Category: Food

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

Hidden Hazard in UK Diet a Threat to Your Health

Monica Piccinini

30 Mar 2022

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Are pesticides eliminated after peeling and washing fruit and vegetables?

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

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

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

The ‘Dirty Dozen’

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK trade deals


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monica Piccinini

15 Mar 2022

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toxic Side Effects of a UK-Brazil Free Trade Agreement

Monica Piccinini

23 Feb 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nanotechnology: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Monica Piccinini

21 Jan 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research & More Knowledge Required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Possible Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nanotech in Food & Cosmetics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

Do We Fully Understand the Implications of GMOs?

Monica Piccinini

16 Sept 2021

The subject of genetically modified foods has been debated for many years. In fact, genetically modified produce is freely available in a number of developed countries. The benefits as well as the negative side-effects have polarised opinion in the scientific world, advanced economies and amongst health conscious populations.

Technological advances in key areas of science are now lifting the debate to new concerning levels.

“GMOs appear the focus of a stunning program: to privatize biology itself, turning sovereign soils and the very act of farming, as much as its produce, into commodities”, wrote Rob Wallace in his book “Big Farms Make Big Flu”.

GMOs (genetic modified organisms) describe foods that have been created through genetic engineering. Scientists identify what trait they want a plant, animal or microorganism to have (such as resistance to pesticides, herbicides or insects), they then copy it and insert the gene into the DNA of the plant, animal or microorganism.

In 1866, Gregor Mendel, an Austrian monk, was able to breed two types of peas, identifying the basic process of genetics. In 1922, the first hybrid corn was produced and sold commercially. In 1994, the first genetically modified produce created through genetic engineering becomes available for sale, a genetically modified tomato.

Since then, science has been advancing and progressing rapidly, as we enter a new phase of genetic engineering. NBT’s (new breeding techniques) such as CRISPR and RdDM, as well as synthetic biology, allow more complex changes to the genetic makeup.

What seems like incredible biological acts of ‘science fiction’ are still very early in their development. Moving too fast in order to commercialise these technologies will undoubtedly see the negative side effects with unintended consequences.

CRISPR cuts the cell’s DNA at a particular site. Like a wound, the cell attempts to heal itself by resealing its break using DNA repair mechanisms. This process can be faulty and not always works perfectly, causing unforeseen problems with unexpected results (new DNA).

In the 1960’s plant scientists in the U.S. bred a new potato variety that was ideal for making into crisps but also contained dangerously high levels of natural toxins. The potato had to be withdrawn from the market in 1970.

There is large concern over GMOs across the world with the sense that gene editing could give rise to dangerous mutations or crops that could be patented by large agribusiness corporations trying to monopolise staple crops.

There are also other factors involved, such as the creation of plants, animals and microorganisms we have not seen before, and by doing so, the impact it may have on our health, the environment as well as evolutionary patterns. Potential risks and biosafety concerns are associated with it. Little is known about the long-term effects and safety associated with GMOs.

According to GMWatch, a number of disadvantages of GMOs foods to humans and the environment have been listed, including allergic reaction by allowing a certain allergen present in the GM crop to enter the body and stimulate an immune response.

Toxicity is also in question. GM foods may increase the production of toxins at levels harmful to humans, as toxins are produced when there is damage in the “gene of interest” during the insertion process. Another concern is reduced nutritional value of GMOs. By making a plant more resistant to pests, the antioxidant phytochemicals are reduced. 

Toxins may also be released into the soil causing environmental damage.  An example of this is soil bacterium, bacillus thuringensis, present in larval caterpillars, which has a gene that produces certain toxins that destroys insects as well as pests. This gene is inserted into the corn to make it resistant to pests, resulting in the release of toxins into the soil, therefore turning the soil less fertile.

In addition to this, there is also the danger of resistance of pests to toxins, antibiotic resistance, genetic hazards, flow of genetic information, generation of super-weeds, and disruption to biodiversity by interfering the natural process of gene flow.

The United States, Canada, Brazil, India and Argentina have been growing GMO products made from modified soya beans and corn for many years. The majority of U.S. corn, canola, soy, cotton and sugar beets crops are GMOs.

“Let’s start now to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules, and let’s develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world”, said Boris Johnson in his first speech as UK’s prime minister.

Michael Antoniou, professor of molecular genetics at King’s College London, mentioned that the answer is to change our food delivery systems in the direction of “agroecology” by reducing the use of synthetic ferlitisers, pesticides and herbicides, and planting a diverse range of plant strains, to build resistance into the system. At the very least, any crops produced by using genetic editing must be labeled as such.

Liz O’Neill, director of GM Freeze, argues that genetic engineering should undergo strict regulation. She said:

“If this group of genetic engineering techniques escape classification as GM, they could be completely unregulated. The crops they produce could find their way into our fields and on to our plates without environmental or food safety risk assessments. They would not be traceable and, without labeling, consumers would have no way to identify and avoid them should they wish to do so”.

Since the UK left the EU, it has the power to authorise new GMOs. Brexit legislation gave Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) more power to amend existing GMO laws without going to Parliament.

“Gene editing is a sticking plaster, diverting vital investment and attention from farmer-driven action and research which could be yielding results, right now”, said Gareth Morgan, SA’s (Soil Association) head of farming and land use policy.

“Consumers and farmers who do not want to eat or grow genetically modified crops or animals need to be offered adequate protection from this. The focus needs to be on how to restore exhausted soils, improve diversity in cropping, integrate livestock into rotations and reduced the dependence on synthetic nitrogen and pesticides”, added Morgan.

Recently, GMWatch reported that a U.S. based fake meat maker, Impossible Foods, that uses genetically engineered ingredients, have gone past regulators, mainly in the U.S. and Canada, and are looking into expanding its products into the New Zealand and Australian markets.

Impossible Foods adds GM soy leghemoglobin (SLH), 0.8% and not labeled, in order to make its product look and feel as if it’s bleeding, just like real meat. The issue is that SLH does not have a history of safe use in food.

A rat feeding study that Impossible Foods commissioned on SLH showed worrying effects in the rats, including signs of inflammation, decreased blood clotting ability, changes in blood chemistry, kidney disease and possible signs of anemia.

Would you swop a vegetable burger that tastes of vegetables to a burger that tastes and bleeds like real meat but has been genetically modified with SLH, a product that has not been tested extensively? Are we going too far and too fast without calculated risks? What is the limit to greedy corporations?

Reported by GMWatch this month, five hundred tons of unauthorized GMO rice flour that had been illegally imported by India and sold in the European Union had to be recalled, but authorities could not guarantee that all products would be removed from the market. These batches of white rice were imported into Europe, transformed into rice flour, and sold on the market as an ingredient, including chocolate sweets from the Mars company.

Do we have the assurances and guarantee that genetic engineering will not be responsible for the creation of new disease organisms with no natural resistance and no available cure? Do we have the confidence that these “novel foods” will not harm our environment and our health? Will our scientists, world leaders and corporations assure the world GMOs are 100% safe?

Many questions are yet to be answered. Discussion and debate over the benefits and risks of genetic engineering as well as the ethical questions raised by this technology is essential. We must ask for total transparency and full participation in the decision making process. There is too much at stake, as this may lead us to a path of no return.

Climate Change – Inaction May Prove Fatal to Humanity

Monica Piccinini

22 Aug 2021

Humanity has been in denial for decades, avoiding the truth about the implications of its complex relationship with nature. A toxic, turbulent and abusive liaison based on constant exploitation. Eventually, a break up is imminent!

As human population numbers have grown and with it consumption, we have seen the correlated demand in areas of food, living space as well as demand for luxury items created by commerce. At the heart, there is a very basic human desire for ‘more’.  Populations across the world are now interconnected in a way few would imagine, therefore creating an environmental impact most choose to conveniently ignore. 

An individual in the Western Northern Hemisphere seeking a never ending supply of fresh exotic vegetables, fruit and meat from half way around the globe at an ever decreasing price. For all those products to be on the consumer’s plate, it will have passed through an incredibly efficient, yet troublesome system.

From high production farming techniques driving the destruction of natural flora, fauna and land exploitation, to the use of pesticides, distribution from one country to another by lorries, planes and ships with huge carbon footprints, all managed by profit oriented distribution companies operating on a global scale.  The simple desire of a consumer wanting more products at bargain costs has created a significant ecological footprint with dramatic consequences. 

The interconnections between our global systems and social fabrics are very sensitive and easily interrupted. The world has had a taste of such disruption with the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the even bigger issues of climate change and biodiversity loss are upon us and we can’t afford to turn a blind eye to, nor try to separate them, as they are all interconnected.

The reality is that the pace of destruction is faster than we had ever predicted. Unless we address the critical situation we have created, and put our house in order, we may be homeless and face a grim future.

“2021 must be the year to reconcile humanity with nature”, said António Guterres, the UN secretary general, in an address to the One Planet Summit of global leaders in Paris last January.

We have seen how much the emergence of a pandemic can cost us and how quickly it can affect businesses, the global economy, and our physical and mental health. Climate change is one of the primary drivers of biodiversity loss, which is a key driver of emerging infectious diseases. Investing in ecological measures that can help future pandemics is much lower than the cost of a pandemic.

One-fifth of the world’s countries are at risk of their natural ecosystems collapsing because of the destruction of their habitats and wildlife, according to Swiss Re. Food, air, clean water, and flood protection have already been damaged by human activity.

According to the OECD, the total economic value to society of biodiversity and ecosystem services is estimated to be as much as USD 140 trillion per year and over half of the world’s GDP (USD 44 trillion) is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services.

The recently released 2021 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, IPCC, is a stark warning that humanity will not be able to limit global warming, unless we take rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The top major green house gas emitters in the world are China, United States, India and Russia. China, Brazil, Australia and Russia’s current energy policies will prompt to an astonishing 5C temperature rise.

At 1.5C of global warming, we will see significant and unprecedented changes to the weather across all regions, but at 2C of global warming, the results could be catastrophic and irreversible, with heat extremes, heavy precipitation, marine heat waves, reductions in Arctic sea ice, snow cover and permafrost, agricultural and ecological droughts.  

We have already seen the impact of climate change across the globe with fires, floods, draughts, hurricanes, etc. In Brazil, the worst drought in nearly a century, followed by extreme cold temperatures, has been reported, affecting heavily Brazil’s farming. Deforestation is considered as one of the main causes.  

As world population is predicted to increase to 9.7 billion by 2050, food demand will intensify, putting pressure on the land. We have already exploited more than a third of the world’s land area to crop and livestock production, affecting the lives of thousands of species as well as the land. At least 60% of the world’s agricultural area is dedicated to cattle ranching, making up to only 24% of the world’s meat consumption.

According to a projection by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, PBL, the area of land under agriculture could increase from 35% to 39% by 2050. Industrial agriculture is one such villain responsible for degradation of the land, water, and ecosystems, high green house gas emissions, biodiversity loss, hunger and nutrition deficiencies, as well as obesity and diet-related diseases.

“We are facing acute, interconnected crises – hunger, malnutrition, biodiversity loss, the climate crisis, growing inequality and poverty. What we need are real solutions, not more greenwashing from agribusiness. Real solutions – public regulation for agroecology and Food Sovereignty – require dismantling corporate power, redistributing resources, re-localising food systems and ensuring small scale producers have control. Food is a human right not a commodity”, said Kirtana Chandrasekaran, from Friends of the Earth International.

Global agribusiness giants not only control the market price farmers get, but also what we eat, not to mention their contribution to poor health, food waste, soil erosion and soil acidification due to the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, wildlife destruction, ground water pollution, disease outbreaks, death, hunger and food insecurity, deforestation and climate change. According to the Climate Land Use Alliance, commercial agriculture drives 71% of tropical deforestation, posing serious risks to our global forests and climate.

According to the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services, IPBES, half a million terrestrial species of animals and plants may already be doomed into extinction. Up to one fifth of wild species are at risk of extinction this century due to climate change. Over 25% of forests have been permanently cleared. Since 1970, the global abundance of vertebrates has declined by 68% and since 1700, 90% of global wetlands have been lost.

The degradation of our oceans, soil, rivers, corals, can take decades, if not centuries to recover, and in some cases this destruction may already be irreversible.

Governments across the globe have made many commitments with the intent to tackle climate change. The commitments included the 2011 deadline to decrease emissions by 4%, the 2015 deadline to decrease it by 5%, and the 2020 deadline with the promise to decrease emissions by 10% each year. It has been a total failure and they have missed every single deadline. In the meantime, global emissions keep increasing.

“We have to reduce emissions far more rapidly than we are today. We have to leave fossil fuels in the ground, we have to remove the green house gases we have already put into the atmosphere that are creating this crisis today and into the future, and then to buy time while we manage those two processes. Then we also need to refreeze the Arctic. I don’t think it’s ridiculous, we have at least half a dozen of processes we’ve been looking at (Marine Cloud Brightening Technique)…. We don’t have the time we need to reduce emissions…buying time becomes essential”, said Sir David King, Chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group (CCAG) at a Chanel 4 interview last July.

Humanity has to urgently re-think its relationship with nature. Not only we have the responsibility to address the current ecological crises we face, but also try to understand how we got here.

Will science and technology be able to solve the climate change and biodiversity loss crises?

“What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny – that is, by religion…  More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.” – Lynn White’s 1967 article.

This is the time of serious commitment not only from our world leaders, but also from each one of us. It’s our responsibility to get involved and put pressure on our governments, businesses and policy makers across the world and demand total transparency and urgent action!

Toxic Brexit

Monica Piccinini

20 Mar 2021

Since Brexit, many questions have been raised regarding the dismantling of UK regulations and the weakening of pesticide standards via trade deals, which would mean that a large number of chemicals that have already been banned could be authorised for use in the UK. This could have a catastrophic impact on our health as well as the environment.

“The UK public has made it very clear that we don’t want post-Brexit trade deals to lead to any weakening of UK pesticide standards. It’s vital that the Government listens to consumers and protects their health by refusing to allow food imports which contain larger amounts of more toxic chemicals”, PAN UK, Pesticide Action Network, commented.

“If UK pesticide regulations are weakened as a result of EU exit, it could lead to a rise in pesticides in our food, farms and urban spaces, thereby increasing the exposure of UK citizens and our natural environment to their harmful impacts. Pesticides previously banned because of their impact on human health or the environment (such as bee-toxic neonicotinoids) could once again be allowed for use the UK”, PAN UK added.

Pesticides affect our environment, damaging ecosystems by disrupting natural food chains and pollination, contributing to soil degradation, contamination of ground water and destruction of wild life.

These chemicals are also the cause of serious health issues, considered probable carcinogen, capable of causing different types of cancer, including Leukaemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, are an endocrine disruptor (EDC’s), 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.

If pesticide regulations are weakened as a result of Brexit, UK consumers could have no choice but to consume food containing high level of chemicals that are currently banned, due to trade deals with countries like the US, Australia, India and Brazil, where pesticide regulation is less rigorous. Post-Brexit pesticide regulations could include the approval of harmful chemicals such as asulam, glyphosate, neonicotinoids and chlorpyrifos, among others.

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.

The UK and the EU follow the “hazard-based” approach to pesticide regulation, meaning that if a substance is judged to be dangerous and too harzadous to be used safely, then it should be banned. Other countries like the US and Australia work on a “risk-based” approach, meaning that if a pesticide is harmful to human health, then it might be banned while a risk-based is introduced with measures, such as the use of PPE for users or instructions not to spray the chemical in certain areas.

Food regulations in the US are much less stringent than those in the UK and EU. A potential trade deal with the US means great opportunity for foreign lobby groups, such as the US agrochemical industry, to put pressure on domestic regulators in order to approve even more chemicals, expanding the list of pesticides that are already in use in the country.

According to a Toxic Trade report published by PAN UK, Pesticide Action Network, and Sustain, American grapes are allowed to contain 1,000 more times the amount of the insecticide propargite than in the UK. This chemical has been linked to cancer and considered as a developmental and reproductive toxin. An Australian apple can contain 30 times the amount of buprofezin, an insect growth regulator and a possible carcinogen, than a UK apple. This is just an example of the issues the UK could be facing if deciding to weaken pesticide regulations.

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. Of a group of 7 active substances considered highly toxic to bees and pollinators, mostly neonicotinoids (harmful to bees, mammals, birds and fish), are banned in the UK, all but one are permitted in Australia and the US.

Over the last 50 years, the US has experienced pesticide resistance due to overuse, allowing the development of “super weeds”, forcing farmers to use greater quantities and a wider range of mixtures, causing the “cocktail effect”, which is significantly more harmful than using single chemicals.

According to PAN UK and Soil Association, pesticide mixtures have been associated with obesity and impaired liver function, even when the doses of individual chemicals are below the safety levels set by regulators. Several pieces of research conducted on human cells and tissues have highlighted that pesticide mixtures can lead to the creation of cancer cells and disruption of the endocrine system, among other health problems. The UK’s regulatory system continues to assess the safety of one chemical at a time, failing to account interactions between multiple chemicals.

As reported by BrasilWire, a joint committee was recently formed by Brazil and the United Kingdom where both countries will work together on issues related to trade in agricultural goods, envisaging potential future trade agreements. A document was signed between the UK’s Secretary of State for Environment, George Eustice, the UK’s Minister for Pacific and Environment, Zac Goldsmith, and Brazil’s Minister of Agriculture, Tereza Cristina, for the creation of a Joint Agriculture Committee (CCA) between both countries. Tereza Cristina is responsible for breaking a record and supporting the approval of 967 pesticides during the Bolsonaro’s administration.

Another worrying factor related to pesticides is poisonings. A recent study published by the BMC Pubic Health Journal report that pesticide poisonings have dramatically increased globally. There are about 385 million cases of acute poisonings each year, meaning that 44% of the global population working on farms are poisoned every year. 

“These numbers are shocking, but unsurprising”, says Dr. Keith Tyrell, Director of PAN UK. “The tragedy is that these poisonings are avoidable – safe and sustainable alternatives exist, and experience from countries like Sri Lanka shows that banning pesticides can be done at low cost with little or no impact on productivity”.

Towards the end of 2020, Qu Dongyo, the Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), announced his intention to develop a partnership with CropLife International (Bayer/Monsanto, Syngenta, Corteva, Basf and FMC), a collection of private agrochemical companies, which means that the pesticide industry may have a strong ally and the effects of this partnership could be devastating, especially for LMIC countries.

Since 2015, IARC, the WHO’s International Agency for Research and Cancer, declared Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, as a possible human carcinogen. Since then, the manufacturer, Bayer/Monsanto, has been battling with thousands of lawsuits alleging that exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based products caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Germany has decided to implement glyphosate legislation and ban glyphosate by 2024. According to a Reuter’s report, German farmers will need to gradually reduce the use of glyphosate and stop using it completely by 2024.

“The exit from glyphosate is coming. Conservationists have been working toward this for a long time. Glyphosate kills everything that is green and takes away insects’ basis for life”, said Germany’s environment minister Svenja Schulze in a statement.

In January, the UK government authorised the emergency use of the chemical neonicotinoid thiamethoxam on sugar beet seeds, but has recently overturned its decision on the use of the chemical, which has been linked to the falling numbers of honeybees, wild bees and other pollinators.  One third of the food we consume rely on pollination mainly by bees.

Recently, Brussels diplomat, Michel Barnier threatened to suspend the Brexit deal if the UK ignores EU standards. One of the issues in question was pesticide regulation. He added that the UK would be stripped of its zero-tariff and zero-quota with the bloc if it lowers European standards.

“With our agreement, the UK can now export goods without quotas or tariffs to the EU. “However, he [Boris Johnson] announced his intention to deregulate in three areas: financial services, pesticides and working hours”, he added.

“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.

At the beginning of March CHEM Trust, with more than 20 health and environment NGOs, wrote to UK ministers to urge the Government not to weaken plans for chemical regulations now we have left the EU. In the letter, CHEM Trust stressed that the industry’s proposals would “significantly reduce the ability of the regulator to take action to protect the environment and public and workers’ health from hazardous chemicals.”

In order to protect the environment and safeguard our health, the UK government must decrease the number of pesticides used in the country, avoid the weakening of regulations and at the same time develop sustainable agricultural practices, supporting farmers by adopting a nature-based IPM, Integrated Pest Management. This decision should not be taken lightly and the results will have an irreversible lifelong impact on all our lives and nature.