Climate – Monica Piccinini

Brazil’s Yanomami and the Rise of Ultra-Processed Foods

Monica Piccinini

11 October 2023

The Yanomami live in the rainforests of northern Brazil and southern Venezuela and are considered the largest isolated tribe in South America. The Brazilian state, corporations and illegal activities have for decades violated their rights and caused the deaths of countless Yanomami. However, they now face a growing new threat – from ultra-processed foods.

In the far northern region of Brazil, the Yanomami population consists of approximately 27,000 individuals, spread across more than 300 villages within the Yanomami indigenous territory, in an area of 9,664,975 hectares.

The health conditions afflicting the Yanonami community, including malnutrition and chronic diseases, are a result of the violation of their rights, unstable socio-economic conditions, and ongoing invasions of their territory. These circumstances have led to a social-environmental vulnerability within their population, placing their families, particularly children, at risk of consuming ultra-processed foods.

A study conducted by Brazil’s Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Fiocruz, offers groundbreaking insights into the dietary patterns of Yanomami indigenous youth. It reveals that more than 90% of Yanomami aged 6 to 59 months exhibit short stature (linear growth stunting).

“Without a doubt, the Yanomami increased consumption of carbohydrates, sugar, salt, fat, food additives, and low-nutrient highly processed foods, contributes to nutritional and metabolic health concerns, specifically among their children,” explained Jesem Douglas Yamall Orellana, Fiocruz researcher of public health and epidemiologist at Fiocruz, and one of the authors of the study.

According to Orellana, the heightened consumption of ultra-processed foods among the Yanomami children not only significantly exacerbates their pre-existing health issues, but also gives rise to new ones.

Numerous research findings have established associations between ultra-processed foods and various health concerns, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cancer, depression, multiple sclerosis (MS), cardiovascular disease, and even mortality.

Last month, Brazil’s national health council president, Fernando Zasso Pigatto, issued a recommendation with following note:

“Considering that, in the scenario of poverty and hunger, the Yanomami people are hostage to the supply of processed and ultra-processed products, in many cases expired, satisfying external interests, which worsens the scenario of infectious disease, malnutrition, deficiencies, nutritional and chronic diseases, such as the onset of diabetes, hypertension and obesity.”

Study Data

The study group reported that the minimally processed ‘regional’ foods consumed by the Yanomami consisted primarily of fruits (69%), followed by corn, roots, or tubers (45%), peach palm or palm heart (33%), fish or crab (33%), and couscous (32%), according to the most frequently mentioned items.

The ultra-processed foods most commonly mentioned were cakes or cookies (25%) and chocolate or chocolate powder (6%). Some also consume soft drinks, soda, candy, artificial juice and yogurt, canned foods, instant noodles, among other items.

The Fiocruz study was designed as a comprehensive survey for children residing in villages within three remote regions of the Brazilian Amazon, offering valuable data for this particularly under represented group.

The research group consisted of Yanomami children ranging from six months to five years old, and the investigation took place within three Yanomami communities located in the Brazilian Amazon: Maturaca, Ariabu, and Auaris.

*Map of the Yanomami Indigenous Territory, Brazilian Amazon. Image provided by Jesem Orellana.*

The residents of Maturaca and Ariabu villages usually have more regular interactions with non-indigenous communities, which include military personnel, healthcare workers, illegal miners, loggers and criminal groups.

In contrast, the Ariabu population is relatively isolated, having limited contact with urban communities. Consequently, they enjoy greater territorial mobility, affording them the freedom to practice their traditional way of life.

The research findings indicated that the consumption of ultra-processed foods was significantly more prevalent in children from Maturaca (11.6 times higher) and Ariabu (9.2 times higher) in comparison to the children from Auaris.

This observation emphasises the importance of social contact with non-indigenous communities as a critical factor influencing the consumption of ultra-processed foods.

Another intriguing finding from the study was a 31% reduction in ultra-processed food consumption among children whose mothers had shorter stature when compared to those whose mothers had a proper height.

Orellana explained, “Typically, the most economically disadvantaged mothers in the community can be identified as those with higher short stature rates, limited or no income, a background of enduring poverty, and a history of hardships that have stunted their growth into ‘short adults.’ These mothers lack the means to purchase and access ultra-processed foods, which, in turn, works to their advantage.”

The general occurrence of ultra-processed foods stood at 32%, and this was linked to both the location of residence and the height of the mothers.

The Culprits

The Yanomami are traditionally categorised as hunter-gatherers, but the frequent invasions of illegal miners, loggers, and criminal organisations into their territory have a direct influence on the areas from which they gather their food, consequently affecting their dietary patterns.

Their families are compelled to interact with non-indigenous communities, resulting in their exposure to urban centers and the consumption of ultra-processed foods with poor nutritional content, high energy density, low fibre and micronutrient content, and an abundance of preservatives and industrial additives.

According to Orellana, what caught the interest of the group of scientists was the correlation between the increased consumption of ultra-processed foods by the Yanomami and a higher likelihood of them abandoning their agricultural practices.

“The Yanomami were historically known for their semi-nomadic lyfestyle, moving to new areas every two years to allow their previously occupied lands to regenerate. Nowadays, they are reluctant to leave their territory due to the invasion of illegal miners, loggers and drug traffickers, which has instilled fear in them about the possibility of violent attacks,” explained Orellana.

Orellana added, “The Yanomami traditionally relied on their understanding of sun and lunar cycles, as well as rain and drought patterns, to observe and manage soil and land dynamics. However, recent shifts in weather patterns, including extreme climate conditions, have disrupted their ability to accurately determine the optimal planting times for crops like corn and cassava.

“Furthermore, they now face concerns about fishing due to the contamination of their rivers by illegal mining activities, particularly the presence of mercury. These environmental challenges have led the Yanomami to increasingly rely on ultra-processed foods, as they find themselves struggling to maintain their traditional practices.”

The developments observed among the Yanomami over the past two decades is similar to the experiences of nearly all indigenous populations in Brazil that have been in direct contact with non-indigenous communities for over 50 years.

“In the last nine months, we’ve observed specific actions undertaken by the federal government to address issues in areas previously identified as housing various invaders, and these actions have received considerable media coverage,” mentioned Orellana.

He detailed how certain national issues are manipulated and exploited by both the government and the media to further their interests:

“Extensive operations were conducted in these areas (Yanonami territory), featuring visits by the president and ministers. Once these matters were no longer the focal point, attention shifted to a different region. These undertakings are often referred to as ‘political spectacles’ rather than genuinely impactful operations.”

Climate change and frequent invasions into the Yanomami land by illegal miners, loggers, and criminal groups are the primary factors that impact their diet, well-being, and traditional lifestyle, making them crucial determinants of their survival.

Orellana pointed out several potential measures that could effectively address some of the problems impacting the Yanonami community:

“Immediate action is essential to establish control over the territory and impose severe and efficient penalties on intruders. Without these measures in place, the issues affecting the Yanomami, such as increased consumption of high-processed foods due to the disruptions in their traditional agricultural practices, which is detrimental to their well-being and cultural heritage, will persist without resolution.”

Article published in The Ecologist: https://theecologist.org/2023/oct/12/indigenous-tribes-made-ill-processed-foods

Article published in The Canary: https://www.thecanary.co/global/2023/10/10/yanomami-people-brazil-ultra-processed-food/

Article published in Portuguese in A Escola Legal: https://aescolalegal.com.br/blog/2023/10/11/yanomami-envenenados/

BR-319: Amazon’s Route to Deforestation

Monica Piccinini

27 September 2023

The reconstruction of Amazon’s BR-319 highway in Brazil, connecting the capital Manaus in central Amazonia to the southern edge of the forest, Porto Velho, is an ambitious and controversial infrastructure project, supported by many politicians and organisations, and a possible catalyst to further social and environmental degradation in the region.

The BR-319 highway project could result in increased illegal logging, violence, violations of indigenous rights, and catastrophic consequences to local communities and the environment, including irreversible deforestation, warn scientists.

Officially inaugurated in March 1976 during the era of the military dictatorship led by General Ernesto Geisel, BR-319 fell into a state of disrepair by 1980. In 2015, during Dilma Roussef’s administration, a proposal to revitalize BR-319 was put forth.

**BR-319 highway, linking Manaus, Amazonas, to Porto Velho, Rondônia. Image: Google Maps**

BR-319 highway, a stretch of 885.9 km, serves as an unguarded gateway to illicit side roads in areas with a high density of indigenous territories, legally designated reserves, and protected conservation areas. This accessibility grants illegal miners, loggers, settlers, and land invaders entry into untouched forest.

According to a study by scientists, Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside, the reconstruction of BR-319 and the building of planned connecting roads would act as spearheads for deforestation and forest degradation in the western portion of the Brazilian Amazon.

“BR-319 highway cuts through one of the most preserved blocks of the forest, where it contains an enormous stock of carbon. This project is a threat to 63 indigenous lands and 18,000 indigenous people, not to mention the environment and biodiversity”, mentioned Ferrante.

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

In the Brazilian Amazon, a staggering 94% of deforestation happened in the vicinity of both official and native roads, vividly illustrating how highways are significant catalysts of deforestation.

A study by Ferrante and Fearnside suggests that BR-319 and its proposed planned side-roads will lead to a deforestation surge of over 1,200% in the region spanning from the highway to Brazil’s border with Peru, primarily in the central Amazon.

The Amazon rainforest plays a vital role in the regional and global climate system, acting as a carbon reservoir, aids in the dispersion of trace gases and aerosols, and is a crucial part of the water cycle. Its contribution of moisture to other regions is instrumental for maintaining hydrological stability on both regional and global scales.

Justifications

The primary justifications presented by the current government for repaving BR-319 highway involve improving access to healthcare and education in the region, in addition to addressing national security concerns.

“The highway actually increases disparities in public health, which also demystifies the justification for bringing healthcare to municipalities,” explained Ferrante.

According to Ferrante and Fearnside, the road is not a priority for “national security” because it is far from Brazil’s borders. This information was announced in 2012 by the Brazilian Army’s commander for Amazonia and not mentioned anywhere in the Brazilian military’s 2008 National Strategy for Defense.

While scientists have issued warnings about the potential adverse outcomes this project could have on the region, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, continues to view it as a top priority.

In June 2022, prior to his presidential election, Lula emphasised the significance of the highway for the economies of both Amazonas and Rondônia.

Last month, Brazil’s transport minister, Renan Filho, went as far as proposing the utilisation of the ‘Fundo Amazonia’ to finance the reconstruction of BR-319, which he dubbed as “the most environmentally friendly roadway on the planet.”

Scientists Expose Negative Impact

**Unpaved illegal side road branching off BR-319. Photograph: The Mura Indigenous People**

The potential consequences of reconstructing the BR-319 highway, including the risk of deforestation, could affect an area exceeding 300,000 square km within the Amazon, surpassing the size of São Paulo state, according to the result of a study conducted jointly by the CPI (Climate Policy Initiative)/PUC-Rio and the Amazônia 2030 project.

The researchers concluded that BR-319 highway’s impact is anticipated to affect a population of approximately 320,000 individuals in nine municipalities. Within the area of influence of BR-319 are also 49 indigenous territories, 49 conservation zones, and 140,000 square kilometers of publicly owned forests without designated purposes.

In his latest study, Fearnside revealed that by 2100, the reconstruction of BR-319 highway would increase deforestation not only around the highway, but also in the regions with roads directly connected to BR-319, by a staggering 60% in relation to deforestation in the projected scenario without reconstruction.

Amazonas road network connecting to BR-319 includes federal highways BR-174, BR-230, BR-174 and state highways AM-254 and AM-354.

There are additional planned projects to build highways connecting to BR-319, including AM-366, AM-360, AM-343 and AM-356. Some of these highways will reach one the most preserved areas in the Amazon, known as the “Trans-Purus” region.

The BR-319 highway reconstruction project is deficient in two essential aspects mandated by the law: firstly, it lacks an economic feasibility study, known as the EVTEA, as stipulated by Law 5917/1973. Secondly, it has failed to conduct the necessary consultations with indigenous communities, as required both by International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 and Brazilian law 10,088/2019.

Based on Ferrante’s assertion, supported by his research highlighted in the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities,

“The deforestation occurring along the central stretch of the BR-319 highway has resulted in a rise in malaria cases by 400%. This serves as an indicator, underscoring the potential for environmental degradation driven by the BR-319 highway to contribute to the emergence of a new pandemic.”

The reopening of this highway would also enable agribusiness expansion into new territories, including activities such as cattle farming, soybean and palm oil cultivation, the expansion of monoculture for large-scale biofuel production, as well as meeting the needs of fossil fuel companies, hydroelectric dams, mining operations, and other industries.

**Unpaved illegal side road and improvised bridge, branching off BR-319. Photograph: The Mura Indigenous People**

Ferrante calls attention to the latest attempt in dismantling Brazil’s environmental agenda and how it may affect the area surrounding BR-319 highway:

“The recent changes made by the National Congress during Lula’s administration, which involved the reduction of environmental protection laws and the relocation of CAR (Brazil’s National Environmental Registry of Rural Properties) from the environment ministry, could lead to a further surge in deforestation within the BR-319 highway area. This initiative lacks the essential governance and environmental and economic viability required for the project.”

Ferrante delivers a final message to Lula’s government:

“Lula’s administration has consistently lacked a positive environmental track record and has more recently indicated its backing for the BR-319 highway reconstruction initiative. It is essential that the government reevaluates this unviable project and takes into consideration the advice of experts and the findings of scientific research.”

Article published in The Ecologist: https://theecologist.org/2023/sep/27/amazons-route-deforestation

Article published in The Canary: https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2023/09/27/br-319-amazon-deforestation/

Pesticides and the Climate Crisis: Fossil Fuel Dependency Exacerbates Impact

Monica Piccinini

5 July 2023

In the quest to understand and combat climate change, our attention is often drawn to the colossal emissions produced by fossil fuels. However, beneath the surface lies another insidious contributor to our warming planet: pesticides.

While these chemicals have long been associated with their harmful effects on ecosystems and human health, a lesser-known truth is their direct link to the fossil fuel industry.

As we delve into the hidden world of greenhouse emissions, a startling revelation emerges – the use of pesticides has become an accomplice in perpetuating the climate crisis, casting a shadow over our efforts to create a sustainable future.

Globally, food systems account for over one third of all greenhouse gas emissions, which includes agriculture and pesticide use.

Scientific evidence suggests that the use of pesticides not only plays a significant role in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, but also heightens the susceptibility of our agricultural systems to the impacts of climate change. However, the potential of pesticide reduction as a viable solution to the climate crisis has been widely overlooked.

Doug Parr, chief scientist and policy director at Greenpeace UK said:

“Public understanding of the role that fossil fuel companies have played in driving the climate emergency has increased hugely in the last few years, and now we know that we need to add the pesticide industry to the list of climate polluters. Reducing the use of pesticides would be at least a double in addressing nature decline and climate crisis.”

According to a report by PAN UK, Pesticide Action Network, and The Pesticide Collaboration, titled “Pesticides and The Climate Crisis: A Vicious Cycle”, 99% of all synthetic chemicals, including pesticides, are derived from fossil fuels.

The world’s largest oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell and ChevronPhillips Chemical, produce pesticides or their chemical ingredients.

Some pesticides, such as sulfuryl fluoride, are powerful greenhouse gases, having nearly 5,000 times the potency of carbon dioxide.

*Photo: ID 46018102 © Ig0rz @ Dreamstime.com*

Pesticides have a significant impact on the climate emergency throughout their lifecycle, involving various stages from manufacturing to disposal. Here are some ways pesticides exacerbate the climate crisis:

Manufacturing: The production of pesticides involves energy-intensive processes that often rely on fossil fuels. From the extraction of raw materials to the synthesis of active ingredients, greenhouse gas emissions are generated, contributing to climate change.

Packaging: Pesticides are typically packaged in materials derived from fossil fuels, such as plastic containers. The production and disposal of these packaging materials further contribute to carbon emissions and environmental pollution.

Transportation: Pesticides are often transported over long distances from manufacturing facilities to distribution centres and end-users. The use of fossil fuel-powered vehicles for transportation adds to the carbon footprint associated with pesticides.

Application: During pesticide application, emissions occur due to the use of mechanised equipment and vehicles. Additionally, some pesticide formulations release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere, contributing to air pollution, climate change and impacting our health by damaging the central nervous system and other organs, some causing cancer.

Environmental Degradation: Pesticides can have detrimental effects on ecosystems, leading to biodiversity loss and disruptions in natural processes. This ecological damage can further impact the climate crisis by destabilising ecosystems that help regulate the planet’s climate, such as forests and wetlands.

Disposal: Improper disposal of pesticides, such as through incineration or landfilling, can release harmful chemicals into the environment. Inefficient disposal methods can contribute to soil and water pollution, affecting ecosystems and potentially releasing greenhouse gases like methane.

Overall, the entire lifecycle of pesticides, from manufacturing and packaging to transportation, application, and disposal, contributes to the climate emergency through various emissions, environmental degradation, and pollution. Understanding these impacts is crucial for developing sustainable alternatives and practices in agriculture and pest management.

Agriculture

*Aerial image of tractor working in field*
*Photo: ID 172643586 © Jevtic | Dreamstime.com*

With increasing temperatures, there is a corresponding surge in pest populations, leading to decreased crop resilience. Consequently, a greater quantity of pesticides becomes necessary.

The heightened reliance on pesticides subsequently fosters the proliferation of resistance among insects and weeds towards herbicides and insecticides. Moreover, it perpetuates the detrimental impact on human health and the environment.

The study conducted by PAN UK, Pesticide Action Network, and The Pesticide Collaboration, “Pesticides and the Climate Crisis: A Vicious Cycle”, highlights the anticipated outcome of climate change on farming practices.

It suggests that farmers may resort to intensifying the use of synthetic pesticides, unless we initiate a shift towards more sustainable forms of agriculture, embracing smaller-scale and diversified agroecological methods.

The study also outlines how agricultural pests will respond to climate change, including crop resilience decline, the shifting of pest populations and reach, impacts on pests’ natural enemies, the increase in weeds and the rise in regionalism and unpredictability.

Commodity crops, such as maize, soybeans, rice, cotton and wheat, are among those with the greatest use of pesticides and fertilisers globally.

Between 2005 and 2020, the global use of pesticides witnessed a notable upswing of 17%. However, the application of herbicides experienced an even more substantial surge of 34%.

China, the United States, Argentina, Thailand and Brazil emerged as the leading consumers of pesticides, contributing to these escalating figures.

Nevertheless, it’s important to note that these statistics likely underestimate the true extent of pesticide use due to various factors, such as underreporting and unrecorded applications. For instance, the inclusion of pesticides used as seed treatments is lacking in the UN Food and Agriculture database, thereby contributing to the underestimation.

In 2020, the UK used over 13,018 tonnes of pesticide active ingredients. One of the most widely used active substances was the herbicide glyphosate.

A total of 2,602 tonnes of glyphosate was sprayed on all UK crops during 2020, a 16% rise over four years, generating 81,410 tonnes of CO2, equivalent to more than 75,000 flights from London to Sydney. This figure does not include the large amount that is used in other areas, such as towns, cities and private gardens.

Josie Cohen, head of policy and campaigns at PAN UK, said:

“The government urgently needs to take a joined-up approach to tackling the climate and nature crisis, as they go hand-in-hand. The solutions to these emergencies must not undermine each other. The UK’s net zero target cannot be achieved without transforming agriculture including a major reduction in pesticide use, which will also bring huge benefits to nature and biodiversity.”

Farming methods that avoid synthetic pesticides, such as agroecological systems or diversified organic farming, offer multiple benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration.

Moreover, these approaches improve the ability of farms to withstand climate change and combat pests by bolstering various ecosystem services. These services include improving water quality and availability for crops, enhancing soil health, boosting crop resilience against pests and diseases, and fostering increased populations of pollinators and natural pest control agents.

In light of the climate crisis and its far-reaching consequences on various aspects of our lives and the environment, it has become increasingly imperative to shift away from the prevalent chemical-intensive agricultural practices and embrace a biological approach.

This transition is crucial to safeguard our wellbeing and survival, as it directly influences our health, soil quality, air and water purity, food production, and the delicate balance of biodiversity.

Brazilian Scientists’ Hopes and Expectations for the Future

Monica Piccinini

10 May 2023

The election of Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, ‘Lula’, in October 2022, brought a sense of relief and hope to the Brazilian scientific community.

Just over three months into his administration, Lula’s challenging task to fulfill all the promises he made before he came into power became apparent. The populous of Brazil, along with the rest of the world, is watching what happens next.

In the past four years, the country has faced considerable challenges, including budget cuts in science and technology, the spread of misinformation leading to the denial of climate change, anti-vaccine movements, and the use of ineffective drugs against COVID-19, amongst many others.

“Brazil is once again reconciling economic growth with social inclusion. Rebuilding what was destroyed and moving forward. Brazil is once again a country without hunger. While preparing the ground for infrastructure work that was abandoned or ignored by the previous government, Brazil is again taking care of health, education, science and technology, culture, housing and public safety”, declared Lula during the meeting at Brasilia’s Planalto Palace in April.

A group of five renowned scientists share their views and expectations about scientific policies in Brazil, published at Nature Human Behaviour this month.

Mercedes Maria da Cunha Bustamante, biologist, Pedro Gabriel Godinho Delgado, doctor and psychiatrist, Lucas Ferrante, ecologist and researcher, Juliana Hipólito, biologist, and Mariana M. Vale, ecologist, highlight key areas of concern to be addressed by the current government.

Public Health & the Environment

*Illustration 144851985 / Brazil Public Health © Gunay Aliyevs | Dreamstime.com*

According to Lucas Ferrante, the past government was notable for the prominent role of scientific denialism. Ministers were chosen for their ideology, rather than their technical ability, and scientific advice was simply ignored.

The second catastrophic COVID-19 wave in the Amazon, making Brazil one of the global epicentres for the disease, could have been prevented if the past government had listened to scientific advice.

The absence of a technically oriented government under Jair Bolsonaro’s administration also increased deforestation in the Amazon rainforest at an alarming rate, threatening the environment, traditional and indigenous communities, as well as climate change goals, wrote Ferrante.

He also mentioned that despite the change in government, there’s the need to remember past events.

During Lula’s two previous terms as president (2003-2010), he showed worrying denialistic tendencies, ignoring scientific reports and scientists’ advice. An example of this was the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam disaster, which affected the Xingu River and traditional communities, causing a catastrophic socio environmental impact.

Essential plans should include blocking major infrastructure projects in the Amazon rainforest, such as the reconstruction of BR-319 highway linking Manaus to Porto Velho, which will affect traditional and indigenous communities, biodiversity and increase deforestation in the region, as well as agriculture production chains that could give rise to a new pandemic.

Brazil’s biodiversity is extremely rich, but lacks surveys of viruses circulating in its fauna, therefore a well established surveillance programme is required in order to reduce the risk of new pandemics emerging through viral spillover, declared Mariana M. Vale.

Nísia Trindade, Brazil’s health minister, mentioned during a lower house hearing last month that the country should be gearing up for future pandemics by investing in science, technology and Brazil’s national healthcare system, SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde).

*Illustration 98533932 / Brazil Environment © Cienpies Design / Illustrations | Dreamstime.com*

Juliana Hipólito highlighted another significant issue of concern, society’s lost value and interest of science in their daily lives. As a consequence, this lead to an increase in deforestation rates, climate change denialism, anti-vaccine movements and the use of ineffective unproven drugs against COVID-19.

The past government’s dismantling of environmental policies increasing deforestation and the approval of a large number of toxic pesticides is also something the science community expects to be reversed, she added.

According to experts, Brazil’s use of pesticides increased exponentially in the last few years, growing 300,000 tonnes since 2010. Approximately 80% of the pesticides authorised for commercialization in Brazil are prohibited in at least three countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the European community.

In the field of mental health, Pedro Gabriel Godinho Delgado expects to see development of long-term projects to better understand the interfaces between mental health suffering and the profound social inequality and precariousness of life in Brazil.

According to him, urban violence, racism, stigma, gender prejudice, loss of childhood and adolescence and their relationship with human suffering, should no longer be marginal and must be included amongst the priorities of research. The long-term consequences of COVID-19 on mental and physical health also deserve special attention from researchers.

Investments, Social Justice & Equity

*Illustration 34989348 © David Castillo Dominici | Dreamstime.com*

Divestment is an issue of concern, as Brazil’s previous government cut considerably investment in scientific and educational organisations. 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.

According to Hipólito, budget cuts skyrocket during the past government. Research funding and the budget of leading science and technology funding agencies were reduced by 60% from 2014 to 2022.

Socio-economic conditions have been sacrificed as a result of the cuts, therefore affecting the country’s capacity for the innovation and economic diversification.

Mercedes Maria da Cunha Bustamante mentioned the urgent need to support vulnerable groups (women, the youth and the poorest – most of them people of colour) in Brazil with the demand for public policies that would put the country back on track towards social justice and equity.

Reducing poverty, combating climate change and biodiversity decline are intrinsically connected.

The current administration also needs to focus on improving education from elementary level, adds Bustamante. A similar scenario is seen at public universities, which were affected by budget reductions under the last government. Brazilian public universities account for most of the national scientific production and are major drivers of social inclusion.

It’s essential to increase diversity, she added, as it’s vital for addressing societal demands through the generation of new knowledge, making Brazil attractive again for young scientists and allowing science to have a more prominent role in policy making.

Vale pointed out that white male individuals still dominate Brazilian academia and highlighted the need to strengthen and improve existing policies on diversity, equity and inclusion in science, especially regarding black and indigenous people.

Brazil has seen a massive exodus of scientists, leaving their jobs to work abroad, where their skills are most valued. The current government should set up a development and retention plan, encouraging and supporting scientists across the country.

Although the scientific community remains confident and positive, it’s crucial that they continue to defend science, and that the general population are not deceived into thinking that a change in governance alone is sufficient to bring about the needed improvements in public health and the environment, mentioned Ferrante.

The voice of scientists who dedicate their entire lives to protecting and bettering our daily lives couldn’t be louder and should be heard. Perhaps it’s time for Brazilian society, politicians, institutions and corporations to fully support this community that has been undervalued for so long.

Who Controls What We Grow and Eat?

Monica Piccinini

9 May 2023

Similar to our current political & economic systems, the food system is no longer serving us; mainly driven by power, profit and greed, resulting in global food insecurity and impacting directly on our health and the environment.

We’ve seen a sharp increase in food insecurity worldwide, driven not only by climate change and multiple conflicts, but also by an unbalanced food system fuelled by corporate power.

As the world population is projected to reach 9.8 billion in the next 27 years, there’s an urgent need to address issues related to our food system, or we may be facing a worldwide famine sooner than expected. We’ve already seen signs of this in many parts of the world.

“The right to food is the right to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access—either directly or by means of financial purchases— to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear”, according to the United Nations.

Corporate Power

*Photo 77536321 © Daniil Peshkov | Dreamstime.com*

Giant agribusiness corporations hold the power and control over our food systems, with the ability to influence governments and decision-makers, through lobbying, with the direct intention of shaping policies in many ways.

Their objectives and tactics are questionable, with the tendency to favour their own interests, focusing on profits and maximising shareholder value, rather than addressing hunger and malnutrition.

According to ‘Who’s Tipping the Scales’, a report published by IPES Food, the international panel of experts on sustainable food systems:

“A bold, structural vision to counter the corporate takeover of food-related global governance – one that support central roles for people, governments, and democratic, public-interest-based decision-making, is urgently needed.”

It’s clear that the voices of the most vulnerable communities across the world, and mostly affected by hunger and environmental impact caused by this industry, must be heard.

These giant and dominant agribusiness corporations influence the global organisations we most trust, which should be there to defend our interests. To the surprise of many, agribusiness associations were sitting directly at the UN governance table at the 2021 UNFSS, UN Food Systems Summit.

One must also question the kind of relationship between the private sector and international governance bodies and institutions about potential conflicts of interest.

According to the IPES Food report, in 2020, a private philanthropic foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was the second largest donor to the CGIAR, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.

Another partnership that raises some eyebrows is the FAO’s, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, partnership with CropLife International, CLI, an agrochemical lobby organisation, whose members include Syngenta, BASF, FMC and Bayer (acquired Monsanto in 2018).

PAN North America, Pesticide Action Network, mentioned that instead of putting the profit of CropLife International members before farmers and consumers worldwide, the FAO must invest in solutions, including agroecology and take stronger action on ending the usage of highly hazardous pesticides, HHPs.

We’ve also seen increase in consolidation, a large number of mergers and acquisitions, allowing these corporations to dominate the agribusiness sector. This allows these giants to have a profound influence on governance and the structure of our food system, resulting in anti-competitive market practices.

Our Health & the Environment

*Illustration 273587833 / Food Food © Altitudevs | Dreamstime.com*

These corporations have significant funding at their disposal to influence policies and regulations, such as pesticides, biosafety, patents, intellectual property, as well as trade and investment agreements.

Bayer AG spent over USD 9 million lobbying the US government in 2019, after it acquired Monsanto. At the time, they were reviewing the re-registration of one of the company’s main products, glyphosate (Roundup), which is considered a toxic herbicide. In the US, Bayer has been contesting billion of dollars in settlement claims to end lawsuits over accusations that glyphosate causes cancer.

They are also responsible for shaping science by sponsoring academic research favouring their corporate interests, influencing governance and policies. This was seen in the agrochemical and processed food sectors.

As proof of this, below is an internal email between Monsanto executives obtained by lawyers representing plaintiffs in the Roundup® litigation, where they suggest ‘beating the s**t out of’ a mother’s group expressing concern over the effects of GMOs and Roundup® on their children.

Monsanto also tried to influence science by sponsoring various ghostwriting academic articles questioning scientific studies that raised concern over its product’s safety, glyphosate.

Another very concerning issue related to the health of our children is the fact that this industry continuously lobbies against mandatory public health measures, including taxes on ultra-processed foods, UPF, sugary drinks and front of package labeling, as well as restrictions on marketing of unhealthy foods to our children. This has a gigantic impact on their health and also creates pressure on our health systems.

A reported example of this was when a children’s cereal manufacturer attempted to sue Mexico after the country tried to amend a food packaging regulation called NOM-5, in order to protect their children from the marketing of unhealthy foods. The regulation established that certain unhealthy products would be prohibited from putting children’s animations and characters on their packages.

The invention of novel foods also raises some red flags. On March, The Defender, a publication defending children’s health, published a piece on Bill Gates’ latest invention, an edible food coating called Apeel, which is an odourless, colourless and tasteless coating for vegetables and fruit, which potentially extends the life span of these products, keeping it fresher for up to two times longer.

Apeel has already received the green light from US regulators, but some questions still remain unanswered surrounding the safety of the product, as the company is relying mainly on existing scientific studies, as no new science has been required to evaluate and test the product.

We seem to be completely exposed and reliant on these corporations to carry out their own safety studies, without the scrutiny of independent regulators and scientific studies.

According to the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies are expected to develop their own internal procedures to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their impacts on human and environmental rights in global supply chains.

It’s clear that the way we grow our food has a massive impact not only on our physical and mental health, but also on our environment, affecting fauna and flora, the health of our soil, water and air.

Recently, we have seen a sharp increase of fungal disease in crops, affecting 168 crops listed as important in human nutrition, according to FAO of the United Nations. Despite spraying fungicides, farmers are losing between 10-23% of their crops to fungal disease every year, including rice, corn, soybeans and potatoes.

According to a study published at Nature journal, this issue is mainly because of the adaptability of fungi to meet modern agricultural practices. Monocultures entail vast areas of genetically uniform crops, an ideal ground for fast-evolving organisms, such as fungi. Another problem is the increasingly widespread use of antifungal treatments, leading to fungicide resistance.

The use of pesticides and toxic chemicals are increasing exponentially across the world, causing havoc to our health, the soil, polluting water sources, the air, animals and plants.

Industrial agriculture, including cattle farming, soybean, palm oil, sugar cane, corn, wheat, GMOs, monoculture production, is responsible for the deforestation of rainforests, the Cerrado, and many other parts of the world, causing destruction and degradation.

In Brazil, 2.8% of landowners own over 56% of all arable land, and 50% of smallholder farms have access to only 2.5% of the land. Overall, the land is in the hands of a small number of industrial farms.

We must rethink the way we grow our food and we all have the right to access nutritious and healthy food and decide what we eat.

Digital Farming

*Photo 225876642 © Andrey Popov | Dreamstime.com*

The agribusiness sector spends vast amounts on research and development, making it extremely hard for smaller companies to compete with them, capitalising on patent protection and intellectual property rights.

Why? Because they can!

Patent protection and intellectual property is another issue that should be catching everyone’s attention.

Giant tech companies, such as Amazon and Microsoft, among others, entered the food sector focusing on power, control and profit. Small farmers and local food systems are struggling, as they can’t afford to use this high tech data gathering technology. They are also located in remote areas where these types of services can’t reach.

We can see an increasing movement of powerful integration and control between the companies that are supplying products to farmers, such as tractors, drones, pesticides, etc., and the tech giants. They feed and control farmers with information, and at the same time have direct access to consumers.

The aim is to integrate millions of farmers into a wide centrally controlled network by encouraging and forcing them to buy their products. This digital infrastructure is run by platforms developed by tech companies that run cloud services.

Fujitsu farm workers, located just outside Hanoi, carry smartphones supplied by the company, which monitors their every single movements, productivity, the amount of hours they work, etc., all stored on the company’s cloud. This is extremely worrying, as this practice could easily lead to labour exploitation.

Similar to Fujitsu, other companies investing heavily on this type of digital farming platforms include Microsoft’s Azure FarmBeats, Bayer’s Fieldview, BASF’s Xarvio, Syngenta’s CropWise, Yara’s Yaralrix and Olam’s OFIS, Olam Farmer Information System.

It’s essential to point out the extent of data gathering these platforms are capable of, including real time data and analysis on the farmers soil condition and water, crops growth, pests and diseases monitoring, weather, humidity, climate change, tractor monitoring, etc.

Some of these corporations are also trying to eliminate the “middlemen” by selling directly to consumers, which may be attractive proposition to many, if the idea is mainly to help farmers and small vendors directly, but somehow they may use digital platforms to increase their pricing power over farmers.

An important question we must ask these companies, regulators and our governments: who controls all this data, what do they do with it and who gives the advice?

The influence a few powerful corporations have in food governance must be scrutinised. Governments should be leading in the field of food security and not leaving it in the hands of those that put profit over longevity of life. It may seem a drastic change to the world as we know it, but it may be the only way to bring back a balance in the global food system and secure our quality of life and ultimately our survival.

The ‘Billionaires’ Club’ with a Mission to Change the Weather

Monica Piccinini

5 Dec 2022

Solar geoengineering, SG, is the latest billionaires’ techno-utopian dream to reverse the impact of climate change.

As we have shown little progress in coming to an agreement to use conventional and sensible measures of climate change mitigation and adaptation, a ‘privileged club’ appears to be pursuing a worrying and ambitious plan to change our global weather.

Politicians and fossil fuel giants may also use SG as a way to buy time and as an excuse to delay the switch to a neutral carbon economy.

What’s Geoengineering?

Goengineering is a set of technologies used with the purpose to manipulate the weather and the environment to counterbalance the impacts of climate change.

This technology is divided in two categories. The first one is carbon geoengineering or carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which seeks to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The second and most important one is solar geoengineering, solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) or stratospheric albedo hacking (SAH), which seeks to reflect fraction of sunlight back into space to cool the planet.

This technology mimics a volcano eruption, where sulfate aerosol (or calcium carbonate, aluminum or diamond dust) is released into the atmosphere creating particles reflecting sunlight back into space, therefore cooling the earth. One of the ideas is to send high-flying aircrafts to inject sulfate dioxide particles into the atmosphere.

There are a considerate growing number of parties interested and invested in deploying this technology for a variety of reasons.

Investors

*Photo 37710625 © Syda Productions | Dreamstime.com*

Billionaires, financial and technology institutions within Silicon Valley and Wall Street are funding and supporting the research and governance of geoengineering technology. They consist of a group of individuals and organisations with strong ties to corporate power.

According to Solar Geoengineering Non-Use Agreement, a group of seven organisations in the US have funded at least a couple of SG research projects in the last few years.

FICER is Bill Gates’ fund for geoengineering research, managed by Harvard Solar Geoengineering researchers David Keith and Ken Caldeira. Silver Lining is another firm funded by LowerCarbon Capital and First Round Capital with Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan executives on the board.

Billionaire and co-founder of Facebook, Dustin Moskovitz, and partners Cari Tuna and Holden Karnofsky, formerly Bridgewater Associates, also fund a geoengineering project by Open Philanthropy Project.

Additional players funding such projects include EDF, Environmental Defense Fund, which have partnerships with Citigroup, GE, McDonald’s Shell, Tyson and Walmart. Others include Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of General Motors, Pritzker Innovation Fund, founders of the Hyatt Hotels, and VK Rasmussen Foundation, founded by the Swedish inventor and businessman Villum Kann Rasmussen.

As the fossil fuel industry refuse to commit and scale down production worldwide and transition to renewables, denying and ignoring the negative impact they are causing to climate change and continue to do business as usual, governments, investors and researchers see an extraordinary opportunity to push for geoengineering technology to be deployed sooner rather than later.

The Good, the Bad, and the Very Ugly

*Photo 46018102 / Earth Fire © Ig0rzh | Dreamstime.com*

What are the advantages of SG?

According to a few scientific studies, this technology would result in an immediate cooling effect worldwide, with a possibility of reducing the rise of sea level, extreme weather and heat waves.

Additionally, other studies also suggest that SG would be a financially attractive solution to climate change. Obviously, cost efficiency is extremely appealing to governments and corporations.

The Aspen Institute Climate Policy Enters Four Dimensions paper by David Keith and John Deutch, suggests that the direct costs of implementing SG appear to be “quite small, with the global annualised costs perhaps under $20 billion per year well into the latter half of the century. By comparison, the damage-reduction benefits could be 100 times this amount”. SG is a fairly inexpensive technology and politically practical.

“Solar geoengineering is not necessary. Neither is it desirable, ethical, or politically governable. The normalisation of solar geoengineering as a research topic and as a speculative policy option must be stopped”, said Frank Biermann, professor of global sustainability governance, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University.

In January, a coalition of over 370 academics, 30 organisations in 54 countries, signed a letter in calling for an international non-use agreement on SG. They argue that this technology poses an unacceptable risk if deployed as a future climate policy option. Signatories include professor Frank Biemann, Utrecht University, professor Melissa Leach, CBE, FBA, Institute of Development Studies, amongst many others.

To some, the proposal of spraying the stratosphere with aerosols to block incoming sunlight in order to cool the planet is allegedly a frightening and dangerous idea. Besides, this technology, which has not yet proven to be successful, could discourage the urgent need to reduce green house gas emissions and put a pause to climate action.

Various concerning negative impacts from SG have been discussed within the scientific community, including the disruption of the climate system, affecting rain fall patterns and increasing droughts. Agriculture would be hit hard and the world would experience extreme famine.

Sulfates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems. The spraying of this chemical into the atmosphere forms very fine particles that can cause respiratory illness.

This technology is not entirely understood and not proven to be successful, as research is entirely based on modeling and not on external experiments.

Once SG is deployed, we may be locked into it forever, without a reverse gear. It’s called “termination shock”. Furthermore, once SG is stopped, the natural cycle will take over once again and we will see a rapid rise in temperatures, therefore we would see a disruption of every major system on earth, without time for adaptation and resulting in the destruction of ecosystems.

Who gets to decide on the climate?

Perhaps another frightening aspect of SG relates to geopolitical risks and issues around governance. A single or combination of powerful nations may “lead the pack” and decide to deploy this technology, which will impact and cause immediate and direct harm to other regions.

This technology may be used as a war tool and a form of weaponisation, causing inequality, ramping up disputes and conflicts across the globe. We already live in a political system that has no ability to make collective, serious and fair agreements.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy announced that they are coordinating a five-year research plan to SG technology. Their focus is to develop a cross-agency group to coordinate research on such climate interventions, in partnership with NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Energy.

“ You cannot judge what the country does on solar-radiation modification without looking at what it is doing in emission reductions, because the priority is emission reductions”, mentioned Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative.

“Solar-radiation modification will never be a solution to the climate crisis”, Pasztor added.

Political control over SG would affect and impact the poorest and most vulnerable countries. The poorer nations are extremely vulnerable to any changes in their environment and would be threatened the most by side effects that might result from the deployment of SG at a global scale.

We are working against the clock and can’t afford to make even bigger mistakes than we already have. We know what to do about climate change, and yet, the biggest polluters and fossil fuel giants refuse to accept the blame and make the necessary changes in order to reverse the effects of climate change.

For every crisis the world faces, window of opportunities unlock for the ones who have their eyes focused on power, control and profit. The hungry “visionaries”, a group comprising of politicians, capitalists, corporate power, billionaires and scientists, are trying to push for the deployment of an untested technology that my drive us into a steep dive towards a catastrophic and irreversible chaos.

Are we going to continue doing business as usual?

World’s Addiction to Brazilian Meat Feeding Deforestation and Destruction

Monica Piccinini

28 Oct 2022

How much are we willing to pay for our meat obsession?

As the world population continues to grow and predicted to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, meat consumption is on the increase. According to a study published by Science, between 90 to 99 percent of all deforestation in the tropics is driven directly or indirectly by agribusiness.

Livestock is the leading driver of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and a key factor of not just CO2 emissions, roughly 14.5% of all human-induced global GHG emissions, but also of methane.

According to IPAM, the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, cattle pastures occupy 75% of the deforested area on public lands in the Amazon. Deforestation of the Amazon and Cerrado are the main drivers of Brazil’s CO2 emissions.

“Squatting is a risk factor for the planet’s climate balance, and it also poses two problems for the livestock sector: illegality and more greenhouse gas emissions,” says IPAM senior researcher Paulo Moutinho.

“A truly low carbon economy in Brazil needs to undergo a comprehensive analysis of the impact of production chains on the worsening of the greenhouse effect. Leaving these emissions aside makes no sense when we have an ongoing climate emergency,” he warns.

A recent study conducted by WWF found that out of the 486 endangered species in the Amazon and Cerrado regions, 484 of them have lost part of their habitat as a result of deforestation.

It’s fair to say we shouldn’t point the finger at one single direction, when you realise that there’s a significant number of worldwide investors and supporters financing deforestation in the region. Complicity must be shared equally.

With that in mind, some fundamental and essential questions must be answered; as to who is to blame and what effective actions can we expect to be taken from world leaders, financiers, governments, corporations and the general public?

Meat Giants

*Photo: 196817068 © Alf Ribeiro | Dreamstime.com*

JBS, Marfrig and Minerva are Brazil’s largest meat processors and exporters, supplying food chains and supermarkets in Brazil and across the world.

JBS is the world’s largest meat (beef, pork, lamb and poultry) processing company in the world with the largest climate footprint. It has US$ 76 bi in revenues, employs over 250,000 people globally, and has over 70 brands and customers in 190 countries, including Swift, Pilgrim’s Pride, Moy Park, Certified Angus Beef, Gold Kist, Oak Crown, Moyer, Clear River Farms, Geo, and many more.

In 2021, the majority of the company’s revenues were made in the United States (51%), Asia (15%), Brazil (12%) and Europe (7%), and the majority of its exports in 2020 went to China (27.2%).

The company is associated with suppliers linked to deforestation, pollution, slave labour, fires, bribery, land grabbing and invasion of Indigenous peoples’ land, protected areas and reserves.

According to a Mighty Earth report, The Boys from Brazil, JBS, Marfrig and Minerva maintain that they can’t trace its cattle through its supply chain and eliminate cattle linked to deforestation areas.

JBS 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.

“In their emission disclosure and their net-zero target for 2040 JBS fails to take responsibility for an estimated 97% of its emissions footprint, by neglecting emissions from farms and feedlots that are not owned by JBS and emissions related to deforestation. The company plans to continue growth in a GHG emission-intensive industry; we did not find evidence of any planned deep decarbonisation measures”, was reported in the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2022 assessment (page 84).

“Rather than making noises about being transparent about their supply chains and emissions, why don’t JBS disclose their most recent data? It’s time for JBS to come clean about their global slaughter figures, so we can determine with pinpoint accuracy the scale of their climate footprint”, said Gemma Hoskins, UK director of Mighty Earth.

Fires in the Amazon and Cerrado regions are not naturally occurring events; they usually start intentionally, to clear the land for pasture, illegal logging and land grabbers or to grow animal feed. In September, Brazil’s National Space Research Agency, INPE, reported 41,282 fires in the Amazon rainforest, the highest number since 2010.

The Supporter’s Black List

There are a substantial large number of investors and supporters involved in financing, directly or indirectly, the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest and the Cerrado regions.

An investigation released in June by Global Witness revealed that one of JBS’s supplier, the Seronni dynasty, was allegedly involved in a series of human rights abuses, including the use of slave labour, deforestation, land grabbing and cattle laundering for over a decade. The Seronni’s wealth was gained at the expense of the Amazon deforestation, as well as the exploitation of slave labour.

Grupo Mastrotto, a large Italian producer of leather and upholstery to the clothing, footwear, automotive and boat industries, was also identified as an importer of JBS’s leather linked to the deforestation of the Amazon. Mastrotto supplies the Volkswagen Group, owner of Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Seat and Skoda. Other customers include Toyota and Ikea.

The meat industry wouldn’t be able to operate without the support of international finance. The UK, EU and US based-financiers continue to funnel billions to JBS, Marfrig and Minerva, including Barclays, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Dimensional Fund Advisors Group, Fidelity Management, HSBC, JP Morgan, BlackRock, Santander, Vanguard Group, and many more.

French bank, BNP Paribas, was given a formal notice by NGOs for financing Brazilian beef giant Marfrig, implicated in illegal deforestation, indigenous land rights violations and slave labour.

“Banks can no longer pretend they don’t know that their financing and investments fuel deforestation and climate chaos”, said Jérémie Suissa, director of the French organization Notre Affaire à Tous.

Trade data accessed by Global Witness also revealed that in 2020 alone, JBS exported beef products to 160 companies in Europe, 30% went to the UK.

Supermarkets in Europe, the US and the UK are responsible for selling products linked to the Amazon and Cerrado deforestation, including Aldi, Asda, Carrefour, Costco, Iceland, Morrisons, M&S, Tesco and Walmart, amongst others.

Food service companies are also accountable for selling branded and unbranded products sourced from deforested areas in the Amazon and Cerrado regions. They include Burger King, KFC, McDonald’s, Nando’s, Outback Steakhouse, Pizza Hut, Subway, Wendy’s and many more.

According to a damming report by Repórter Brasil, McDonald’s: The Footprint of a Giant, McDonald’s supply chain is exposed to several risks of violations related to Brazil’s rural reality. Deforestation, slave labour, violations of labour laws, and damage to traditional communities are part of the risks directly or indirectly linked to the network that supplies their restaurants.

A Final Appeal

*Photo 90934032 © Wanida Prapan | Dreamstime.com*

The reality is that we can’t continue doing business as usual and must take immediate action, as the consequences are far too great to our planet and the next generations, some of them already irreversible.

NGOs, researchers, scientists and specialists have proposed various recommendations and solutions to the problem, but the ones accountable for the deforestation and degradation of the Amazon rainforest and Cerrado regions constantly ignore them.

Some of the recommendations by various NGOs, including Mighty Earth and Global Witness outlined below:

• Governments should introduce legislation requiring businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate and report on deforestation and human rights risks, tackling the role of imported products driving deforestation globally.

• Investors, banks and financiers must divest from JBS, Marfrig and Minerva and its subsidiaries excluding them from their investment funds and bond portfolios.

• Supermarkets, retailers and food service companies must drop these companies as a meat supplier.

• The Brazilian government must divest all financing for these companies via BNDES development bank, must introduce enforceable rules against deforestation and introduce strict regulatory limits on mega and factory farm methane emissions.

• JBS, Marfrig and Minerva must disclose its direct and indirect emissions fully, including carbon dioxide and methane, and allow an independent third party to verify their company’s emissions claims.

Carlos Nobre, renowned Brazilian earth scientist, who spent the last four decades dedicated to research studying the Amazon rainforest and its impacts on the earth system and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner, has a message to the international community:

“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.”

A final message from Lucas Ferrante, Brazilian ecologist and researcher, who published several studies on the Amazon rainforest and Cerrado:

“Countries that import commodities from Brazil need to review their trade agreements, mainly for meat, soy, ores, biofuels and now oil and its derivatives that come from the Amazon. Brazilian agribusiness has become a threat to the Amazon, to traditional peoples and to the global climate.”

We are facing multiple challenges ahead of us, none of them simple to solve, requiring total transparency, good will and power to make the essential and effective changes that will create a positive meaningful impact on the future of our planet and humanity.

We can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to these issues, as the result of our inaction will profoundly impact the future of our children!

*Photo 69667961 © André Costa | Dreamstime.com*

BR-319: A Threat to the Survival of the Amazon Rainforest

Monica Piccinini

10 Oct 2022

Environmental and human rights violations may have been committed as a result of one of the Amazon rainforest most gigantic and ambitious infrastructure projects, the reconstruction of BR-319 highway, a stretch of 830 km, connecting the ‘arc of deforestation’ in the southern Amazon to the capital, Manaus.

There are many national and international supporters and financiers with hidden interests behind the reconstruction of this extensive highway project, including a Russian state-owned oil and gas company, a bioenergy company, ‘ruralistas’ (large land-holders and their representatives), illegal miners and loggers, investors, politicians, the government, and many more. Their motivation is driven by profit and power, no matter how much it costs.

The Amazon rainforest plays a key role in controlling both South America’s rainfall and global climate. In addition, the rainforest is home to a third of the world’s biodiversity and a wide variety of indigenous people.

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

According to Carlos Nobre, renowned earth system scientist, the Amazon rainforest, one of 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.

BR-319 connects Manaus, in central Amazon, to Porto Velho, in the “arc of deforestation”, on the southern edge of the forest. The highway is a free path to illegal side roads in areas of large concentration of indigenous land, legal reserves and conservation units, giving illegal miners, loggers, squatters and land grabbers access to untouched forest.

As a consequence, these invaders are bringing a wave of destruction, instability, pollution, violence, disease, decay and death to the communities and the environment around them.

The highway was inaugurated in March 1976, during the military dictatorship and under the government of General Ernesto Geisel, and abandoned in 1988. In 2015, Dilma Roussef’s (Labour party) government proposed reopening BR-319.

“BR-319 cuts through one of the most conserved blocks of the forest where it contains an enormous stock of carbon. This project is a threat to 63 indigenous lands and 18,000 indigenous people, not to mention the environment and biodiversity”, said ecologist and researcher, Lucas Ferrante, during our interview this month.

According to Ferrante, who took part of a study published at the Die Erde – Journal of the Geographic Society of Berlin, neither environmental studies nor consultation with indigenous peoples were carried out for some sections of the highway, as established by ILO Convention 169.

Ferrante published various academic studies independently and conjointly with Philip Martin Fearnside, a researcher at the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (Inpa) and Nobel Peace Prize winner (2007), on the impacts the BR-319 project will bring to the Amazon, the environment, indigenous communities and the world.

The reconstruction of BR-319 does not have an economic feasibility study (EVTEA). Independent studies show that for every R$1,00 spent on the highway, the ROI is only R$0,33, mentioned Ferrante.

The main transport route used has always been via the Madeira River, making it a cheaper and safer way to transport goods. In his view, the highway project would be a huge social, economic and ecological disaster.

A study published at the Environmental Conservation, indicates that Brazil could lose more than US$1 billion a year in agricultural production if deforestation in the Amazon region is not contained.

“We have already identified that the Amazon rainforest has passed its tolerated limit of deforestation. The flying rivers that supply the south and southeastern regions of Brazil are already compromised, including an area of the arc of deforestation, corroborating changes and climate events within the country, even affecting agribusiness”, said Ferrante.

According to Ferrante and various studies, one additional topic of great concern, as exploitation of indigenous lands increases, is the risk of new pandemics. The Amazon rainforest is considered a possible source of the next pandemic, as deforestation offers opportunities for disease agents from the region’s large reservoir of different types of coronavirus and various other pathogens to jump into the human population.

The Amazon interior has a precarious healthcare system, making the surge of a new pandemic originating in this region extremely difficult to identify and contain.

Supporters

Photo 120282222 © Arseniy Rogov | Dreamstime.com

A company with many interests in supporting the reconstruction of BR-319 is Russian state-owned Rosneft, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world.

Rosneft’s CEO, Igor Sechin, is considered to be the second most powerful man in Russia after Putin. In February 2022, just before Russia invaded Ukraine, Bolsonaro travelled to Russia to meet with Putin to discuss a possible energy partnership.

BR-319 highway gives access to AM-366, a planned state highway that passes through the first drilling blocks of “Solimoes Sedimentary Basin” project for oil and gas extraction, an area larger than the state of California. Rosfnet bought 16 blocks in this area.

This is a project of huge concern, as questions are raised about how much influence Rosneft may have on the government’s policies and decisions on the reconstruction of this highway, as well as the impact it may have on the local communities and the environment.

Millenium Bioenergia is another strong supporter of BR-319 reconstruction project. A bioenergy company formed in 2014 by mill owners from São Paulo and grain producers from the Midwest, the company’s initial focus was the production of biofuels. However, the company decided to partner with the indigenous communities to produce corn, chicken, fish and pigs in a confined system. This is the perfect recipe to trigger new pandemics as a result of zoonotic leaps due to environmental degradation.

In the states of Amazonas and Roraima, their goal is to produce biofuels from monocultures in indigenous lands and other communities. According to their plan, indigenous people and communities would carry out these activities with unpaid work or, as one would openly describe it, slave labour. These products would then be exported to Asia, Europe and the United States.

According to a study published by Springer, Millenium has not honoured its obligation to carry out environmental studies that are legally required for the installation of an industry. Instead, they have proposed the building of a hospital for the indigenous people as a form of compensation.

The government’s ‘death agenda’ includes abolishing the legal reserves and opening conservation units and indigenous lands to mining, agriculture and ranching.

Jair Bolsonaro’s government, with the full support of ‘ruralistas’, has intentionally weakened the country’s environmental agencies and forest code, also denying the existence of climate change.

They have reduced protected areas, cut government funds for environmental protection, weakened the systems for monitoring and combating environmental crimes, approved 1682 new pesticides, leaving an open door to pollution, deforestation, violence, crime and devastation across the region and communities in the Amazon and the rest of the country.

Politicians in Manaus and across the country claim that BR-319 would be a “model of sustainability for the world”, but indications and studies carried out so far suggest otherwise. They follow the same rhetoric, stating the highway is a symbol of progress and sovereignty, and that the Amazon rainforest belongs to Brazil, no foreign interference should be allowed.

Violence & Crime

Photo 245527759 / Amazon Indian Brazil © J Brarymi | Dreamstime.com

BR-319 has brought crime and violence to this region by illegal miners, loggers, squatters and land grabbers, threatening to kill anyone who refuses to comply with their rules.

According to Ferrante, the highway also attracted criminal gangs and organised crime to the area, with the full participation of high scale politicians.

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.

Bolsonaro’s gun law, the CAC (Collectors, Snipers and Hunters) license, allows Brazilians to purchase a wide variety of guns if they have no criminal record, are registered with a shooting club, and can demonstrate proficiency with a firearm.

The loosening of firearms restrictions law is creating new mechanisms for criminal groups to purchase weapons legally, consequently increasing violence in the Amazon and Brazil.

Another issue of concern is the maintenance of clandestine airstrips, mainly for mining and also serving organised crime.

According to information obtained by The Intercept, the Pulitzer Center and Earthrise Media, there are 362 clandestine airstrips, without registration with Anac, the National Aviation Agency, in the Legal Amazon. But this number almost triples, if you consider the runways open without authorisation and registration, amounting to at least 1,269 landing and takeoff lanes.

Indigenous and traditional communities are also victims of constant violent verbal and physical threats, sometimes ending in fatalities, but they are not the only ones.

Ferrante, a scientist who has spent many years exposing the situation in the region by publishing his studies in academic journals, was faced with various threats and violence against his own life.

He received countless death threats by anonymous calls and text. A “fake” Uber driver told Ferrante he should keep quiet because he was interfering in national security matters. Chemicals thrown into his home’s water system also poisoned him. Ferrante was terrified and withdrawn, unable to go out for a few months.

There is not doubt the BR-319 reconstruction project will impact local traditional and indigenous communities, as well as the environment, biodiversity and climate change, with very serious consequences to Brazil the rest of the world.

National and International Players

Photo 12998338 © Alain Lacroix | Dreamstime.com

Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of beef and soy, which are the two commodities responsible for 90% the Amazon rainforest deforestation. Research shows that 70% of the chopped down Amazon is populated by cattle.

It’s essential to understand that the reconstruction of BR-319 highway has a national as well as an international long list of powerful supporters defending their own interests.

Agribusiness Watch report reveals that international banks and funds are financing Brazil’s agribusiness lobby in the country, including JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock, and Bank of America, each having invested US$1 billion in livestock. American International Group, AIG and Citigroup are also provider of funds to Brazilian agribusiness companies.

European investors include Allianz and Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Standard Chartered, BBVA, Santander, BNP Paribas, ABN-Amro and Rabobank, among others, have invested $4.5 billion in IPA companies, part of Instituto Pensar Agro, supporting FPA (Agricultural Parliamentary Front) and responsible for a package of anti-environmental measures being considered in the Brazilian Congress.

The report also lists various companies, including JBS, Suzano, Marfrig, ADM and Cargill that use their influence in Brazilian politics against the interests of environmental policies and indigenous groups.

Brazilian banks financing the agribusiness sector include BTG Pactual, Safra, Verde Asset Management, Vinci Partners, and XP Investimentos, maintaining bonds estimated at US$ 9.3 billion.

According to De Olho nos Ruralistas, in 2019, Agribusiness Watch revealed some of the multinationals that were affiliated by associations that maintain the IPA (Instituto Pensar Agro): Bayer, Basf and Syngenta, Cargill, Bunge, ADM and Louis Dreyfus; JBS, Marfrig, Nestlé and Danone.

During Bolsonaro’s administration, agribusiness companies met 278 times with government officials of MAPA, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. Part of the agenda was the relaxation of rules for pesticides.

There’s no doubt that the reconstruction of BR-319 will benefit most of the above mentioned players, who continuously support and invest in the agribusiness sector in Brazil, including banks, agrochemical companies, governments, politicians and corporations, in Brazil and abroad.

The same can’t be said about the environment, climate change, local traditional and indigenous communities and the entire world population, who will pay a hefty price for these callous actions.

The Road Ahead

Photo 179525881
© Mariusz Prusaczyk | Dreamstime.com

This is a decisive political moment for Brazil and the world, as the second term of the presidential elections draws to a close at the end of October and Brazilians will be choosing their next president, Jair Bolsonaro or Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula), both battling for the pole position.

Ferrante mentioned what may happen if Lula is elected Brazil’s next president:

“I was present during Lula’s statement during his visit to Manaus in September 2022, when he mentioned that he will choose three major infrastructure projects for each state in Brazil, mainly roads, which means the BR-319 highway project may be on the top of his list. He explicitly said that he isn’t against the highway, but the environmental rites and the consultation of indigenous peoples must be followed”,

“The BR-319 highway project is at a very advanced stage. We urgently need the suspension of the maintenance license, pending appropriate studies and consultations with indigenous peoples. It is necessary to create a task force to supervise the actions of INCRA, the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform and the Ministry of the Economy, as they continuously try to legalise these lands”, added Ferrante.

When asked about the message he has to the international community, Ferrante replied:

“Countries that import commodities from Brazil need to review their trade agreements, mainly for meat, soy, ores, biofuels and now oil and its derivatives that come from the Amazon, extracted by Rosfnet. Brazilian agribusiness has become a threat to the Amazon, to traditional peoples and to the global climate”,

He added:

“All countries in the world need to turn their eyes to what is happening in the Amazon now, especially on the BR-319 highway. This is a matter for the world to discuss because the consequences of this highway are global, including new pandemic outbreaks and accelerating climate change that is already causing waves of heat leading to mortality in Europe. The environmental damage caused here exceeds the borders of Brazil and should be monitored by the whole world”.

Photo 106303117 / Amazon Rainforest Indigenous © Vkilikov | Dreamstime.com

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.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: