Category: Climate

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

Monica Piccinini

13 June 2022

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

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

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

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

Arc of Deforestation


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

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

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

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

Amazônia 4.0 Project – The Solution

Amazônia 4.0 is an institute that has several goals:

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

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

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

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

Nobre illustrated how sustainable and profitable this industry can be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regeneration – The Reforestation Belt


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

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

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

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

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

Challenges & Divestments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Message to the International Community


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

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

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

Nobre also sends a strong message to developed countries:

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

Seeds of Hope for the Global Food Systems and Biodiversity Crises

Monica Piccinini

31 May 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agroecology & Biocontrols VS Industrial Agriculture & Pesticides


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biocontrol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beef Obsession and the Rampant Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest

Monica Piccinini

13 May 2022

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

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

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

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

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

Who’s the culprit?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: IATP 2022*Million Metric Tonnes CO2 equivalent

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

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

Source: Greenpeace

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

The biggest consumers

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

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

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

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

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

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

JBS and the UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: IATP 2022*Million Metric Tonnes CO2 equivalent

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

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

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

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

Monica Piccinini

28 Apr 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brazil, Soya and Pesticides

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

London’s Alarming ‘Cocktail’ of Toxic Pesticides

Monica Piccinini

5 Apr 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hidden Hazard in UK Diet a Threat to Your Health

Monica Piccinini

30 Mar 2022

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Are pesticides eliminated after peeling and washing fruit and vegetables?

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

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

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

The ‘Dirty Dozen’

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK trade deals


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toxic Side Effects of a UK-Brazil Free Trade Agreement

Monica Piccinini

23 Feb 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chemical Explosion in Brazil

Monica Piccinini

2 Nov 2021

Pesticides are silent, invisible and ruthless killers. They are chemicals that can have a long lasting and tragic effect on one’s life as well as creating irreversible consequences to our precious environment.

These chemicals are sold in large amounts at huge profit by the callous agrochemical industry, without extensive, thorough, transparent and independent investigations.

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

Recently, the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) announced they will end the use of chlorpyrifos, a broad-spectrum chlorinated organophosphate, as it’s associated with neurodevelopmental problems and impaired brain function in children. Some countries continue to use this toxic chemical, including Brazil.

Brazil has been the country with the highest consumption of pesticides since 2008. In 2020 alone, the agrochemical industry’s turnover was over US$ 12.1 billion. The area treated with pesticides increased 6.9% in 2020, compared to the previous year, to an area of 1.6 billion hectares. A staggering 1.05 million tons of pesticides were applied in the country in 2020.

Fossil fuels and green house gases are great contributors to climate change, but Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHP’s), which affect the health of large parts of the population and our environment, have gone largely unrecognised.

Agrochemical organisations across the world, along with the agribusiness industry are making substantial profits at the expense of people’s lives and health, as well as contributing to damage to wildlife, water contamination, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

Bayer, BASF, Syngenta, Corteva and FMC, members of Croplife International lobby group, are the world’s five largest agrochemical companies. 

Jair Bolsonaro’s Poisonous Package

The Pesticides Law in Brazil established in 1989, was defined as:

“The products and agents of physical, chemical or biological processes, intended for use in the sectors of production, storage, and processing of agricultural products, in pastures, in the protection of forests, native or implanted, and of other ecosystems as well as urban environments, hydrological and industrial, whose purpose is to change the composition of flora or fauna, to preserve them from the harmful action of living beings considered deleterious; and substances and products, used as defoliants, desiccants, stimulators and growth inhibitors”.

Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, has recently incorporated a Presidential Decree 10.833/2021, amending the 1989 pesticides law, by making the approval process of pesticides even more flexible, including the approval of chemicals that have already been banned in the US and Europe.

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

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

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

There are currently a whopping 3,477 pesticides on the Brazilian market, 40% of all chemicals were approved in the last 3 years, all under Bolsonaro’s government. In 2020 alone, 494 products were authorised, totaling 997 new products in just two years.

According to a recent joint report by IPEN (International Pollutants Elimination Network) and ABRASCO (Brazilian Association of Collective Health), 53% of pesticides licensed in Brazil between 2019 and 2020 were manufactured in China, 22.1% in Brazil, 9.4% in India, 4.5% in the United States and 3% in Israel.

Another worrying issue is the number of illegal pesticides smuggled in from China. According to a study carried out by FIESP (The Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo), at least 25% of the pesticides in Brazil are illegal, smuggled through Paraguay with Chinese origin.

In January 2021, the Department of Border Operations (DOF/PM) apprehended 3.5 tons of smuggled pesticides in Maracaju, MS. The cargo was valued at approximately USD 1.2 million, according to Campo Grande News.

“The smuggling of pesticides is growing in the country at the rate that Brazilian agriculture grows… This smuggling has become a major concern as it is no longer a small market, but a large economy controlled by specialized gangs,” director of Brazil’s Institute for the Economic and Social Development of Borders (Instituto de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social de Fronteiras – IDESF) Luciano Stremel Barros, told the Brazilian Senate in September 2019.

Accidental Poisoning, Suicide, Violence and Deaths

Highly toxic chemicals that have already been banned in many countries, including in the European Union, are still being used in Brazil. Many of these products are used as a suicide and violence tool.

Aldicarb, a carbamate insecticide and an illegal rat poison, popularly known as “chumbinho”, is one of the chemicals used not only for suicides, but also for the practice of aggression.

My auntie, a farmer, committed suicide by swallowing “chumbinho” a few years ago. By the time she was found and showing regret about her decision, it was already too late, as she met a horrible and painful death. This is not an isolated case in Brazil, and it affects the most vulnerable.

In May this year, 60 rural workers were rushed to hospital with symptoms of pesticide poisoning in the metropolitan are of Goiânia, after a plane sprayed pesticides over the fields where they worked. Most reported headaches, vomiting, dizziness and some passed out.

In 2018, 475 pesticide poisonings were reported in the State of Goiás alone. In 2019, the number rose to 516. 18% of all poisoning were caused by glyphosate. It was also reported 99 attempts of suicide with pesticides.

The number of accidents and poisonings is far worse than reported. Workers are usually reluctant to report their cases to companies or to the Brazilian Social Security Institute (INSS). Many are afraid to denounce the companies or seek justice, as it risks their employment credentials in the future. Others take the word of campaigns aimed at convincing workers that pesticides are not dangerous and that their symptoms are instead caused by stress and tiredness.

For workers without a formal contract, the situation is even worse. “When intoxication occurs, the company sends the employee home with no rights or anything. The INSS cannot make the payment of sickness benefits because there is no proof of employment,” explained Gabriel Bezerra, president of the National Confederation of Human Responsible and Rural Employees.

Toxic Substances

According to the World Health Organisation and the FAO, HHP’s are described as “pesticides that are acknowledged to present particularly high levels of acute or chronic hazards to health or the environment according to internationally accepted classification systems”.

The forms of exposure to pesticides can vary, through inhalation, dermal or oral contact, via spraying, contaminated food and water and also via a worker’s clothing. The main health effects are acute, when they appear fast, or chronic, when they appear after repeated exposure to small amounts over a long period.

Symptoms from pesticides exposure can range from mild sickness, such as skin irritation, burning, allergies, cough, chest pain, respiratory problems, mental confusion, depression, nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, diarrohea, to extreme ones, such as, endocrine disruption, congenital malformations, neuro developmental problems, Parkinson’s disease, cancer and death.

Additionally, the intensive use of pesticides influences the immunological system and industrialised food production promotes obesity and the vulnerability to COVID-19.

Glyphosate is no doubt one of the most popular pesticides in Brazil, representing 62% of the total herbicides used in the country. Glyphosate is the key ingredient in the Roundup herbicide and was first patented by Monsanto in 1974. Bayer acquired Monsanto for USD 63 billion in 2018.

According to a survey by Princeton, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) and Insper (Insper Learning Institute), the spread of glyphosate in soybean crops led to a 5% increase in the infant mortality in South and Midwest Brazil that receive water from soy growing regions. This represents a total of 503 additional child deaths every year associated with the use of glyphosate in soybean farming.

“It is absolutely clear that glyphosate can cause cancers in experimental animals”, affirmed former Director of the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Chris Portier, who worked on the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer review of glyphosate. “And the human evidence for an association between glyphosate and cancer is also there, predominantly for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma”.

In the US, Bayer has been fighting billion of dollars in settlements to end lawsuits over accusations that glyphosate causes cancer.

Mexico has made the decision to ban glyphosate, which will take effect in 2024.

The list of active ingredients consumed in Brazil with the authorisation of ANVISA is alarmingly extensive, including acefate, chlorpyrifos, atrazine, 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), diazinon, metomyl, amongst many others.

Chlorpyrifos (CPF) is also a broad-spectrum chlorinated organophosphate (OP) used in crops, vegetables, fruits, as well as households. Exposure to this chemical during pregnancy or childhood has been linked with lower birth weight and neurological changes, such as cognitive and behavioural performance.

The toxicity of CPF has also been associated with neurological disfunctions, endocrine disruption, cardiovascular diseases. It can also induce developmental and behavioural anomalies, genotoxicity, oxidative stress and hematological malignancies, as evidence by animal modeling.

CPF has been banned for use in the EU.

Atrazine has innumerous adverse effects on health, such as increased risk of miscarriage, reduced male fertility, tumours, ovarian, breast, prostate and uterine cancers, leukemia and lymphoma. It’s an endocrine disrupting chemical, causing havoc to one’s regular hormone function, causing birth defects and reproductive tumours.

A group of scientists, including Tyrone Hayes found that 10% of male frogs reared in atrazine water turned into females.

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid is a widely used agricultural weed-killer and endocrine disruptor shown to have links to cancer, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. It was first marketed in 1945 and one of the main ingredients in the Agent Orange, used to destroy forests during the Vietnam war.

Acute symptoms of exposure to 2,4-D include coughing, burning, loss of muscle coordination, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, nervous damage, fatigue, coma and death. Additionally, poor semen quality has been associated with exposure to the chemical.

Acefate is an organophosphate (OP) insecticide used on food crops, as well as a seed treatment. People can be exposed by breathing or on their skin. Acefate has been associated with TGCT, testicular germ cell cancer, particularly strong amongst Latinos, according to a study by the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

Brazilians are not the only ones being poisoned by toxic chemicals, in fact, you and your family could be consuming these toxic substances unknowingly, via products being imported into your country.

It has been reported that Germans are already consuming products containing pesticides that have already been banned in the European Union.

At the request of Greenpeace, tests were carried out at 70 Brazilian fruits sold in German cities by an independent German laboratory. 11 substances that have already been banned in the EU have been detected, totaling 35 different pesticides found in mangos, lemons, papaya and figs, 21 of those were considered Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHP’s).

In order to stop the world being poisoned by chemicals that affect our health and our environment, a tougher international regulatory system needs to be implemented, including proper thorough, independent and transparent assessments of such toxic substances.

It’s time for the greedy agrochemical industry and our governments to put our health and the health of our planet above their rapacious profit, once and for all!

COP26: another Cop Out?

Monica Piccinini

21 Oct 2021

The climate scientists drum beat of concerning data continues with an increased rhythm and it is becoming clear to all but the global leaders that we are running out of time for material action.

As COP26 approaches, national leaders across the world should be galvanising and both individually and collectively evidencing real action to deliver on prior promises and commitments. Sadly, what might be expected appears to be far from the real situation.

It is very apparent that climate change can’t be addressed by a small number of nations. Global pollution and its effects have no respect for man-made sovereign borders. Possibly, for the first time in history, the world needs to truly work together for the greater good and ultimate survival. 

It’s complicated. The world needs full cooperation and commitment from the biggest polluters and the richest and most powerful nations, leaving their greed, egos and empty promises behind. In the short term, it’s those same countries that have the most to lose and need to spend the most in an altruistic manner.

It’s no coincidence that the largest economies have established themselves as powerhouses at the expense of the climate. Much of their industry depends on carbon fuels to function and importantly their infrastructure is from a time when carbon fuels were seen as the future.

So with that background and political short-termism combined, it’s no surprise that the question of climate and sustainability becomes deeply mired in protectionism, nationalism and global politics.

Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, China’s Xi Jiping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Mexico’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador are not expected to attend COP26. Japan’s Fumio Kishida may also be absent from the Summit, which is about to start in Glasglow, Scotland, at the end of this month.

According to an analysis by Carbon Brief on CO2 emissions from land use and forestry, as well as those from fossil fuels, it showed the US as the largest CO2 emitter in history, accounting to 20% of the global total, followed by China with 11%. In third place came Russia (7%), Brazil (5%) and Indonesia (4%).

There is a real sense of urgency, as the world has already used 85% of the CO2 budget that would give a 50% chance of limiting heating to 1.5C, according to Carbon Brief’s data.

According to the OECD, CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass accounts for about 90% of total CO2 emissions and two thirds of total GHG emissions.

The top most powerful nations in the world, China and the US, are the top polluters, followed by India, Russia and Japan. China produces 28% of global emissions, more CO2 than all nations put together.

Will geopolitical competition between China and the US help the world tackle climate change?

China and the US should be leaving their differences aside and be focusing on setting up plans in order to tackle one of, if not the most challenging projects of our time, climate change.

The recent defense deal, the Aukus trilateral security partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, added to existing regional military tensions has not helped to soothe relations between the US and China, creating a stand-off which has the potential to evolve into a new cold war.

Additionally, issues like trade, the South China Sea, human rights, the threat of Chinese invasion in Taiwan and intellectual property theft, have contributed to more tensions and disagreement between both nations. This may impact heavily on their commitment to climate change.

President Xi Jinping has pledged to cut down emissions by 2030 and become carbon neutral by 2060, given its economic development is highly reliant on the fossil fuel industry.

More than half of all power in China is generated from coal, using 3 billion tonnes of thermal coal each year. Coal is the biggest contributor to climate change, accounting to 46% of carbon dioxide emissions across the world.

Coal is not the only concern. China produced around one billion tonnes of steel last year, which is the second most polluting industry after coal.

We can easily notice a pattern here. Chinese demand for coal is expected to increase until 2026, therefore increasing carbon emissions until 2030, contradicting the country’s emission goals. Chinese banks and corporations continue to finance and build coal-fired power plants across many countries.

Supply and demand – is it all China’s fault?

Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free-market reforms in 1979, China has become one of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

The world has actively supported China becoming its industrial heartland. Built upon cheap labour, available raw materials and a welcoming government policy, a huge percentage of commodity product manufacturing has moved to China from other historic manufacturing nations, including the US, the UK, the EU, and other nations.  Servicing the demand has created pressure to build manufacturing infrastructure at the lowest cost possible, and that leads to low tech solutions like carbon based energy production.

It’s no surprise that China has rapidly become one of the biggest global polluters. Other nations have essentially pushed into China their polluting industries.

The denialistic approach

The Production Gap report released by the UN, states that governments across the world still plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 and that the majority of gas and oil producers plan on increasing production beyond 2030. 

G20 countries have directed nearly USD 300 billion in new funds towards fossil fuel activities since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic — more than they have toward clean energy, which contradicts entirely to the message they have been giving us all along.

According to a leak of tens of thousands of comments by governments, corporations, academics and others on the draft report of the IPCC’s ‘Working Group III’, recently published by Unearthed, fossil fuel producers including Australia, Saudi Arabia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), are lobbying the IPCC – the world’s leading authority on climate change – to remove or weaken a key conclusion that the world needs to rapidly phase out fossil fuels.

These scandalous and irresponsible actions go on. Australia asks the IPCC to delete analysis explaining how lobbying by fossil fuel companies has weakened action on climate change in Australia and the US. Saudi Arabia repeatedly seeks to have the report’s authors delete references to the need to phase out fossil fuels.

Brazil and Argentina, two of the world’s biggest producers of beef and animal feed crops like soya beans, have also been pressing the IPCC to water down and delete messages about the climate benefits of promoting ‘plant-based’ diets and of curbing meat and dairy consumption. 

There is no slowing down. According to the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030, global GHG emissions from agriculture are projected to increase by 4% over the next ten years, with livestock accounting for more than 80% of this increase.

Meat production requires significant use of resources such as land, feed and water and is also a great contributor to climate change. By 2030, 34% of the agricultural production in Latin American and the Caribbean, is projected to be exported.

Brazil, the US and Europe are the three largest meat exporting countries. China is the world’s largest meat importer. According to the Brazilian Meat Exporting Industry Association, between January and July this year, shipments of beef from Brazil to China reached 490,000 tons and generated sales of US$2.5bn, an increase of 8.6 per cent and 13.8 per cent, respectively, compared with the same period last year.

In China, per capita beef consumption is projected to rise a further 8% by 2030, after having risen 35% in the last decade.

Brazil has been the main destination for Chinese investments in South America, having received US$ 66.1 billion, equivalent to 47% of the total invested, in the last decade until 2020.

Between 2007 and 2020, Chinese companies made large investments in Brazil, mainly in the electricity sector, which attracted 48% of the total value, followed by oil extraction, with a 28% share, and mining, with 7%. 

A recently published report, The Lancet Countdown, mentioned that over a 6- month period in 2020, over 51 million people were affected by at least 84 disasters from storms, droughts and floods across the world.

The fact is that there is no going around the subject of climate change. Unless the situation we put ourselves is taken seriously and faced head on with immediate action, all of humanity faces a tragic future, or no future at all.  None of the world leaders, who continuously deny the situation, will be here to tell the story.

Nature has already shown its clear message to the world with extreme weather events like floods, wild fires, volcano eruptions, death and horrific devastation across the world, including in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, across Europe, India, Russia and the US. Turning a blind eye to these events and the certainty of a much worse scenario shows total irresponsibility and disregard to life, to each one of us, as well as to every single living being on this planet.

The world is calling for global leadership on a scale never seen before, at the very time when nations are sadly turning inwardly and political factions are more concerned with domestic rivalry and individual gains.