henrique Mandetta, when I spoke with him in February 2021. Bolsonaro sacked Mandetta in April 2020, after he refused to promote chloroquine as a Covid-19 treatment.

Drugs from the “Covid Kit” continue to be prescribed, even after the World Health Organisation, WHO, declared their ineffectiveness against Covid-19 in October 2020.

Bolsonaro’s government has spent millions of dollars producing, purchasing and promoting drugs such as ivermectin, chloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, as well as anticoagulants, painkillers and vitamins. Brazil’s ministry of health, along with a large number of doctors, endorsed the use of these drugs to treat Covid-19, even though they have no proof to be effective.

According to the Lancet, one in every four individuals in Brazil has taken drugs from the “Covid Kit”, including through self-medication. Data from “DETECTCoV-19” study showed that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 50% higher among those who self-medicated as prophylaxis for Covid-19.

On January 21, 2022, Brazil’s ministry of health released a report, signed by the Secretary of Science, Technology, Innovation and Strategic Inputs in Health, Helio Angotti Neto, stating that hydroxychloroquine was effective on fighting Covid-19, not the vaccine. On February 04, a group of doctors filed an appeal against the report.

The Brazilian Society of Virology, SBV, made the following statement on January 22, 2022, soon after the ministry of health released their report:

“In the third year of the pandemic, much has been learned, and there is no longer room for frivolous and unfounded insistence, such as the insistence on therapies based on the replacement of the aforementioned drugs. These conclusions, which disapprove of the use of the so-called “Covid Kit” to treat the infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID19, were definitively presented by Brazilian medical experts who formed a working group to analyze the impact of its use for the treatment of the disease on screen”.

According to data from a survey carried out by Globo, notifications of adverse effects caused by the “Covid Kit” drugs increased 558% in 2020, compared to the previous year.

A popular organisation promoting the use of the “Covid Kit” against Covid-19 in Brazil is the platform “Physicians for Life” or “Medicos pela Vida Covid-19”, containing a staggering number of videos promoting the “Covid Kit” and opposing the Covid-19 vaccine.

On their website, “Medicos pela Vida Covid-19” state that their objective is to “treat people affected by covid-19 early, in order to prevent them from being hospitalised, intubated and at risk of death”. They even have doctors available over the phone and on WhatsApp offering prescriptions for these drugs.

The pandemic has exacerbated cracks that already existed in our society, where a few players are given an open platform to spread their rhetoric and misinformation, misleading individuals to use unproven drugs against Covid-19. The bill is often paid at a very high cost, their own health, and sometimes, their lives.

The question we must ask ourselves, how cheap has life become?

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Monica Piccinini

21 Jan 2022

According to Allied Market Research, nanotechnology innovation is projected to reach $33.63bn by 2030, as it continues to permeate our daily lives and in industries.

Nanotechnology is science, engineering, and technology conducted at the nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 nanometers. Nanoscience and nanotechnology are the study and application of extremely small things, nanoparticles, that can be used across all the other science fields, such as chemistry, bio medical, physics, mechanics, materials science, engineering, among others.

The nanotech industry has revolutionised our world, being used in a wide range of products and manufacturing processes, such as to transport medicine around our bodies, diagnostics, to purify wastewater, being added to products such as refrigerators, in cosmetics, providing antimicrobial activity, in food and drinks, UV filters in sunscreens, amongst many others.

Additionally, some believe that as the nano industry grows, it will help us in many other ways, such as to solve the energy crisis, cure and diagnose diseases and help to save our environment. It is already being used in implants, disease diagnostics, surgical tools, to target delivery of medicine, pharmaceuticals, in agriculture and construction, etc.

According to Science Daily, a multi-institutional research team led by scientists at the Advanced Science Research Center at the Graduate Center, CUNY, the City University of New York, has designed nanoparticles that can communicate with and slow the development of cancer cells. The work has uncovered a novel framework for the potential development of drug-free cancer therapies.

A new approach to brain tumor treatment using photodynamic therapy (PDT) with nanotechnology has been explored in a review published in the journal Biomedicines. Unlike radiotherapy and surgical resection, PDT can treat micro-invasive areas and protect critical brain tissue with a high probability of success.

As opposed to surgical resection and radiation, PDT can treat micro-invasive regions while preserving sensitive brain areas. These potential benefits over conventional therapies have been shown to improve results in clinical situations with low overall survival and a high incidence of iatrogenic damage.

Another advance in nanotech is the work of a lab owned by Youyang Zhao, PhD, of the Stanley Manne Children’s Research Institute at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, which has developed a nanoparticle able to deliver genome-editing technology, such as CRISPR/Cas9 to endothelial cells (cells that line blood vessel walls), allowing researchers to introduce genes to inhibit vascular damage and/or promote vascular repair, correct gene mutations, and turn genes on or off to restore normal function. This would help treatment of diseases caused by endothelial dysfunction (a type of non-obstructive coronary artery disease, CAD).

Research & More Knowledge Required

We can’t deny that the application and benefits of nanotechnology are immense, but on the other hand, in order to take advantage of this ever growing technology, we need to make sure that the handling of these novel particles and materials are done in a safe way.

“Little is known about how large concentrations of nano-particles are used in industrial products. We also do not know what size particles they use – size also has an effect on whether they can enter a cell,” said Barbara Korzeniowska, from the department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at SDU (The University of Southern Denmark).

“But we know that a lot of people are involuntarily exposed to nano-particles, and that there can be lifelong exposure,” added Korzeniowska.

Nanomaterials exhibit at least one dimension between 1 and 100nm. They are natural, process-derived or manufactured. There is also a wide range of types of nanoparticles, each with a distinctive chemical composition, size and shape, allowing them to be used in various unique applications.

There is not enough research and limited knowledge about the potential risks posed by nanoparticles, which enter our bodies via ingestion, inhaled or absorbed by the skin. These tiny particles have a nano-scale dimension, bio-persistency and insolubility, therefore may cause pulmonary, cardiovascular, circulatory, neurological diseases due to their ability to pass biological barriers in the body.

“We need to know more about the conditions in which nanoparticles can affect us and how we can safely handle these materials,” mentioned Christina Isaxon, researcher at LTH (Ergonomics and Aerosol Technology) and NanoLund.

“If you don’t know how dangerous something is, you should always apply the precaution principle, that is, to handle the material as though it were toxic and ensure exposure is minimised at all stages,” added Isaxon.

The Possible Effects

There are three ways nanoparticles can enter the body, either via food/drink intake, respiration or exposure to the skin tissue. Once inside the bloodstream, they are readily dispersed.

If inhaled, nanoparticles have a high probability to be deposited in the lungs, they can also translocate to sensory neuronal pathways to reach secondary organs and tissues, such as the vascular endothelium, the heart and the brain.

“We have found evidence that these particles go on to organs like the liver, spleen and kidneys, all of which combat toxins. However, traces have been spotted in the heart and brain”, mentioned Dr. Wolfgang G. Kreyling, a biophysicist who has coordinated all aerosol-related research within the Focus Network Nanoparticles and Health of the Helmholtz Zentrum München (HMGU).

An Imperial College research published in Nature Communications Chemistry shows that gold nanoparticles can be toxic to cells. Small nanoparticles are capable of disturbing membranes around the cells. They can attach to the outside of membranes, become embedded within in them, or be completely engulfed and enter the cell, affecting its ability to function.

“The expanding production of nanoparticles has led to increasing concerns regarding their impact on human health and the environment in general. Identifying nanoparticles hazardous to natural organisms is difficult given the wide variety of nanoparticles, their diverse properties and the complexity of biological entities,” mentioned the lead researcher, Claudia Contini, from the Department of Chemistry at Imperial.

Occupational exposure is another worrying factor. Workers exposed to carbon nanotubes have shown a significant increase of biomarkers of fibrosis. IARC, the organisation for cancer research of the World Health Organisation, WHO, have classified one type of carbon nanotubes (Mitzui 7), as potentially carcinogenic in humans.

Ken Tachibana from Sanyo-Onoda City University in Japan has been studying the adverse effects of nanoparticles on fetuses and newborns, which may have a critical effect on future generations. His team has shown that nanoparticles have a negative effect on the neural development of mice, as the particles somehow alter gene expression. Levels of dopamine and its metabolites were also altered after exposure to nanoparticles, which could potentially affect mental health in later life.

Research is ongoing, but Tachibana and his team suggest the possibility that nanoparticles transferred from pregnant mothers alter the DNA methylation state of neural stem cells of offspring.

Nanotech in Food & Cosmetics

The addition of nanoparticles to food can result in increase of shelf life, nutrition, and overall appeal of foods. Some nanoparticles have been developed to add the nutritional value of food without affecting the food itself.

Synthetic nanoparticles additives such as titanium dioxide (TiO2) or silicon dioxide (SiO2) can be found in food products and labeled as E-numbers under E171 for TiO2 and E551 for SiO2. TiO2 is used as a colourant in sweets, chewing gums and candies.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has evaluated all available studies on effects in animals of nanoparticles used in food. In May 2021, the EFSA updated its safety assessment of E171 and concluded that titanium dioxide can no longer be considered safe when used as a food additive taking into consideration many thousand of studies.

Synthetic nanoparticles in food must be labeled. Additionally, open and clear communication between the scientists, regulators and the public is essential for the continue use of nanoparticles in food products, as well as funding for further research in order to keep consumers safe.

Silver nanoparticles (NAg) are currently the most widely produced nanoparticle, due to its physicochemical characteristics and multifaceted antimicrobial mechanisms.

The healthcare sector is actually one of the largest markets for Nag, used as a coating agent in medical devices, catheters, dressings, organ and dental implants in order to inhibit bacterial colonization.

Products containing colloidal silver (contains silver nanoparticles) have been widely sold and its manufacturers claim they can stimulate the immune system, improve skin disorders, heal wound, and prevent various diseases like flu, eye infections, herpes, etc.

Colloidal silver can be taken orally, in spray form or cream applied to the skin. Despite all claims, colloidal silver has no known function in the body. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ruled in 1999 that colloidal silver products weren’t safe or effective. They sued several manufacturers over false health claims. These products continue to be sold worldwide.

According to scientific advice on the safety of nanomaterials in cosmetics published by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, SCCS, the SCCS is of the view that there is a basis for concern that the use of colloidal silver (nano), as notified through the Cosmetic Products Notification Portal, CPNP for use in cosmetic products, can pose a health risk to the consumer.

The widespread use of NAg has triggered concerns over the development of silver-resistant bacteria. A growing number of studies have been published describing bacterial resistance in response to different forms of silver agents, including NAg. Silver resistance has been reported in Acinetobacter baumannii.

Acinetobacter baumannii is an opportunistic nasocomial bacterial pathogen, recently listed as the number one critical level priority pathogen due to the significant rise of antibiotic resistance. This type of bacterial is associated with nosocomial infections (healthcare-associated infections, HAI), causing pneumonia, sepsis and soft tissue necrosis.

There is also further concern regarding the “cocktail effect” resulting from the combination of different types of nanoparticles. Not enough research has been carried out in order to assess how a combo of different types of nanoparticles may affect our health and the environment.  

As described at the SCCS report, it’s possible that the chemical nature of each of the components that make up a nanomaterial is safe individually, but may pose a hazard when put together in the form of a nanoparticle as such, or cause indirect effects by delivering the components to unintended places in the body.

As nanotechnology grows exponentially, there is an urgent need to set up open and transparent studies, recommendations, guidelines and regulations in regards to detection, toxicity, exposure and safe handling of these novel synthetic particles in all products, in order to assure its safety and prevent additional harm being inflicted in our lives and the life of our planet.

“The New Kids On The Block”: Conservative Media Platforms Getting Cosy in Brazil

Monica Piccinini

2 Dec 2021

A group of a few players purported to be at the centre of the global political misinformation machine seems to be in full power, with their next target already being established, Brazil.

There is a deeply concerning discontent with democracy and globalization in many countries around the world, which has created an opportunity for these ravenous players, including social media platforms, to cause havoc by disseminating misinformation, creating hatred, polarisation, and spreading their radical and extremist ideas. Their constant search for power, profit and dominance is insatiable and they will apparently stop at nothing!

Steve Bannon, persona non grata, former Donald Trump’s chief strategist and close friends with the Bolsonaro’s, Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, and his son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, is a familiar face and one of the main characters of these devious games being played in worldwide politics. Bannon has both his eyes fixed on Brazil, the world’s sixth-largest nation with over 212 million people, and a land of real opportunities.  

In August 2021, Eduardo Bolsonaro attended a voting machine symposium in Washington DC, hosted by Bannon, where he declared that “Bolsonaro will win (the reelection in 2022), unless it’s stolen by, guess what, the (voting) machines”.  Does that sound familiar?

Bannon is not the only one focused on Brazil. The US former president, Donald Trump, Bolsonaro’s “should have been twin brother”, has already made plans on setting up his framework in the country by supporting Bolsonaro’s bid for re-election in 2022 at all costs, and by building his own social media platform in Brazil, competing with the new kids on the block, Parler, Gettr and Gab. Trump’s new social network will be partially financed by a Brazilian congressman and royalty, Luiz Phillipe de Orleans e Bragança.

Manipulative Mechanisms and Players

Bannon is a disturbing and crafty individual. He was initially associated with Breitbart News, an American far-right platform founded by Andrew Breitbart in 2007, along with the Mercer family, who were key financial benefactors. Following Andrew Breitbart’s death, Steve Bannon became executive chairman and Larry Solov became CEO.

Breitbart News content is considered to be misogynistic, racist and xenophobic, publishing a number of conspiracy theories and spreading misinformation. It was also a platform for Donald Trump supporters during the 2016 presidential campaign. On August 2016, Bannon stepped down from his role as executive chairman.

In July 2020, Breitbart News livestreamed a video featuring America’s Frontline Doctors making suspicious claims to Covid and hydroxychloroquine as a cure.

It is worth remembering that Bannon’s tentacles have spread deep and far during the interference and manipulation of world-wide election campaigns by Cambridge Analytica in the US, in the UK with the “Leave” campaign (Brexit), in Brazil, amongst many other countries.

Bannon is former vice president and board member of Cambridge Analytica, a company that provided data analytics to government and military organisations. The company was known for being backed by right-wing millionaire, Robert Mercer, Rebekah Mercer’s father, also a Donald Trump’s supporter.

CA declared bankruptcy after harvesting personal data of over 78 million Facebook users without their consent. In 2019, CA was acquired by a holding company, Emerdata, which currently has 4 active directors: Rebekah Mercer, Jennifer Mercer, Jacquelyn James-Varga and Gary Ka Chun Tiu.

Bannon understands very well how to manipulate the mainstream outlets. He joined forces with Chinese dissident Guo Wengui, also known as Miles Kwok, an exiled Chinese billionaire. Guo owns G News (Guo Media) and co-founded GTV Media Group with Steve Bannon in 2020.

“Please do not take your children to get vaccinated anymore. It is not about getting a shot that simple but equivalent to murder”, Guo said in a translated video posted at Gettr in September 2021. “Those who were vaccinated might face an unpredicted severe consequence”, he added.

Guo is one of the key orchestrators of the misinformation network also promoting the use of unproven Covid treatments, such as invermectin, artemisin, hydrochloroquine, dexamethasone, oxytetracycline, amongst other medications.

This is perhaps a reminder of the MMR autism fraud, driven by British doctor and anti-vax activist Andrew Wakefield in the 1970’s. Wakefield’s intention, similar to a majority of players, was financially driven, as he planned on developing a replacement vaccine for MMR as well as testing kits that would let doctors diagnose autistic entercolitis.

Trump, Guo and Bolsonaro seemed to have followed Wakefield’s footsteps when deciding to promote a set of unproven drugs in the early treatment of Covid. The similarities are astonishing.

Bolsonaro insists on promoting these cheap drugs to his nearly 40 million social media followers. His government has spent millions of dollars producing, purchasing and promoting drugs such as ivermectin, chloroquine and antibiotic azithromycin, as well as anticoagulants, painkillers and vitamins. Brazil’s Ministry of Health, along with a large number of doctors, endorsed the use of these drugs to treat Covid, even though they have no proof to be effective.

Conservative Social Networks Gaining Power

Since Trump was blocked from Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, and his loyal friend Bolsonaro was cracked down for falsely suggesting coronavirus vaccines could cause AIDS, along with many others for spreading misinformation and disturbing content, the need for alternative platforms was set out. Since then, Bolsonaro has been directing his supporters to follow him on platforms such as Gettr and Parler.

Launched in July 2021, founded by Jason Miller, former Donald Trump’s aid and spokesman, and partly funded by Guo Wengui, Gettr is a platform with extreme content, including the promotion of extremist groups like the far-right Proud Boys, anti-Semitism, racism, and terrorist propaganda.

Brazil is Gettr’s second largest market after the United States and extremely popular amongst Bolsonaro’s supporters. Miller mentioned that having the presence of Jair Bolsonaro and his son Eduardo on the platform, gave Gettr a big boost, reaching over 500,000 Brazilian users. Miller said that the company has plans to expand even further, launching an advertising campaign that will target Brazil and other countries.

Another player with concerning methods and ideas wishing to expand in Brazil is James O’Keefe, a self-professed progressive radical, leader of Project Veritas, a conservative American far-right organisation that is ideologically driven.

PV is known for running questionable operations that goes against standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organisations. The company has produced and edited videos using secret recordings to discredit mainstream media groups and spreading misinformation.

The list goes on. The “First Lady of the Alt-Right”, as Rebekah Mercer is called, daughter of American billionaire Robert Mercer, Republican political donor (contributed US$ 25 million to the 2016 US election), co-owner of Breitbart News, investor of Cambridge Analytica, one of the active directors of Emerdata, is a funder and co-founder of social networking service Parler.

Parler has a user base of Donald Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists such as QAnon followers and far-right extremists. Reports suggest Parler was used to coordinate the 2021 storming of the US Capitol.

The platform was launched in August 2018 and founded by John Metze, who was executive director until January 2021. British conservative, Oxford University graduate, hedge fund employee and former candidate and financial supporter of the Brexit Party, George Farmer, is currently the company’s CEO.

Bolsonaro joined Parler in July 2020 after Twitter removed some of his posts alleging he was responsible for spreading misinformation related to Covid. His son, Eduardo, also endorsed the network, leading to a significant increase in sign ups to the platform. Like Gettr, Parler said that Brazil is also its second largest market after the US.

“Ya my comment is ‘God bless Jair Bolsonaro and Jesus Christ is King.’ No further comment., said Andrew Torba, Gab’s CEO, another right-wing social media network.

Torba’s plan is to build an alternative network platform free from censorship, government influence and power of Silicon Valley. But Gab has become a platform that spreads misinformation about vaccines and Covid restrictions, violence, bigotry, racism and hatred. On October 2018, a Gab user posted violent and anti-Semitic comments and then murdered 11 people in a synagogue in Pittsburg.

The sudden interest of conservative social networking platforms in exploiting and investing in Brazil is no coincidence and comes at the perfect time, as the 2022 election approaches and Bolsonaro is using all ammunition he can to stay in power, no matter what.

There are serious consequences to how things play out in Brazil in the next year, all linked to how external forces decide to play; how much support is given; and how well they manage to manipulate the situation to their benefit.

The Brazilian populous can only hope things do not get out of control and the situation doesn’t become irreversible. If this dark future materialises, it won’t be just the weakest and most vulnerable that will have to bear a hefty price, instead, the majority of Brazilians will have to face some serious consequences.