The world is facing an alarming and deeply distressing reality as food insecurity reaches catastrophically high levels. Across the globe, countless individuals and communities are struggling with the crippling fear of not having enough to eat.
According to the latest findings unveiled in the United Nation’s State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report published today, the data highlights a distressing state of global hunger in 2022, a year tainted by a combination of severe challenges, including a food price crisis, ongoing conflicts, and detrimental economic and climate disturbances.
This is a sobering wake up call, says the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, IPES-Food.
Jennifer Clapp, food security expert with IPES-Food and professor at the University of Waterloo, Canada, explained:
“The world is facing disturbingly high levels of hunger right now. Years of progress on improving food security and nutrition have been erased. Governments have failed to make food systems shock-resistant, to shield people from food price inflation, or to address the ticking time bomb of debt.
We desperately need a new recipe for addressing hunger – based on the right to food, less reliance on volatile global markets, and on countries producing more food for their own people.”
The SOFI data reveals an alarming picture, where food insecurity has reached unprecedented and catastrophic new levels with no signs of improvement on the horizon – setting the world back 15 years.
In 2022, approximately 735 million people (9.2% of the world population) faced economic undernourishment, while nearly 30% of the world’s population encountered varying degrees of moderate to severe food insecurity.
The report also reveals that the hunger crisis intensified in 2022, with an additional 122 million people facing food insecurity compared to the pre-pandemic period in 2019. The compounding effects of COVID, conflict and climate change have highlighted the fragility and inequalities ingrained within the global food systems.
Moreover, the study warns that if substantial changes are not implemented, we are heading towards a future where 600 million individuals will continue to suffer from chronic undernourishment by 2030. This outcome would have severe consequences for the achievement of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), rendering them ineffective.
Olivier De Schutter, co-chair of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, IPES-Food, and UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, mentioned:
“Low income countries are trapped in debt, unable to invest in combating hunger, and condemned to export cash crops rather than feed their own people.
To have any hope of reaching the sustainable development goals at transformation is needed – with social protection schemes that guarantee the right to food for the world’s poorest, debt cancellation, and investment in diverse, resilient agroecological food production.”
The impact of food insecurity is devastating, with families and vulnerable populations bearing the brunt of its consequences.
The relentless increase of hunger in Africa persisted for the tenth consecutive year, affecting a staggering one-fifth of the continent’s population.
According to the SOFI report, in Africa, where the shares of the population that are food insecure and unable to afford a healthy diet, are among the highest in the world.
Million Belay, expert with IPES-Food and coordinator of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa, AFSA, reacted:
“It’s shocking that hunger has risen in African for ten years in a row. But our exploitative global economic system has prioritised servicing debt over feeding people, exporting cash for crops over growing nutritious food for Africans, and burning fossil fuels over adapting to climate change.”
Fresh data from 11 African nations reveals that farmers and rural communities face greater vulnerability to fluctuating food prices and hunger than previously anticipated, while the consumption of processed foods in these regions is on the rise, even in rural areas. In rural areas, a notable 33% of individuals encounter moderate to severe food insecurity, surpassing the corresponding figures observed in urban areas.
The African Development Bank estimated that Africa’s net food imports reached $35 billion in 2015, and expects it to triple by 2025, reaching over $110 billion. Agricultural surpluses from the Global North are dumped on African markets, inundating local markets, driving down farmers’ incomes, weakening communities and local agricultural production.
Africa’s reliance on world food markets is damaging to food security, especially during times of crisis, like we’ve seen during the COVID pandemic.
“African countries have been left critically vulnerable to the blows of the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and climate change. Our governments are starved of cash to build the sustainable food systems we need to feed ourselves. The dominant food system is reducing people’s resilience to shocks and leading to perpetual debt and food dumping – this must change”, explained Belay.
The adoption of industrialised farming practices has led to a change in dietary habits, with a rise in the consumption of highly processed foods, which has had negative health consequences, particularly among low-income communities.
Additionally, this form of agriculture heavily depends on the widespread use of chemical inputs, including fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides and antibiotics, with negative consequences for ecosystems and human health.
Based on the SOFI report, the increased accessibility of affordable, ready-to-eat, and fast food options, which are often high in calories, fats, sugars, and salt, can contribute to malnutrition.
Insufficient availability of fruits and vegetables for meeting the daily nutritional needs of the population is also a concern. Moreover, this trend has resulted in the exclusion of small-scale farmers from formal value chains and the loss of land and natural resources due to urban expansion.
The report also highlights the prevalence of child overweight at risk of increasing with the emerging problem of high consumption of highly processed foods and food away from home in urban centres, which is increasingly spreading into peri-urban and rural areas.
“Once again the world is plagued by hunger. A healthy diet is unattainable for nearly half of the world’s population – even while food manufacturers and giant agriculture corporations enjoy bonanza profits”, explained De Schutter.
The predicted cost of treating dietary related diseases is projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2030.
Global hunger can have severe consequences that go beyond the immediate lack of food. Key consequences associated with global famine include migration and displacement, health issues, economic impacts, as well as social and political unrest.
As the grip of food insecurity tightens, urgent action and comprehensive strategies are essential to alleviate this alarming situation, restore hope, and ensure that no one is left behind in the struggle for sustenance.
The time to act is now, as we must collectively confront the specter of hunger and work tirelessly to build a future where food insecurity becomes an unimaginable concept rather than a haunting reality.
In the quest to understand and combat climate change, our attention is often drawn to the colossal emissions produced by fossil fuels. However, beneath the surface lies another insidious contributor to our warming planet: pesticides.
While these chemicals have long been associated with their harmful effects on ecosystems and human health, a lesser-known truth is their direct link to the fossil fuel industry.
As we delve into the hidden world of greenhouse emissions, a startling revelation emerges – the use of pesticides has become an accomplice in perpetuating the climate crisis, casting a shadow over our efforts to create a sustainable future.
Globally, food systems account for over one third of all greenhouse gas emissions, which includes agriculture and pesticide use.
Scientific evidence suggests that the use of pesticides not only plays a significant role in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, but also heightens the susceptibility of our agricultural systems to the impacts of climate change. However, the potential of pesticide reduction as a viable solution to the climate crisis has been widely overlooked.
Doug Parr, chief scientist and policy director at Greenpeace UK said:
“Public understanding of the role that fossil fuel companies have played in driving the climate emergency has increased hugely in the last few years, and now we know that we need to add the pesticide industry to the list of climate polluters. Reducing the use of pesticides would be at least a double in addressing nature decline and climate crisis.”
According to a report by PAN UK, Pesticide Action Network, and The Pesticide Collaboration, titled “Pesticides and The Climate Crisis: A Vicious Cycle”, 99% of all synthetic chemicals, including pesticides, are derived from fossil fuels.
The world’s largest oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell and ChevronPhillips Chemical, produce pesticides or their chemical ingredients.
Some pesticides, such as sulfuryl fluoride, are powerful greenhouse gases, having nearly 5,000 times the potency of carbon dioxide.
Pesticides have a significant impact on the climate emergency throughout their lifecycle, involving various stages from manufacturing to disposal. Here are some ways pesticides exacerbate the climate crisis:
Manufacturing: The production of pesticides involves energy-intensive processes that often rely on fossil fuels. From the extraction of raw materials to the synthesis of active ingredients, greenhouse gas emissions are generated, contributing to climate change.
Packaging: Pesticides are typically packaged in materials derived from fossil fuels, such as plastic containers. The production and disposal of these packaging materials further contribute to carbon emissions and environmental pollution.
Transportation: Pesticides are often transported over long distances from manufacturing facilities to distribution centres and end-users. The use of fossil fuel-powered vehicles for transportation adds to the carbon footprint associated with pesticides.
Application: During pesticide application, emissions occur due to the use of mechanised equipment and vehicles. Additionally, some pesticide formulations release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere, contributing to air pollution, climate change and impacting our health by damaging the central nervous system and other organs, some causing cancer.
Environmental Degradation: Pesticides can have detrimental effects on ecosystems, leading to biodiversity loss and disruptions in natural processes. This ecological damage can further impact the climate crisis by destabilising ecosystems that help regulate the planet’s climate, such as forests and wetlands.
Disposal: Improper disposal of pesticides, such as through incineration or landfilling, can release harmful chemicals into the environment. Inefficient disposal methods can contribute to soil and water pollution, affecting ecosystems and potentially releasing greenhouse gases like methane.
Overall, the entire lifecycle of pesticides, from manufacturing and packaging to transportation, application, and disposal, contributes to the climate emergency through various emissions, environmental degradation, and pollution. Understanding these impacts is crucial for developing sustainable alternatives and practices in agriculture and pest management.
With increasing temperatures, there is a corresponding surge in pest populations, leading to decreased crop resilience. Consequently, a greater quantity of pesticides becomes necessary.
The heightened reliance on pesticides subsequently fosters the proliferation of resistance among insects and weeds towards herbicides and insecticides. Moreover, it perpetuates the detrimental impact on human health and the environment.
The study conducted by PAN UK, Pesticide Action Network, and The Pesticide Collaboration, “Pesticides and the Climate Crisis: A Vicious Cycle”, highlights the anticipated outcome of climate change on farming practices.
It suggests that farmers may resort to intensifying the use of synthetic pesticides, unless we initiate a shift towards more sustainable forms of agriculture, embracing smaller-scale and diversified agroecological methods.
The study also outlines how agricultural pests will respond to climate change, including crop resilience decline, the shifting of pest populations and reach, impacts on pests’ natural enemies, the increase in weeds and the rise in regionalism and unpredictability.
Commodity crops, such as maize, soybeans, rice, cotton and wheat, are among those with the greatest use of pesticides and fertilisers globally.
Between 2005 and 2020, the global use of pesticides witnessed a notable upswing of 17%. However, the application of herbicides experienced an even more substantial surge of 34%.
China, the United States, Argentina, Thailand and Brazil emerged as the leading consumers of pesticides, contributing to these escalating figures.
Nevertheless, it’s important to note that these statistics likely underestimate the true extent of pesticide use due to various factors, such as underreporting and unrecorded applications. For instance, the inclusion of pesticides used as seed treatments is lacking in the UN Food and Agriculture database, thereby contributing to the underestimation.
In 2020, the UK used over 13,018 tonnes of pesticide active ingredients. One of the most widely used active substances was the herbicide glyphosate.
A total of 2,602 tonnes of glyphosate was sprayed on all UK crops during 2020, a 16% rise over four years, generating 81,410 tonnes of CO2, equivalent to more than 75,000 flights from London to Sydney. This figure does not include the large amount that is used in other areas, such as towns, cities and private gardens.
Josie Cohen, head of policy and campaigns at PAN UK, said:
“The government urgently needs to take a joined-up approach to tackling the climate and nature crisis, as they go hand-in-hand. The solutions to these emergencies must not undermine each other. The UK’s net zero target cannot be achieved without transforming agriculture including a major reduction in pesticide use, which will also bring huge benefits to nature and biodiversity.”
Farming methods that avoid synthetic pesticides, such as agroecological systems or diversified organic farming, offer multiple benefits in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration.
Moreover, these approaches improve the ability of farms to withstand climate change and combat pests by bolstering various ecosystem services. These services include improving water quality and availability for crops, enhancing soil health, boosting crop resilience against pests and diseases, and fostering increased populations of pollinators and natural pest control agents.
In light of the climate crisis and its far-reaching consequences on various aspects of our lives and the environment, it has become increasingly imperative to shift away from the prevalent chemical-intensive agricultural practices and embrace a biological approach.
This transition is crucial to safeguard our wellbeing and survival, as it directly influences our health, soil quality, air and water purity, food production, and the delicate balance of biodiversity.
Official UK government pesticide usage data reveals that the use of glyphosate in UK farming is increasing, despite a recent government promise to “reduce reliance on the use of conventional chemical pesticides.”
According to analysis by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) and the latest figures, the amount of glyphosate used in UK agriculture grew by more than 360 tonnes (16%) between 2016 and 2020, while the area of land sprayed with the pesticide increased by 9%, amounting to 230,000 hectares, three times the size of Greater Manchester.
Nick Mole, PAN UK’s policy officer, mentioned:
These latest figures, while shocking, are actually a huge underestimation of our exposure to glyphosate since they only relate to farming. Meanwhile, glyphosate is also sprayed liberally in most UK towns and cities.
The negative impacts of glyphosate on human health and the environment are well-documented. With cancer rates and biodiversity loss both rising, it’s crazy that we continue to endanger the health of rural residents, farmworkers and wildlife when there are plenty of safer and more sustainable alternatives available.
One of the primary concerns associated with glyphosate is its potential impact on human health. Several studies have suggested a possible link between glyphosate exposure and various health issues, such as an increased risk of cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Environmental concerns are another area of contention surrounding glyphosate use. The herbicide’s widespread application can lead to its presence in soil, water bodies, and food crops, potentially impacting ecosystems and non-target organisms.
Glyphosate has been linked to adverse effects on aquatic organisms, including fish and amphibians, and there are concerns about its potential impact on pollinators, such as bees, which are crucial for agricultural productivity and biodiversity.
Additionally, the long-term use of glyphosate can lead to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, commonly known as “super-weeds.” Continuous exposure to glyphosate can exert selection pressure on weed populations, promoting the growth of resistant individuals that are no longer susceptible to the herbicide. This phenomenon necessitates the increased use of glyphosate or other herbicides, leading to potential environmental harm and higher costs for farmers.
PAN UK’s report also reveals that the use of a number of other highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), a UN concept used to identify particularly harmful pesticides, is also on the rise, including:
2,4D, a herbicide highly toxic to bees and possible carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor, which can interfere with hormone systems;
Imazalil, a fungicide linked to cancer and classified as a ‘developmental or reproductive toxin’, which can negatively affect sexual function and fertility;
Cyantraniliprole and lambda-cyhalothrin, insecticides highly toxic to bees.
With the clock ticking on the biodiversity crisis, and the UK already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, we must move further and faster. Absolutely key is supporting farmers to transition away from chemical dependence and towards more nature-friendly methods of production, warned Mole.
Whilst conducting their analysis, PAN UK’s noted some major problems with the government’s pesticide usage figures, including numbers being changed retroactively and discrepancies between data sets that are supposed to be identical.
The organisation is calling on the UK government to urgently improve pesticide usage monitoring and data, increase support for farmers to reduce pesticide use and introduce non-chemical alternatives, establish reduction targets to drive a decrease in both use and toxicity, end use of pesticides that are harmful to bees and other pollinators, and finally publish the long-awaited National Action Plan on Sustainable Use of Pesticides that was promised for 2018.
The debate surrounding glyphosate and HHPs’ health risks, environmental impact, and the need for alternative weed control methods continues to evolve.
It is essential for the government, regulatory agencies, scientists, farmers, and the public to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged to ensure toxic chemicals are urgently replaced with non-chemical alternatives.
Similar to our current political & economic systems, the food system is no longer serving us; mainly driven by power, profit and greed, resulting in global food insecurity and impacting directly on our health and the environment.
We’ve seen a sharp increase in food insecurity worldwide, driven not only by climate change and multiple conflicts, but also by an unbalanced food system fuelled by corporate power.
As the world population is projected to reach 9.8 billion in the next 27 years, there’s an urgent need to address issues related to our food system, or we may be facing a worldwide famine sooner than expected. We’ve already seen signs of this in many parts of the world.
“The right to food is the right to have regular, permanent and unrestricted access—either directly or by means of financial purchases— to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free of fear”, according to the United Nations.
Giant agribusiness corporations hold the power and control over our food systems, with the ability to influence governments and decision-makers, through lobbying, with the direct intention of shaping policies in many ways.
Their objectives and tactics are questionable, with the tendency to favour their own interests, focusing on profits and maximising shareholder value, rather than addressing hunger and malnutrition.
According to ‘Who’s Tipping the Scales’, a report published by IPES Food, the international panel of experts on sustainable food systems:
“A bold, structural vision to counter the corporate takeover of food-related global governance – one that support central roles for people, governments, and democratic, public-interest-based decision-making, is urgently needed.”
It’s clear that the voices of the most vulnerable communities across the world, and mostly affected by hunger and environmental impact caused by this industry, must be heard.
These giant and dominant agribusiness corporations influence the global organisations we most trust, which should be there to defend our interests. To the surprise of many, agribusiness associations were sitting directly at the UN governance table at the 2021 UNFSS, UN Food Systems Summit.
One must also question the kind of relationship between the private sector and international governance bodies and institutions about potential conflicts of interest.
According to the IPES Food report, in 2020, a private philanthropic foundation, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was the second largest donor to the CGIAR, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Another partnership that raises some eyebrows is the FAO’s, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, partnership with CropLife International, CLI, an agrochemical lobby organisation, whose members include Syngenta, BASF, FMC and Bayer (acquired Monsanto in 2018).
PAN North America, Pesticide Action Network, mentioned that instead of putting the profit of CropLife International members before farmers and consumers worldwide, the FAO must invest in solutions, including agroecology and take stronger action on ending the usage of highly hazardous pesticides, HHPs.
We’ve also seen increase in consolidation, a large number of mergers and acquisitions, allowing these corporations to dominate the agribusiness sector. This allows these giants to have a profound influence on governance and the structure of our food system, resulting in anti-competitive market practices.
These corporations have significant funding at their disposal to influence policies and regulations, such as pesticides, biosafety, patents, intellectual property, as well as trade and investment agreements.
Bayer AG spent over USD 9 million lobbying the US government in 2019, after it acquired Monsanto. At the time, they were reviewing the re-registration of one of the company’s main products, glyphosate (Roundup), which is considered a toxic herbicide. In the US, Bayer has been contesting billion of dollars in settlement claims to end lawsuits over accusations that glyphosate causes cancer.
They are also responsible for shaping science by sponsoring academic research favouring their corporate interests, influencing governance and policies. This was seen in the agrochemical and processed food sectors.
As proof of this, below is an internal email between Monsanto executives obtained by lawyers representing plaintiffs in the Roundup® litigation, where they suggest ‘beating the s**t out of’ a mother’s group expressing concern over the effects of GMOs and Roundup® on their children.
Photograph: Main Street Law Firm PLLC
Monsanto also tried to influence science by sponsoring various ghostwriting academic articles questioning scientific studies that raised concern over its product’s safety, glyphosate.
Another very concerning issue related to the health of our children is the fact that this industry continuously lobbies against mandatory public health measures, including taxes on ultra-processed foods, UPF, sugary drinks and front of package labeling, as well as restrictions on marketing of unhealthy foods to our children. This has a gigantic impact on their health and also creates pressure on our health systems.
A reported example of this was when a children’s cereal manufacturer attempted to sue Mexico after the country tried to amend a food packaging regulation called NOM-5, in order to protect their children from the marketing of unhealthy foods. The regulation established that certain unhealthy products would be prohibited from putting children’s animations and characters on their packages.
The invention of novel foods also raises some red flags. On March, The Defender, a publication defending children’s health, published a piece on Bill Gates’ latest invention, an edible food coating called Apeel, which is an odourless, colourless and tasteless coating for vegetables and fruit, which potentially extends the life span of these products, keeping it fresher for up to two times longer.
Apeel has already received the green light from US regulators, but some questions still remain unanswered surrounding the safety of the product, as the company is relying mainly on existing scientific studies, as no new science has been required to evaluate and test the product.
We seem to be completely exposed and reliant on these corporations to carry out their own safety studies, without the scrutiny of independent regulators and scientific studies.
According to the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies are expected to develop their own internal procedures to identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for how they address their impacts on human and environmental rights in global supply chains.
It’s clear that the way we grow our food has a massive impact not only on our physical and mental health, but also on our environment, affecting fauna and flora, the health of our soil, water and air.
Recently, we have seen a sharp increase of fungal disease in crops, affecting 168 crops listed as important in human nutrition, according to FAO of the United Nations. Despite spraying fungicides, farmers are losing between 10-23% of their crops to fungal disease every year, including rice, corn, soybeans and potatoes.
According to a study published at Nature journal, this issue is mainly because of the adaptability of fungi to meet modern agricultural practices. Monocultures entail vast areas of genetically uniform crops, an ideal ground for fast-evolving organisms, such as fungi. Another problem is the increasingly widespread use of antifungal treatments, leading to fungicide resistance.
The use of pesticides and toxic chemicals are increasing exponentially across the world, causing havoc to our health, the soil, polluting water sources, the air, animals and plants.
Industrial agriculture, including cattle farming, soybean, palm oil, sugar cane, corn, wheat, GMOs, monoculture production, is responsible for the deforestation of rainforests, the Cerrado, and many other parts of the world, causing destruction and degradation.
In Brazil, 2.8% of landowners own over 56% of all arable land, and 50% of smallholder farms have access to only 2.5% of the land. Overall, the land is in the hands of a small number of industrial farms.
We must rethink the way we grow our food and we all have the right to access nutritious and healthy food and decide what we eat.
The agribusiness sector spends vast amounts on research and development, making it extremely hard for smaller companies to compete with them, capitalising on patent protection and intellectual property rights.
Why? Because they can!
Patent protection and intellectual property is another issue that should be catching everyone’s attention.
Giant tech companies, such as Amazon and Microsoft, among others, entered the food sector focusing on power, control and profit. Small farmers and local food systems are struggling, as they can’t afford to use this high tech data gathering technology. They are also located in remote areas where these types of services can’t reach.
We can see an increasing movement of powerful integration and control between the companies that are supplying products to farmers, such as tractors, drones, pesticides, etc., and the tech giants. They feed and control farmers with information, and at the same time have direct access to consumers.
The aim is to integrate millions of farmers into a wide centrally controlled network by encouraging and forcing them to buy their products. This digital infrastructure is run by platforms developed by tech companies that run cloud services.
Fujitsu farm workers, located just outside Hanoi, carry smartphones supplied by the company, which monitors their every single movements, productivity, the amount of hours they work, etc., all stored on the company’s cloud. This is extremely worrying, as this practice could easily lead to labour exploitation.
Similar to Fujitsu, other companies investing heavily on this type of digital farming platforms include Microsoft’s Azure FarmBeats, Bayer’s Fieldview, BASF’s Xarvio, Syngenta’s CropWise, Yara’s Yaralrix and Olam’s OFIS, Olam Farmer Information System.
It’s essential to point out the extent of data gathering these platforms are capable of, including real time data and analysis on the farmers soil condition and water, crops growth, pests and diseases monitoring, weather, humidity, climate change, tractor monitoring, etc.
Some of these corporations are also trying to eliminate the “middlemen” by selling directly to consumers, which may be attractive proposition to many, if the idea is mainly to help farmers and small vendors directly, but somehow they may use digital platforms to increase their pricing power over farmers.
An important question we must ask these companies, regulators and our governments: who controls all this data, what do they do with it and who gives the advice?
The influence a few powerful corporations have in food governance must be scrutinised. Governments should be leading in the field of food security and not leaving it in the hands of those that put profit over longevity of life. It may seem a drastic change to the world as we know it, but it may be the only way to bring back a balance in the global food system and secure our quality of life and ultimately our survival.
Environmental and human rights violations may have been committed as a result of one of the Amazon rainforest most gigantic and ambitious infrastructure projects, the reconstruction of BR-319 highway, a stretch of 830 km, connecting the ‘arc of deforestation’ in the southern Amazon to the capital, Manaus.
There are many national and international supporters and financiers with hidden interests behind the reconstruction of this extensive highway project, including a Russian state-owned oil and gas company, a bioenergy company, ‘ruralistas’ (large land-holders and their representatives), illegal miners and loggers, investors, politicians, the government, and many more. Their motivation is driven by profit and power, no matter how much it costs.
The Amazon rainforest plays a key role in controlling both South America’s rainfall and global climate. In addition, the rainforest is home to a third of the world’s biodiversity and a wide variety of indigenous people.
The rainforest has lost more than 830,000 sq km, corresponding to 21% of the forest and roughly 17% is already degraded.
According to Carlos Nobre, renowned earth system scientist, the Amazon rainforest, one of the most biodiverse places on earth, is on the edge of the precipice, showing clear signs of destruction and perilously close to a tipping point of irreversible collapse, triggered by deforestation, degradation, forest fires, logging, illegal cattle ranching, mining, and oil and gas developments.
BR-319 connects Manaus, in central Amazon, to Porto Velho, in the “arc of deforestation”, on the southern edge of the forest. The highway is a free path to illegal side roads in areas of large concentration of indigenous land, legal reserves and conservation units, giving illegal miners, loggers, squatters and land grabbers access to untouched forest.
As a consequence, these invaders are bringing a wave of destruction, instability, pollution, violence, disease, decay and death to the communities and the environment around them.
The highway was inaugurated in March 1976, during the military dictatorship and under the government of General Ernesto Geisel, and abandoned in 1988. In 2015, Dilma Roussef’s (Labour party) government proposed reopening BR-319.
“BR-319 cuts through one of the most conserved blocks of the forest where it contains an enormous stock of carbon. This project is a threat to 63 indigenous lands and 18,000 indigenous people, not to mention the environment and biodiversity”, said ecologist and researcher, Lucas Ferrante, during our interview this month.
According to Ferrante, who took part of a study published at the Die Erde – Journal of the Geographic Society of Berlin, neither environmental studies nor consultation with indigenous peoples were carried out for some sections of the highway, as established by ILO Convention 169.
Ferrante published various academic studies independently and conjointly with Philip Martin Fearnside, a researcher at the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (Inpa) and Nobel Peace Prize winner (2007), on the impacts the BR-319 project will bring to the Amazon, the environment, indigenous communities and the world.
The reconstruction of BR-319 does not have an economic feasibility study (EVTEA). Independent studies show that for every R$1,00 spent on the highway, the ROI is only R$0,33, mentioned Ferrante.
The main transport route used has always been via the Madeira River, making it a cheaper and safer way to transport goods. In his view, the highway project would be a huge social, economic and ecological disaster.
A study published at the Environmental Conservation, indicates that Brazil could lose more than US$1 billion a year in agricultural production if deforestation in the Amazon region is not contained.
“We have already identified that the Amazon rainforest has passed its tolerated limit of deforestation. The flying rivers that supply the south and southeastern regions of Brazil are already compromised, including an area of the arc of deforestation, corroborating changes and climate events within the country, even affecting agribusiness”, said Ferrante.
According to Ferrante and various studies, one additional topic of great concern, as exploitation of indigenous lands increases, is the risk of new pandemics. The Amazon rainforest is considered a possible source of the next pandemic, as deforestation offers opportunities for disease agents from the region’s large reservoir of different types of coronavirus and various other pathogens to jump into the human population.
The Amazon interior has a precarious healthcare system, making the surge of a new pandemic originating in this region extremely difficult to identify and contain.
A company with many interests in supporting the reconstruction of BR-319 is Russian state-owned Rosneft, one of the largest oil and gas companies in the world.
Rosneft’s CEO, Igor Sechin, is considered to be the second most powerful man in Russia after Putin. In February 2022, just before Russia invaded Ukraine, Bolsonaro travelled to Russia to meet with Putin to discuss a possible energy partnership.
BR-319 highway gives access to AM-366, a planned state highway that passes through the first drilling blocks of “Solimoes Sedimentary Basin” project for oil and gas extraction, an area larger than the state of California. Rosfnet bought 16 blocks in this area.
This is a project of huge concern, as questions are raised about how much influence Rosneft may have on the government’s policies and decisions on the reconstruction of this highway, as well as the impact it may have on the local communities and the environment.
Millenium Bioenergia is another strong supporter of BR-319 reconstruction project. A bioenergy company formed in 2014 by mill owners from São Paulo and grain producers from the Midwest, the company’s initial focus was the production of biofuels. However, the company decided to partner with the indigenous communities to produce corn, chicken, fish and pigs in a confined system. This is the perfect recipe to trigger new pandemics as a result of zoonotic leaps due to environmental degradation.
In the states of Amazonas and Roraima, their goal is to produce biofuels from monocultures in indigenous lands and other communities. According to their plan, indigenous people and communities would carry out these activities with unpaid work or, as one would openly describe it, slave labour. These products would then be exported to Asia, Europe and the United States.
According to a study published bySpringer, Millenium has not honoured its obligation to carry out environmental studies that are legally required for the installation of an industry. Instead, they have proposed the building of a hospital for the indigenous people as a form of compensation.
The government’s ‘death agenda’ includes abolishing the legal reserves and opening conservation units and indigenous lands to mining, agriculture and ranching.
Jair Bolsonaro’s government, with the full support of ‘ruralistas’, has intentionally weakened the country’s environmental agencies and forest code, also denying the existence of climate change.
They have reduced protected areas, cut government funds for environmental protection, weakened the systems for monitoring and combating environmental crimes, approved 1682 new pesticides, leaving an open door to pollution, deforestation, violence, crime and devastation across the region and communities in the Amazon and the rest of the country.
Politicians in Manaus and across the country claim that BR-319 would be a “model of sustainability for the world”, but indications and studies carried out so far suggest otherwise. They follow the same rhetoric, stating the highway is a symbol of progress and sovereignty, and that the Amazon rainforest belongs to Brazil, no foreign interference should be allowed.
BR-319 has brought crime and violence to this region by illegal miners, loggers, squatters and land grabbers, threatening to kill anyone who refuses to comply with their rules.
According to Ferrante, the highway also attracted criminal gangs and organised crime to the area, with the full participation of high scale politicians.
There are countless national and international organisations financing illegal mining associated with drug and illegal arms trafficking. Organised crime has exploded and taken over the Amazon rainforest.
Bolsonaro’s gun law, the CAC (Collectors, Snipers and Hunters) license, allows Brazilians to purchase a wide variety of guns if they have no criminal record, are registered with a shooting club, and can demonstrate proficiency with a firearm.
The loosening of firearms restrictions law is creating new mechanisms for criminal groups to purchase weapons legally, consequently increasing violence in the Amazon and Brazil.
Another issue of concern is the maintenance of clandestine airstrips, mainly for mining and also serving organised crime.
According to information obtained by The Intercept, the Pulitzer Center and Earthrise Media, there are 362 clandestine airstrips, without registration with Anac, the National Aviation Agency, in the Legal Amazon. But this number almost triples, if you consider the runways open without authorisation and registration, amounting to at least 1,269 landing and takeoff lanes.
Indigenous and traditional communities are also victims of constant violent verbal and physical threats, sometimes ending in fatalities, but they are not the only ones.
Ferrante, a scientist who has spent many years exposing the situation in the region by publishing his studies in academic journals, was faced with various threats and violence against his own life.
He received countless death threats by anonymous calls and text. A “fake” Uber driver told Ferrante he should keep quiet because he was interfering in national security matters. Chemicals thrown into his home’s water system also poisoned him. Ferrante was terrified and withdrawn, unable to go out for a few months.
There is not doubt the BR-319 reconstruction project will impact local traditional and indigenous communities, as well as the environment, biodiversity and climate change, with very serious consequences to Brazil the rest of the world.
Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of beef and soy, which are the two commodities responsible for 90% the Amazon rainforest deforestation. Research shows that 70% of the chopped down Amazon is populated by cattle.
It’s essential to understand that the reconstruction of BR-319 highway has a national as well as an international long list of powerful supporters defending their own interests.
Agribusiness Watch report reveals that international banks and funds are financing Brazil’s agribusiness lobby in the country, including JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock, and Bank of America, each having invested US$1 billion in livestock. American International Group, AIG and Citigroup are also provider of funds to Brazilian agribusiness companies.
European investors include Allianz and Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Standard Chartered, BBVA, Santander, BNP Paribas, ABN-Amro and Rabobank, among others, have invested $4.5 billion in IPA companies, part of Instituto Pensar Agro, supporting FPA (Agricultural Parliamentary Front) and responsible for a package of anti-environmental measures being considered in the Brazilian Congress.
The report also lists various companies, including JBS, Suzano, Marfrig, ADM and Cargill that use their influence in Brazilian politics against the interests of environmental policies and indigenous groups.
Brazilian banks financing the agribusiness sector include BTG Pactual, Safra, Verde Asset Management, Vinci Partners, and XP Investimentos, maintaining bonds estimated at US$ 9.3 billion.
According to De Olho nos Ruralistas, in 2019, Agribusiness Watch revealed some of the multinationals that were affiliated by associations that maintain the IPA (Instituto Pensar Agro): Bayer, Basf and Syngenta, Cargill, Bunge, ADM and Louis Dreyfus; JBS, Marfrig, Nestlé and Danone.
During Bolsonaro’s administration, agribusiness companies met 278 times with government officials of MAPA, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply. Part of the agenda was the relaxation of rules for pesticides.
There’s no doubt that the reconstruction of BR-319 will benefit most of the above mentioned players, who continuously support and invest in the agribusiness sector in Brazil, including banks, agrochemical companies, governments, politicians and corporations, in Brazil and abroad.
The same can’t be said about the environment, climate change, local traditional and indigenous communities and the entire world population, who will pay a hefty price for these callous actions.
This is a decisive political moment for Brazil and the world, as the second term of the presidential elections draws to a close at the end of October and Brazilians will be choosing their next president, Jair Bolsonaro or Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula), both battling for the pole position.
Ferrante mentioned what may happen if Lula is elected Brazil’s next president:
“I was present during Lula’s statement during his visit to Manaus in September 2022, when he mentioned that he will choose three major infrastructure projects for each state in Brazil, mainly roads, which means the BR-319 highway project may be on the top of his list. He explicitly said that he isn’t against the highway, but the environmental rites and the consultation of indigenous peoples must be followed”,
“The BR-319 highway project is at a very advanced stage. We urgently need the suspension of the maintenance license, pending appropriate studies and consultations with indigenous peoples. It is necessary to create a task force to supervise the actions of INCRA, the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform and the Ministry of the Economy, as they continuously try to legalise these lands”, added Ferrante.
When asked about the message he has to the international community, Ferrante replied:
“Countries that import commodities from Brazil need to review their trade agreements, mainly for meat, soy, ores, biofuels and now oil and its derivatives that come from the Amazon, extracted by Rosfnet. Brazilian agribusiness has become a threat to the Amazon, to traditional peoples and to the global climate”,
He added:
“All countries in the world need to turn their eyes to what is happening in the Amazon now, especially on the BR-319 highway. This is a matter for the world to discuss because the consequences of this highway are global, including new pandemic outbreaks and accelerating climate change that is already causing waves of heat leading to mortality in Europe. The environmental damage caused here exceeds the borders of Brazil and should be monitored by the whole world”.
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.
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!
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!
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.
‘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!
Monica Piccinini 