Category: Uncategorized

COP30: Brazil’s bioeconomy – Hope or hype?

Monica Piccinini

12 August 2025

The upcoming UN climate conference, COP30, scheduled for November in Belém, presents a strategic platform for Brazil to position the bioeconomy as a central pillar in its climate agenda.

The bioeconomy is an approach often promoted as both a solution to the environmental crisis and a catalyst for inclusive development. However, growing scrutiny surrounds this narrative.

Critics question whether the bioeconomy will truly prioritise ecological integrity and social equity, or if it risks becoming yet another extractive, market-oriented framework repackaged in green rhetoric, serving private interests while sidelining genuine environmental and societal transformation.

Brazil defines its national bioeconomy strategy as a model of productive and economic development based on justice, ethics, and inclusion, which uses natural resources in a sustainable, regenerative, and conservationist manner, integrating scientific and traditional knowledge to generate goods, services, and socioeconomic benefits.

In his address at the BRICS Business Forum opening in Rio de Janeiro on 5 July, Brazil’s president Lula said:

Our countries can lead a new development model based on sustainable agriculture, green industry, resilient infrastructure, and the bioeconomy.

According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the bioeconomy is projected to generate over $7.7 trillion globally by 2030.

Brazil’s bioeconomy is set to open new markets across a wide range of sectors, from forest-based products and expanded biofuel production to innovative financial mechanisms such as nature credits, green bonds, Eco Invest Brasil, Fundo Clima, carbon offset programmes. Strategic investment initiatives like the Brazil Climate and Ecological Transformation Investment Platform (BIP) are also central to this growth.

The bioeconomy also encompasses biotechnology, strategic minerals, the restoration and sustainable management of natural vegetation, agricultural bio-inputs, waste management, regenerative farming, tourism, fishery, and other emerging industries.

Major Investments

In July 2025, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) approved a $1 billion loan to back Brazil’s ambitious policy reforms as part of its ecological transformation plan.

Central to this effort is Eco Invest Brasil, a partnership between the IDB and the Brazilian government. Eco Invest aims to mobilise around $10.8 billion in resources by 2027, with the majority coming from the private sector.

Eco Invest, though presented as a sustainability-focused initiative, has raised concerns among civil society groups and environmental observers.

Critics point to recent regulatory changes that may weaken environmental oversight and reduce protections for Indigenous and traditional communities, particularly if projects proceed without robust consultation or safeguards.

There are also warnings about potential risks related to land use, carbon markets, and the need for stronger governance to ensure the initiative aligns with environmental and human rights standards.

A Concept Lacking Clarity

A 2023 paper published in Ecological Economics warns that the ambiguity surrounding the bioeconomy concept poses serious risks to both the Amazon’s ecosystems and its communities.

Across the globe, a wide range of actors, from NGOs and government bodies at every level to private corporations, are promoting the bioeconomy as a path forward.

Yet, beneath this promise lies a risk: the push for biofuel monocultures like soybean and palm oil plantations, which carry serious socio-environmental consequences.

In Brazil, the widespread use of feedstocks such as sugarcane, palm oil, corn, and soybean spark intense debate. These crops, often presented as green alternatives, compete directly with food production and drive the alarming conversion of vital agricultural land into fuel production zones.

Take açaí, for example, the Amazon’s flagship bioeconomy product, valued at over $1 billion (IBGE, 2023). While its market is considered a success, the rapid expansion of açaí cultivation has come at a heavy cost: accelerating biodiversity loss and increasing social vulnerabilities within local communities.

Most profoundly, the article warns that the very framework of the bioeconomy, as currently designed, falls short in its ability to truly protect the Amazon and other richly biodiverse, socio-ecological landscapes.

Without urgent clarity and a committed, holistic approach, the promise of the bioeconomy risks becoming a threat to the land and people it aims to serve.

The term bioeconomy is increasingly used to describe a wide range of land-use practices, but a study published in the Forest Policy and Economics journal highlights the dangers of grouping together two fundamentally opposing models: industrial plantation economies and community-based sociobiodiverse systems.

While the former prioritises large-scale monocultures like soy and eucalyptus, often at the expense of ecosystems and traditional communities, the latter supports biodiversity, local livelihoods, and sustainable forest use.

The authors argue that merging these approaches under a single term obscure critical social and environmental conflicts and call for clearer policy distinctions to support truly sustainable, biodiversity-driven economies.

Additionally, the study also raises concerns about the Amazônia 4.0 project for promoting a high-tech, market-driven “bioeconomy” in the Amazon that risks reproducing capitalist, extractivist, and colonial dynamics under a sustainability guise.

While presented to harness biodiversity for local development, the authors argue it frames Indigenous and agroforestry practices within the same economic logic as large-scale monocultures, invites massive capital and infrastructure into sensitive forest areas, and overlooks power inequalities, social conflicts, and the potential erosion of Indigenous cosmologies and autonomy.

The lead author of the study, Ossi I. Ollinaho, lecturer at the global development studies of the University of Helsinki, said:

The extension of this concept [of bioeconomy] to the Amazon and similar high sociobiodiversity contexts carries the inherent risk of it ending up being pulped and sold for profit.

Institutional Structure

Brazil’s National Bioeconomy Commission (CNBio) was established as the governing body for the country’s national bioeconomy strategy, officially launched by the federal government under decree 12.044 on 5 June 2024. The commission’s primary role is to define the strategic pillars that will shape Brazil’s bioeconomy development plan (PNDBio).

CNBio consists of 34 members, evenly split between representatives from the federal government and civil society. The latter group includes stakeholders from the private sector, academia, financial institutions, environmental NGOs, Indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and family farmers.

To advance its mission, CNBio formed three specialised working groups via resolution CNBio 02/2025. The first group focuses on bioindustry and biomanufacturing, the second addresses biomass, and the third concentrates on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems as well as sociobioeconomy, with particular emphasis on the forest economy, fishing, tourism, and sociobiodiversity.

Mapping the Opportunity and the Risks

Brazil ranks as the world’s most biodiverse country, hosting up to 20% of the world’s species (9,000 species of vertebrates and 42,000 of plants), across six distinct biomes (the Amazon rainforest, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Caatinga, Pampas, and the Pantanal).

The Legal Amazon covers nearly 60% of Brazil’s territory and comprises nine states: Pará, Amazonas, Amapá, Roraima, Rondônia, Acre, Tocantins, Mato Grosso, and Maranhão. (IBGE, 2023-a).

As the world struggles with climate change and shrinking resources, all eyes are on Brazil, not just for its biodiversity, but for what can be extracted from it. For some, this is less about environmental stewardship and more about turning nature into profit.

Brazil now faces a critical question: will this moment serve the planet and its people, or just open the door to a new wave of exploitation dressed in green?

In 2023, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) teamed up with Brazil’s Ministry of Trade and Services to launch a new initiative called the Amazon Bioeconomy Business Mapping study.

The goal? To explore business opportunities in the Amazon based on the idea of building an economy that works with nature, not against it.

The study looked at several sectors. It found big potential in forest products, both timber (PFM) and non-timber (PFNM).

There’s particular interest in timber extraction, which has been legally regulated under “sustainable” forest management practices since 1965. The report suggests that there’s still plenty of room to expand this type of activity using native Amazon species.

Fishing and aquaculture are also in the spotlight. Native fish like the pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) and tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum) are being eyed for commercial expansion.

In fact, Brazil created the Genomic Editing Centre for Aquaculture Fish (CNPASA) in 2023, and by 2024, Embrapa (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation) had already produced the first genetically modified tambaquis.

Scientists are now working to develop tambaquis without intermuscular bones, and they’re also experimenting with genetically edited tilapia designed to grow faster and produce more meat by turning off the gene responsible for regulating muscle growth. The goal? Scale up production and get these fish on more dinner tables both in Brazil and abroad.

Tourism in Brazil’s conservation areas (UCs) was highlighted in the study as a potential tool for protecting forests within the broader bioeconomy.

While the study points to strong opportunities in this sector, it doesn’t seem to fully consider the possible social and environmental impacts that could come with expanding tourism in these protected areas.

Brazil is clearly standing at a crossroads. On one side, there’s an opportunity to lead the way in sustainable development. On the other, there’s a risk of repeating old mistakes, exploiting nature for short-term gain while calling it something new. The world is watching to see which path the country will choose.

Global Spotlight and G20 Leadership

At the G20 summit held in Brazil last November, discussions around bioeconomy policies and strategies took centre stage. Brazil used the occasion to launch the Global Bioeconomy Initiative (GIB), laying out 10 high-level principles aimed at guiding the development of bioeconomy efforts both nationally and globally.

According to the G20 executive summary titled Pathways to a Sustainable Bioeconomy, Brazil’s bioeconomy covers a wide range of sectors: industrial biomanufacturing and biotechnology, agrifood systems and agriculture, bioenergy and biofuels, ecosystem restoration and regeneration, and sociobioeconomy value chains rooted in local communities.

Despite its potential, the summary points out several challenges. Access to international markets for sociobioeconomy products remains limited.

There’s also a lack of financing tools and incentives to support growth in the sector, alongside serious gaps in processing facilities and transport infrastructure.

The push to grow the bioeconomy, especially in the Amazon, brings with it a wave of difficult questions.

While the development of this sector will require major infrastructure investments, such as new roads, power grids, transport, facilities, these changes also carry serious environmental and social risks.

Expanding infrastructure to support the bioeconomy could lead to faster urbanisation and rising pollution in one of the most ecologically sensitive areas on Earth.

Studies have shown that projects like the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway, a key piece of the region’s bioeconomy development, often go hand in hand with deforestation, habitat loss, and increased pressure on Indigenous and traditional communities.

As Brazil moves forward with its plans, striking the right balance between economic opportunity, environmental protection, and social justice remains one of the country’s biggest challenges.

The Biofuels Dilemma

Bioenergy and biofuels are central to Brazil’s climate strategy. But rising mandates for ethanol and biodiesel are driving relentless expansion of sugarcane, soy, corn, and palm oil, of then at the expense of food systems and ecosystems.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, explained:

Like food production, ethanol requires land, water, and nutrients, meaning that a large-scale expansion could intensify the negative side effects of agricultural growth.

Positioning bioenergy as a climate strategy has effectively justified broader policies supporting the biofuel industry and contributed to the greenwashing of Brazil’s climate policy on the international stage. Several countries have mirrored Brazil’s approach, adopting bioenergy into their climate agendas in response.

Green Finance or Green Mask?

The Brazilian Sustainable Taxonomy (TSB) represents an effort by the government to align financial flows with environmental and social objectives.

Positioned as a key instrument in the fight against the climate crisis, it seeks to identify economic activities that align with environmental and social sustainability.

However, its initial focus on a small group of commodities, including soy, corn, cattle, coffee, cocoa, eucalyptus, pirarucu, tilapia and tambaqui, has prompted discussion about whether the selection reflects environmental priorities or prevailing economic interests.

There is concern that, without clearly defined and rigorous criteria, the taxonomy could inadvertently support existing practices rather than driving meaningful change.

This raises a broader concern: amid a global climate emergency, it is essential that sustainability frameworks remain robust and grounded in tangible outcomes.

If sustainability is defined more by procedural formalities than by real environmental results, there is a risk that the taxonomy could be perceived as allowing surface-level compliance rather than driving genuine transformation.

Additionally, given the significant involvement of major economic sectors in shaping the taxonomy, questions have emerged around how to ensure transparency and guard against unintended influences that might weaken its environmental credibility.

Crossroads at COP30

As COP30 approaches, Brazil faces a defining moment. The bioeconomy could become a powerful engine for justice and regeneration, or it could repeat the old story, where corporations profit from nature while the communities who protect it are sidelined.

If driven by financial interests alone, the Amazon risks becoming just another asset on a balance sheet, and sustainability reduced to a convenient label. This is not innovation, it’s business as usual in a green disguise.

But Brazil can choose another way. With its deep cultural knowledge, grassroots leadership, and global influence, the country has the power to shape a bioeconomy that puts people and ecosystems first.

COP30 offers a critical platform to shift the narrative, from one of extraction and exclusion to one of inclusion and respect. This is Brazil’s moment to lead with purpose and prove that a just, sustainable future is not only necessary, but possible.

COP30 Spotlight: The Shadows of Amazon Dams

Monica Piccinini

11 April 2025

As Brazil prepares to host COP30 in the city of Belém, it stands before the world as a self-declared leader in clean energy. The Amazon rainforest, often described as the lungs of the planet, has been at the heart of this vision, seen as a source of nearly limitless hydropower potential. For decades, Brazil has promoted hydroelectricity as a clean, sustainable, and cost-effective solution to boost economic growth and fulfil its climate commitments.

But while hydropower now constitutes over 60% of Brazil’s energy matrix, this narrative of progress has come at a deep and often irreversible cost, one paid by ecosystems and communities that have long existed in harmony with the rivers now being harnessed for power.

The Brazilian government, energy companies, and mainstream media have long presented hydropower as a national achievement, a keystone of development and environmental responsibility. Yet, beneath the surface, scientific research and the lived experiences of countless displaced people tell a different story.

Since the 1960s, Brazil has invested heavily in dam construction, increasingly targeting the Amazon basin, one of the most ecologically rich and water-abundant areas on Earth. These gigantic projects have not only disrupted sensitive ecosystems but have also led to the mass displacement of Indigenous and traditional communities, disrupted their food sources, such as fishing, triggered widespread deforestation and environmental pollution. Worse yet, these dams contributed to the release of greenhouse gases like methane and carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, the influx of workers to dam sites often drives rapid urbanisation, placing stress on existing infrastructure and contributing to a surge in violence, crime, and both mental and physical health issues, leaving deep scars on communities that are already struggling to survive.

Belo Monte – a monument loss

One of the most impactful projects, with significant irreversible socio-ecological consequences, was the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric complex in Pará, the host state for COP30.

Igor Cavallini Johansen, professor in the demography department of the State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), said:

We must reckon with the persistent inequalities created by large hydropower dams – both in the Altamira region and across the Amazon basin. This legacy of uneven development, where local communities bear the environmental and social costs while distant urban centres reap the energy benefits, demands urgent redress.

Built between 2010 and 2015 during Dilma Rousseff’s administration, and completed just before her impeachment, Belo Monte has a capacity of 11.2 GW and a cost of around $13 billion. It stands as Brazil’s second-largest hydropower plant, operated and managed by Norte Energia.

In June 2022, prior to his election, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, stated that he had no regrets about supporting Belo Monte in the past, and that he would make the same decision to build the dam again if given the chance. He has consistently expressed his strong support for the Belo Monte project.

Belo Monte is made up of two dams: an upper dam, Pimental, which diverts water to the canal, and lower dam, Belo Monte, where the powerhouse is located, along a 130-km river stretch of the Xingu River, known as Volta Grande.

For many, Belo Monte symbolises tragedy, rather than triumph

The construction of Belo Monte forcibly displaced around 40,000 people, including riverside communities (Ribeirinhos) and a quarter of Altamira’s population, who were relocated to remote resettlements on the city’s outskirts.

For those who stayed, the consequences were equally devastating. Indigenous people and Ribeirinhos lost access to their primary food source – fishing – as fluctuating water levels led to the extinction of fish species. The river’s flow was reduced by an alarming 80%, all due to the diversion of its natural course.

Photograph: Maria Francineide Ferreira dos Santos

Maria Francineide Ferreira dos Santos lost her paradise to silence. Her home in Paratizinho was taken from her after she dared to speak against the destruction caused by the Belo Monte dam. She was forced to move into the city, but never stopped fighting. Today, she lives in Volta Grande do Xingu, not just as a survivor, but as a fierce guardian of the river and its people.

Francineide spoke out about the lasting harm Belo Monte has brought to her life and the lives of countless others:

All the impacts we’ve had are irreparable. The first impact was the biggest crime that Belo Monte committed in the Xingu, the death of the fish and with the displacement of its people who were born and raised in this region, who lived on the islands, without rights, without being heard, without respect, having their houses ripped out and burned, violating our rights.

Another impact was seeing our people, who didn’t understand anything, lose their homes, being moved to the city where land had exorbitant prices, not giving us the conditions to survive. The government does what it wants. This has been a losing fight. No justice has been done.

Rodolfo Salm, ecologist, activist, and lecturer at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), who lives in Altamira, spoke about some of the impacts of the project:

The Belo Monte hydroelectric project stands as a clear example of environmental, social, and economic failure. While presented as a symbol of progress, it has instead triggered widespread destruction in the eastern Amazon. The social consequences have been equally severe, marked by displacement, violence, and unfulfilled promises. Despite the billions spent on compensation, these efforts fall far short of addressing the loss of livelihoods, natural beauty, and vital ecosystem services once provided by the preserved Xingu River.

Far from bringing prosperity, the project has left the region economically weakened and environmentally damaged. Energy production at Belo Monte is unreliable, with the Xingu River running too low for most of the year, a flaw that was well understood before construction even began.

Food insecurity

A study published in the Environmental Research and Public Health highlights concerning levels of food insecurity in the region impacted by Belo Monte. Rather than enhancing quality of life, the project triggered a series of negative outcomes: displacement, loss of homes, and the disruption of essential food sources like agriculture and fishing. As a result, food security deteriorated, contributing to increased poverty.

Johansen, one of the authors of the study, explained:

The long-term food insecurity faced by communities displaced by Belo Monte is one of the most alarming consequences of the dam’s construction. Our research shows that, nearly 70% of households reported increased difficulty accessing enough food or the types of food they wanted after Belo Monte was built. For more than half of them, this struggle began even before the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning the dam’s impacts – not just external crises – are a relevant driver of this problem.

One of the most revealing findings is that people officially recognised as ‘impacted’ by Belo Monte – and thus relocated to government resettlement neighbourhoods – were significantly more likely to face hunger. This suggests that the resettlement process itself, rather than improving lives, has maintained or deepened vulnerabilities.

The resettled communities were stripped of a fundamental human right: access to adequate, nutritious food.

Miquéias Freitas Calvi, professor of forestry engineering at the Federal University of Pará (UFPA), and one of the authors of the study, said:

The disruption of the river’s natural balance deeply affects the Indigenous and riverside communities whose lives are rooted in it. Fishing, their primary source of sustenance and income, is under threat, placing food security, health, and cultural survival at risk. As the river fades, so does their self-reliance. More families are forced to abandon their ancestral lands, relying on government aid to survive. Traditional diets give way to ultra-processed foods, compromising their health and identity. What begins as environmental damage quickly becomes a social crisis, eroding generations of sustainable living in harmony with the river.

In just two years, the city of Altamira’s population (urban area) doubled as thousands arrived from across Brazil, drawn by the promise of work, not only on the Belo Monte dam, but in the web of opportunities it created. With such rapid growth, the most basic human need, food, became a pressing challenge. Yet instead of preparing to sustain a growing city and strengthen the local economy, the region scaled back its food production and deepened its dependence on distant supply chains.

Johansen explained some of the impacts that go far beyond nutrition:

The loss of traditional food sources like fish has had devastating impacts that go far beyond nutrition – it’s severed a vital connection to cultural identity and community health. For Indigenous and riverine populations around Belo Monte, fish weren’t just protein; they anchored entire systems of knowledge, social bonds, and spiritual practices.

Generations developed intricate fishing techniques tied to the Xingu’s seasonal floods, passing down this wisdom through stories and shared labor. The act of fishing itself was communal – a space where elders taught youth, where myths were retold, where social ties were reinforced. With the dam’s disruption of river ecology, we’ve seen not just declining catches but a rupture in this intergenerational transmission.

Perceptions

A study published in the Energy Research & Social Science journal explores how communities living near major hydropower dams perceive this form of energy, in sharp contrast to the broader national population. Focusing on the Altamira region, deep in the Amazon and heavily impacted by the Belo Monte dam, the study offers a glimpse into the lived reality behind Brazil’s hydropower narrative.

Although Altamira is not located directly beside the dam, it served as a central hub for its construction. As a result, the city experienced significant negative impacts, including the rise in crime, prostitution, drug use, public health challenges such as increased dengue fever cases, and social disruption.

Having lived through these changes, Altamira’s residents perceive the social and environmental consequences of hydropower far more critically than the general population. Still, 60% of residents continue to express support for hydropower, a complex and conflicted relationship with a project that has profoundly altered their daily lives.

This contradiction reveals the harsh reality of “sacrifice zones”, areas like Altamira and its neighbouring communities that are left to absorb the full cost of national development while receiving little in return. The psychological cost is profound: some residents appear to cope by believing their hardship is a necessary contribution to the nation’s progress.

Perhaps most heartbreaking is the widespread frustration over energy costs. A staggering 84% of Altamira’s population say they are dissatisfied with the affordability of electricity, despite living in the shadow of one of the world’s largest hydropower projects.

Johansen further explained:

There’s the powerful narrative of progress and modernity that dominates media coverage and political discourse. Hydropower is consistently framed as “clean energy” and a driver of national development, with stories appearing almost exclusively in economic sections of newspapers. This selective coverage emphasises job creation and energy security while minimising reports about displacement, ecological damage, and cultural loss. The result is a skewed public perception where the benefits feel abstract and national, while the costs remain hyper-localised.

In addition, there’s the entrenched notion of sacrifice zones – the idea that certain regions must bear the burden of development for the greater good. Many in Altamira express a resigned acceptance that “someone has to pay the price” for Brazil’s energy needs. This sentiment is reinforced when they see the electricity from Belo Monte, which is connected to the national grid, primarily powering distant urban centers in the southeast while there are local communities in the Amazon facing energy poverty.

The stark reality of Altamira – sitting in the shadow of one of Brazil’s largest hydropower plants yet struggling with expensive electricity – exposes a fundamental injustice in our energy system. This isn’t just poor planning; it’s a systemic failure that treats local communities as infrastructure sites rather than equal beneficiaries

As Brazil prepares to welcome the world at COP30, it faces an urgent question: can a nation truly claim climate leadership while ignoring the voices of those sacrificed in the name of energy?

Johansen’s shared a powerful message to Brazil and the world about the irreversible consequences of hydropower dams in biodiversity hotspots like the Amazon:

The construction of hydropower dams in biodiversity hotspots like the Amazon has taught us several hard lessons that should fundamentally reshape future energy planning. First and foremost, these projects cause irreversible ecological damage – flooding vast areas of pristine rainforest, destroying unique habitats, and potentially driving species extinction.

Equally troubling is the consistent pattern of human rights violations. Indigenous and traditional communities repeatedly face displacement without proper consultation or fair compensation, as starkly demonstrated by the Belo Monte project. These aren’t isolated incidents but systemic failures in how such projects are approved and implemented.

The climate calculus for tropical dams has also proven flawed. Rather than being clean energy solutions, their reservoirs become methane factories as submerged vegetation decomposes – in some cases making them worse climate offenders than fossil fuel plants. This challenges the very rationale for prioritising hydropower in rainforest regions.

Perhaps the most crucial lesson is that we can no longer justify sacrificing the Amazon’s ecological and cultural wealth for questionable energy gains. The evidence clearly shows that in biodiversity hotspots, the costs of large dams nearly always outweigh the benefits – a reality that demands a fundamental shift in energy policy.

Right of reply

When asked for comment, Norte Energia issued to following statement:

Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot
Screenshot

BR-319: Paving the Way for Indigenous Displacement and Environmental Catastrophe

Monica Piccinini

28 March 2025

Since European colonisers set foot in Brazil, Indigenous people have fought a relentless battle to protect their lands and preserve their way of life. Centuries of oppression have forced them to alter their cultures, traditions and beliefs, yet their resilience remains unbroken. Today, they still endure violent invasions by farmers, loggers, miners, and organised crime, keeping their communities locked in a constant fight for survival.

The protection of Brazil’s Indigenous lands is crucial for the survival of the Amazon rainforest. However, multiple projects – including oil and gas exploration, agribusiness expansion, cattle farming, biofuel production, legal and illegal mining, logging, and organised crime – threaten this vital ecosystem.

The reconstruction of Amazon’s BR-319 highway, one of the world’s most environmentally damaging projects, serves as a catalyst for these destructive activities. Stretching 885 km, the highway connects the capital of Amazonas, Manaus, to Porto Velho, cutting through pristine areas of the rainforest. A proposed 408 km reconstruction would open a gateway to deforestation, crime, and corporate exploitation, directly impacting over 18,000 Indigenous people.

The Amazon plays a critical role in regulating global climate and generating water vapour that brings rain across Brazil through the “flying rivers.” The reconstruction of BR-319 will disrupt this vital system, threatening the region’s health and overall environmental balance.

Deforestation and degradation along BR-319 will disrupt the “flying rivers,” potentially leading to devastating droughts, food and water shortages, and a collapse of Brazil’s agribusiness sector, including family farming – ultimately destabilising the country’s economy.

Violation of Indigenous Rights Along BR-319

Indigenous territories are not merely land – they are living, breathing places, rich with history, culture, and meaning. These lands hold the heartbeat of traditions, where communities coexist in a delicate, sacred balance with the animals, the water, the forests, and the earth itself. Their bond with nature is deep and sacred, as their very survival depends on its health and strength. It is a bond built on respect and care, a promise to nurture the land that sustains them, ensuring that it flourishes for generations to come.

However, this bond is now under threat. In the areas surrounding the BR-319 highway, Indigenous leaders from Lake Capanã Grande and Baetas have reported serious violations of their rights and growing threats due to the degradation of their territories and the expansion of the highway. There has also been an alarming attempt by a non-governmental organisation (NGO) to validate the consultation protocol with the communities.

This concerning situation emerged during an event at the Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), which included the participation of the federal prosecution office, a representative from the ministry of the environment, an NGO, and Indigenous leaders. The meeting was organised by researcher Lucas Ferrante and covered by Revista Cenarium.

The issue was further detailed in the article “BR-319: Narratives, Business and Power”, published by Revista Cenarium in February. According to the article, NGO Instituto Internacional de Educação do Brasil (IEB) produced a document falsely claiming that the Indigenous community had been consulted and had agreed to the reconstruction of the highway, provided that an extractive reserve was created to protect them. Shockingly, the community only learned of this approval after they had signed the document.

In 2020, Ferrante travelled along the BR-319 highway, interviewing several Indigenous people and leaders impacted by the road. Since then, their views on the highway’s effects have remained consistent. One Indigenous leader from Lake Capanã shared his concerns about the highway’s impact on his village (his name has been withheld to ensure his safety):

I would like to express my indignation in front of everyone regarding the impact of the BR-319 highway on the Indigenous lands of Lake Capanã. This brings us problems, manipulation of rights, violation of our traditional areas, occupation by land grabbers, pollution of our river, destruction of our nature.

And this is causing major problems in the flow of our rivers. Streams are being buried. Here we use the water from the river. The result of this BR will become an open door for the entry of criminals, drug dealers, all types of drugs, as already exists.

The Indigenous population lives off food from nature, the Indigenous population does not live off livestock. The Indigenous people live off traditional objects. They live off the subsistence of nature and subtract nature for itself for their survival and protect their own nature. I am against this paving.

The expansion of BR-319 is driving the rapid growth of agribusiness in the region, particularly on unallocated public lands. Soybean farmers from Mato Grosso do Sul are increasingly moving into Rondônia, buying land from livestock farmers who are then shifting southward within the BR-319 corridor to plant soybeans. These lands are often seized illegally through land grabbing, illegal deforestation, or violent evictions of Indigenous and traditional communities.

This situation brings attention to critical issues like the Soy Moratorium, especially as there have been growing attempts to abolish it, which could have devastating effects on the environment and Indigenous and traditional communities.

Soy Moratorium

Brazil’s Soy Moratorium, established in 2006, is an agreement where signatory companies pledge not to buy soy grown on land deforested in the Amazon after July 2008. This agreement has been a vital tool in the fight against deforestation. Yet now it faces a threat, as Brazil’s powerful agribusiness lobby intensifies efforts to dismantle it. As the world’s largest producer and exporter of soybeans, Brazil’s agricultural policies hold immense global consequences.  

In October 2024, the state of Mato Grosso, leading soy producer, enacted Bill 12.709/2024, effectively cutting tax incentives for companies that adhere to the Soy Moratorium. On February 19, Brazil’s Legislative Assembly president, Max Russi, made the following statement:

We are all united in defence of one of the most important pillars of our economy – agribusiness.

During the same month, a troubling report from Repórter Brasil revealed that Cargill, one of Brazil’s largest grain exporters, was suggesting distancing itself from the Soy Moratorium rules.

On 11 March, Brazil’s agriculture minister, Carlos Fávaro, arranged a meeting with agribusiness leaders and supreme court minister Flávio Dino, who is overseeing the case concerning the Soy Moratorium. Among the key figures were Blairo Maggi, chairman of the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (Abiove) and Fávaro’s political mentor, as well as representatives from major agricultural giants such as Grupo Bom Futuro and Amaggi, the nation’s largest agricultural trading company.

Concerns emerge from the overlapping roles and connections involved. Maggi’s significant influence in both policymaking and agribusiness, coupled with family ties and Amaggi’s vested interests in the Soy Moratorium, raise questions about impartiality of these discussions.

Fávaro has expressed strong opposition to the Soy Moratorium, calling it “discrepant” and “unprofessional,” and has firmly declared his position:

I tried to demonstrate that the Soy Moratorium is also not constitutional, and I am confident that Minister Dino will act in this sense.

If the Soy Moratorium is lifted, soybean farmers will migrate to the Amazon, triggering rampant deforestation, environmental degradation, pollution, and violation of Indigenous rights, including violence and land invasion. This could also result in a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions, leading to disastrous social and environmental consequences.

In a nation where agribusiness drives the economy, Indigenous territories are seen as obstacles to relentless capitalist growth. With Brazil’s Congress dominated by the powerful rural caucus, the “ruralistas,” there is little concern for Indigenous rights as they push relentlessly for laws that serve their own interests. For them, the survival of Indigenous communities is a mere roadblock in their pursuit of profit.

The future of the Amazon, its Indigenous communities, and our planet is at risk. Rebuilding BR-319 isn’t just about a road – it’s a dangerous move that could destroy centuries of heritage and harm the environment beyond repair. If Brazil takes this path, the damage will be permanent, leaving deep scars on the land, its people, and the world.

As the world prepares for COP30, the urgency for protecting the Amazon and its ecosystems has never been clearer. The decisions made at this summit will have a profound impact on the preservation of the Amazon, and we must ensure that sustainability, Indigenous rights, and environmental protection take centre stage in these discussions.

Brazil’s New Pesticide Law: No Safe Distance from Toxic Exposure

Monica Piccinini

20 March 2025

Brazil’s current pesticide legislation currently mandates a minimum safety distance of 90 metres during chemical applications to reduce exposure risks. This regulation aims to safeguard both human health and the environment from the harmful effects of pesticides.

However, a new proposal – Bill 1833/2023 – seeks to significantly reduce this buffer zone, allowing just 25 metres for large properties. For small and medium-sized properties, there would be no mandatory safety distance at all. This would enable pesticide applications without any protective distance around traditional communities, rivers, or conservation areas, raising serious concerns about the potential dangers to public health and ecosystems.

This drastic reduction raises alarming concerns among experts, as it could lead to increased contamination risks for ecosystems and nearby communities, amplifying the threats to public health and the environment.

If passed, the proposal would allow farmers to apply pesticides dangerously close to small properties, putting surrounding communities at risk and potentially resulting in severe health repercussions.

The existing regulations in the state of Mato Grosso, which govern the use, production, storage, trade, application, transportation, and monitoring of pesticides, play a crucial role in protecting water resources, soil quality, animals, and the region’s most vulnerable populations – especially small family farmers and residents living near agricultural areas.

A weakening of these protections would open the door to catastrophic environmental degradation and irreversible harm to public health. As one of the world’s largest pesticide users, Brazil – and particularly Mato Grosso – cannot afford to take such a dangerous step backward.

Several  studies have demonstrated that pesticide exposure significantly affects the health of the Brazilian population across all age groups and genders. Health consequences include central nervous system damage, cancer, poisoning, birth defects, and disruptions to the endocrine system.

A study published in the journal Acta Amazônica by scientists Lucas Ferrante and Philip Fearnside stresses the importance of maintaining a safety distance of at least 300 meters between pesticide areas and sensitive locations, such as conservation areas, water sources, and rural communities. This recommendation is based on findings that negative effects, including local extinctions, genetic mutations, and deformities in wildlife, were observed more than 250 meters from treated areas, as shown in various studies across Brazil.

Ferrante said:

“Bill 1833/2023 represents a threat to Mato Grosso’s own agriculture by allowing the application of pesticides without respecting adequate safety zones.

“We conducted measurements in the pesticide application area without a safe distance and observed extinctions, mutations, and anomalies. These effects extended at least 250 metres, indicating that a minimum safe distance of 300 metres is necessary”.

The impact of pesticides on wildlife is not only a concern for researchers but is also acknowledged by the industry. Syngenta, on its official website, admits that pesticides contribute to the decline of pollinators, noting that “75% of crops intended for human consumption depend on bees” and that “they are the most important pollinators on the planet. In addition to allowing plants to reproduce, pollination also increases crop productivity levels and results in the production of better-quality fruits and a greater number of seeds”.

Syngenta points out that “the disappearance of bees and other pollinators could eliminate crops such as melon, watermelon, and passion fruit,” highlighting that the decline of pollinators due to pesticide use in sensitive areas directly threatens agricultural productivity and food security.

Approximately 80% of the pesticides approved in Brazil are banned in at least three countries within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) of the European community.

On average, each Brazilian consumes seven litres of pesticides annually, a staggering figure tied to the 70,000 cases of both acute and chronic poisoning reported across the country. This alarming statistic is highlighted in a dossier compiled by the Brazilian Association of Public Health (ABRASCO).

The proposed Bill 1833/2023 not only dismisses solid scientific evidence but also endangers the sustainability of agriculture in Mato Grosso and puts public health at risk by amplifying the potential for widespread pesticide contamination.

Ferrante warned about the risks associated with this new proposal, stressing the potential implications it may have:

“The approval of Bill 1833/2023 marks a severe regression in environmental and public health protection, sanctioning pesticide use at alarmingly close distances to vulnerable areas such as rural communities, water sources, and ecosystems. This reckless decision not only endangers local biodiversity but also jeopardises global food security.

“Nations that import Brazilian commodities, like soy and other pesticide-reliant agricultural products, must urgently reevaluate these imports. The dilution of environmental safeguards amplifies the risk of chemical contamination and breaches international food safety standards.”

Supermarkets Turn a Blind Eye to Methane Emissions from Meat and Dairy

Monica Piccinini

13 March 2025

Despite mounting evidence of the environmental impact of methane emissions, the world’s largest supermarkets are failing to take responsibility for their role in the crisis.

A new report by Changing Markets Foundation and NGO Mighty Earth reveals that 20 major supermarkets – including Carrefour, Lidl, Tesco, Walmart, and Ahold Delhaize – are ignoring the need to track or reduce the methane emissions linked their supply chains. With meat and dairy responsible for at least a third of their total emissions, this alarming failure raises serious questions about their commitment to sustainability and climate action.

The findings expose a troubling lack of transparency, as none of these industry giants publicly report their methane emissions, despite methane being 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the short term.

As global efforts intensify to curb greenhouse gases, the failure of these companies to acknowledge and address their methane footprint puts them under increasing scrutiny. With pressure mounting from regulators, investors, and consumers, these retailers must move beyond greenwashing and take concrete steps to slash emissions before it’s too late.

Gemma Hoskins, global methane lead at Mighty Earth, said:

Food retailers are ignoring the methane problem hidden in the meat and dairy aisles and risk losing consumer trust. Methane is a superheater greenhouse gas responsible for about a quarter of the heating the planet has already experienced. But it’s short-lived, so rapid cuts would be a win for climate and nature.

Retailers are uniquely positioned to urgently drive down agricultural methane emissions in their supply chains. That starts with being honest about the impact of the products they sell and working harder and faster to reduce that impact.

The report reveals that over 90% of European food retailers’ emissions come from their supply chains, with meat and dairy accounting for nearly half. Yet, none of the retailers analysed disclose methane emissions or the footprint of the meat and dairy products they sell.

Food retailers also fail to commit to deforestation-free supply chains for key commodities like beef, soy, and palm oil, despite the 2025 EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) deadline. Livestock farming is a leading driver of the Amazon’s destruction, responsible for 88% of deforestation.

While fossil fuel companies face intense scrutiny, the climate impact of the meat and dairy industry remains largely neglected. Rapidly cutting methane emissions by transforming this sector – alongside phasing out fossil fuels – could be a game changer in the fight against climate disaster.

Methane Alert

Methane levels have more than doubled in the past 200 years, with around 600 million tonnes released into the atmosphere annually – roughly 40% from natural sources and 60% driven by human activity.

As a greenhouse gas, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, responsible for 25% of global heating. Though it remains in the atmosphere for a shorter time than CO2, it is far more effective at trapping heat, earning its reputation as a ‘super-heater’.

Animal agriculture is a major contributor, responsible for 16.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 32% of human-caused methane emissions – largely from a byproduct of livestock digestion process (burps) called enteric fermentation, and manure. Each year, 83 billion land animals are slaughtered for meat production, further driving these emissions.

Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth are calling on food retailers to take responsibility by publicly reporting their emissions, setting science-based climate targets, and reducing methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030, in line with the Global Methane Pledge adopted at COP26. With their vast influence over supply chains and consumer choices, food retailers must lead the shift toward a sustainable food system, rather than placing the burden on consumers.

As key players in the global food industry, major food retailers have the power – and the duty – to pressure dominant meat and dairy producers, including JBS, Tyson, and Cargill, to adopt more transparency and sustainable practices, and cut methane emissions at the source.

Maddy Haughton-Boakes, senior campaigner at the Changing Markets Foundation, said:

Methane emissions are a major blind spot of supermarkets. Our scorecard reveals a complete lack of action, with the most powerful players in the food supply chains completely ignoring their government’s commitments to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030. This must change urgently.

Some retailers acknowledge the problem and have taken small steps, but none are treating it with the urgency it demands – there are no real leaders here. Cutting methane this decade is our emergency brake on runaway global heating, yet retailers are barely pressing it. The companies that dominate our food system must step up now and take real action to slash their methane emissions.

Scorecard assessed the 20 largest food retailers in Europe and the US to evaluate their progress towards reducing methane emissions. Graph: Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth.

Health Impact

Excessive meat consumption is a major threat to both the planet and human health. It drives greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and destroys ecosystems rich in biodiversity. But the dangers don’t stop there – scientific studies reveal that high intake of red and processed meat significantly increases the risk of ischaemic heart disease, pneumonia, diabetes, colon polyps, and diverticular disease.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has found compelling evidence that processed meat directly contributes to colorectal cancer, a finding further reinforced by research from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS).

Adding to these dangers, the meat industry’s rampant use of antibiotics in livestock farming has accelerated the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a looming public health catastrophe.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) results in higher mortality rates, prolonged illness, the spread of epidemics, and an overwhelming strain on global healthcare systems.

Action

Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth are urging food retailers to urgently develop climate plans to reduce methane from meat and dairy sources, adopt public transparency in climate reporting and disclose methane emissions, and set a target for methane reductions.

The pressure is mounting for food retailers to confront the methane problem head-on. As consumers become more aware of the environmental and health implications of their food choices, the demand for transparency and accountability will only grow.

Food retailers can no longer afford to ignore the environmental cost of the products they sell. By taking quick and decisive action to reduce methane emissions, they not only have the chance to be at the forefront of the sustainable food movement but also to regain consumer trust and position themselves as true leaders in the fight against climate change.

With the urgency of the climate crisis at an all-time high, it is crucial that these companies step up to the challenge. If they fail to address methane emissions now, they risk locking in further damage to the planet, compromising both our future, our health, and their role in the global economy.

COP30: Will Brazil Step Up as a Climate Leader?

Monica Piccinini

6 February 2025

As the host of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP30, Brazil stands at a crucial moment in history. This is more than just a global summit; it’s an opportunity for the nation to establish itself as a leader in the climate agenda and set an example for the world.

This November, the spotlight will be on Belém, the capital of Pará, as it hosts COP30, bringing together world leaders, activists, corporations, and policymakers to tackle the world’s most urgent environmental challenges, where the stakes have never been higher.

With climate disasters intensifying and deforestation threatening the planet’s most critical ecosystems, Brazil has both the responsibility and the power to drive real change.

For Brazil’s President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, COP30 presents a defining moment. It is a chance to take bold, decisive action, protecting Brazil’s rich biodiversity, halting deforestation and degradation in the Amazon rainforest, and shutting the door on further fossil fuel expansion.

The world is watching to see whether Brazil will step up with concrete policies and enforcement that safeguard its natural resources. If Lula seizes this moment, Brazil won’t just be hosting COP30, it will be leading the charge toward a more sustainable and resilient future.

Cássio Cardoso Pereira, ecologist, conservation biologist, and editor of BioScience, Biotropica, and Nature Conservation journals, shared his perspective on COP30:

Brazil stands at a crossroads. Events like COPs may generate ideas, but without real commitment, they will fail to drive the urgent change we need. Empty declarations about having the world’s largest tropical forest and abundant renewable resources mean nothing if we ignore the fires, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and relentless destruction that threaten them.

Oil and Gas

In 2024, the world has witnessed alarming new records in greenhouse gas levels and rising air and sea surface temperatures, as tracked by the Copernicus Climate Change Service. These shifts have triggered extreme weather events across the globe, including in Brazil, highlighting an urgent need for nations to phase out fossil fuels. Yet, instead of taking decisive action, countries, including Brazil, are ramping up fossil fuel production, pushing the planet further into crisis.

Brazil’s path is deeply concerning. According to the country’s trade ministry, oil exports surged to $44.8 billion this year, surpassing soybeans as the nation’s top export. Projections from Rystad Energy indicate that by 2030, Brazil’s oil production will exceed 7 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd), elevating the country from the seventh to the fifth-largest oil producer in the world.

In 2024, state-owned oil giant Petrobrás reached a staggering production level of 2.4 million barrels of oil per day. Having Lula’s full support, the company is moving forward with controversial plans to expand oil exploration at the mouth of the Amazon River, an ecologically fragile region. This project threatens vital coral reefs, extensive mangroves, and the livelihoods of Indigenous and local communities. Beyond these immediate dangers, the risks of oil spills and increased greenhouse gas emissions could have catastrophic global consequences.

Pereira emphasised that Brazil’s choices today will determine whether it curbs environmental collapse or accelerates a climate catastrophe:

Brazil must foster an inclusive, transparent dialogue, one that listens to all voices, especially Indigenous communities, instead of being drowned out by misinformation and intolerance. While deforestation grabs headlines, the deeper crisis of forest degradation continues unchecked.

And now, reckless projects, including the BR-319 highway, the Ferrogrão railroad, and the disastrous proposal to drill for oil at the mouth of the Amazon, push the rainforest closer to collapse.

If these threats are ignored and buried beneath diplomatic pleasantries, Brazil will not only fail its emissions targets but betray its responsibility to the planet. The time for real action is now.

Amazon’s BR-319 Highway

The BR-319 highway, an 885 km stretch connecting the capital of Amazonas, Manaus, to Porto Velho, runs through one of the most pristine regions of the Amazon rainforest. Now, with a proposed reconstruction of 406 km, this project threatens to unleash a chain of destruction, turning an intact ecosystem into an open gateway to deforestation, crime, and corporate greed. The consequences  wouldn’t just be local, they would ripple across Brazil and the world, accelerating climate collapse and putting Indigenous communities at extreme risk.

At the heart of this looming disaster is the AMACRO region, a deforestation hotspot covering the states of Amazonas, Acre, and Rondônia. If BR-319 is rebuilt, it would carve open a direct path between these heavily deforested lands and the untouched heart of the Amazon. With the rainforest already approaching an irreversible tipping point, this highway could be the trigger that pushes it over the edge.

The rainforest, long considered the “lungs of the Earth,” plays a crucial role in stabilising global temperatures. Destroying it would speed up climate change, making extreme weather events even more frequent and devastating.

Beyond environmental catastrophe, the human cost is staggering. The highway would expose 69 Indigenous communities, over 18,000 Indigenous people, to land invasions, violence, and displacement. Illegal land grabbing, mining, and logging have already inflicted damage on the Amazon, but with a newly reconstructed BR-319, these activities would expand uncontrollably.

Over 6,000 km of illegal roads have already been built off BR-319, and with further expansion, organised crime will only strengthen its hold on the region, putting both Indigenous lives and rainforest defenders in danger.

The threat extends beyond land. The destruction of the rainforest could disrupt the “flying rivers”, air currents heavy with water that bring rain to vast areas of Brazil. Without them, droughts could devastate agriculture and water supplies, affecting millions of people. Worse still, deforestation could create conditions for new zoonotic diseases to jump from wildlife to humans, increasing the risk of another global pandemic. In a world still struggling with the effects of COVID-19, this is a risk too great to ignore.

Despite urgent warnings from leading scientists Lucas Ferrante and Phillip Fearnside, the Brazilian government remains unmoved. With the president’s full support and backing from politicians, business leaders, and even some NGOs, BR-319 has being pushed forward in the name of economic growth. But the real beneficiaries are the powerful industries behind oil and gas, agribusiness, and mining, both legal and illegal, while the Amazon and its people suffer the ultimate price.

Lucas Ferrante, researcher at the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), said:

This is more than a road; it’s a turning point. Deforestation and degradation are already seen around BR-319. If the highway is rebuilt, it could set off an irreversible chain reaction that will devastate the Amazon, harm Indigenous communities, and accelerate climate change beyond control.

The choice is clear: either listen to the science and protect the rainforest, or let short-term profits destroy one of the world’s last great ecosystems. The world is watching and what happens next will define the future of the Amazon, Brazil, and the planet.

Biofuels

At COP30, Brazil will showcase its commitment to building a strong bioeconomy, an opportunity to unlock its vast natural wealth and drive economic growth. Central to this ambition is the aggressive expansion of biofuels, a key pillar of Brazil’s decarbonisation strategy, reinforced by President Lula’s Fuel of the Future Law, increasing biofuel mandate in the country.

Yet, this path is not without consequence. The soaring demand for biofuel crops, sugarcane, soy, corn, and palm oil, threatens food security, drives deforestation, and puts immense pressure on vital ecosystems. Land conversion accelerates greenhouse gas emissions, while water depletion, soil erosion and pollution by using pesticides raise serious concerns about sustainability.

In Pará, the expansion of palm oil has sparked conflict, marked by allegations of environmental crimes and violence against Indigenous and traditional communities.

Jorge Ernesto Rodriguez Morales, lecturer and researcher in environmental policy and climate change governance at the Department of Economic History and International Relations at Stockholm University, mentioned:

Brazil’s ethanol diplomacy aims to portray the nation as climate-conscious, using biofuel as leverage in climate negotiations. Many countries have followed Brazil’s ‘successful’ example by integrating bioenergy into their climate policies, even though its social and environmental costs are widely acknowledged.

Brazil stands at a defining moment. Will its bioeconomy set a global example for true sustainability, or will progress come at an irreversible cost?

Livestock

In 2024, Brazil witnessed a catastrophic environmental crisis. According to MapBiomas’ fire monitor, a staggering 30.8 million hectares (119,000 square miles) of land were consumed by fires, an area larger than Italy, marking a shocking 79% increase from 2023.

The Amazon, already under immense pressure, faced its worst year for fires in 17 years. At the heart of this devastation are cattle farmers, clearing vast tracts of land for agriculture and pasture.

Meanwhile, Brazil set a grim record, exporting the largest quantity of beef in its history: 2.89 million tons valued at $12.8 billion, as reported by the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (ABIEC). Most of this beef went to China, followed by the US, UAE, and the EU.

Livestock farming is a leading driver of the Amazon’s destruction, responsible for 88% of deforestation.

Global NGO Global Witness holds three major Brazilian meatpacking giants, JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva, accountable for much of this devastation. These companies are linked to the destruction of vast stretches of forest in Mato Grosso, an area larger than Chicago.

JBS, the world’s largest beef exporter and second-largest beef producer, employs over 250,000 people globally and generated an estimated $77 billion in revenue in 2024, contributing about 2.1% of Brazil’s gross domestic product (GDP). Yet, the company’s profits are built on a foundation of environmental degradation, deforestation, and exploitation.

JBS has been accused of greenwashing, promoting unsustainable practices, and violating human rights, including child labour at meatpacking plants in the US.

A report from NGO Mighty Earth revealed the shocking extent of these crimes. JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva sourced cattle from a farmer accused of illegally clearing 81,200 hectares of land, an area nearly four times the size of Amsterdam. This farmer was also linked to the use of a toxic chemical, 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange), to deforest his land, marking the largest deforestation case ever recorded in Mato Grosso.

João Gonçalves, Mighty Earth’s Senior Director for Brazil, said: 

Our recent analysis shows JBS is still linked to rampant deforestation in its beef supply chains in Brazil and is at the bottom of Mighty Earth’s Scorecard when it comes to tackling the issue. It’s admission a couple of weeks ago that it has ‘zero control’ of its supply chain means JBS doesn’t care where it gets it meat from, including from farms destroying the Amazon. 

JBS is tinkering at the edges of requiring traceability to cattle suppliers, while at the same time massively expanding its climate-wrecking meat operations. This includes a huge deal with China, which has the backing of President Lula, who promised to end deforestation in the Amazon by 2030, but his support for JBS’ expansion could push the Amazon closer to an irreversible tipping point.

The eyes of the world will be on Brazil for COP30 and already the optics aren’t good with the mixed messages and contradictory actions of government.

Corporate Power Shaping Brazil’s Policies

In 2023, Brazil’s president, Lula, established “Conselhão,” a council aimed at promoting sustainable socioeconomic development (CDESS). This group, comprising around 250 representatives from various sectors and civil society, was formed to provide guidance on the development of economic, social, and “sustainable” policies and strategies.

Among the members of the CDESS advisory group are major corporations like JBS, Copersucar, Cargill, Cosan, Raízen, Comgás, Novonor (formerly Odebrecht), Unilever, Braskem, Meta, Google, Microsoft, as well as prominent figures such as Eraí Maggi Scheffer, one of the largest cotton and soybean producers in Brazil; businessman linked to agribusiness and biodiesel production, Erasmo Carlos Battistella; and Rosana Amadeu da Silva, president of the national centre for sugarcane and biofuel industries, among others.

How much influence do these corporations truly hold over Brazil’s economic, social, and environmental policies? Will their power extend to shaping the course of COP30?

No More Greenwashing

As the world gathers at this critical moment, the question remains: will COP30 become yet another stage for polluting industries to continue business as usual, or will Brazil seize the opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to the planet’s future?

This is a chance for Brazil to stand strong and prioritise environmental protection, Indigenous rights, and bold climate actions over the forces of reckless development, profit, and greed. The stakes are higher than ever, and the world is watching closely.

Will President Lula’s promises be more than just words, and will they evolve into the bold, transformative actions our planet so urgently needs?

The time for decisive action is now. The world is waiting for Brazil to lead with integrity, courage, and a vision for a sustainable future.

Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer: A Silent Killer

Monica Piccinini

8 January 2025

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) is second most common type of breast cancer, representing up to 15% of all breast cancers cases, and is the sixth most prevalent cancer among women. This type of cancer may be hard to detect with a screening mammogram or ultrasound, as it spreads in straight lines rather than forming lumps. As a result, these tumours can grow significantly and diagnosed at more advanced stages.

Over the next 10 years, approximately 3.75 million people globally are expected to be diagnosed with ILC. Currently, 22 individuals in the UK and 1,000 women worldwide are diagnosed with ILC each day. Unfortunately, specific treatments for ILC are yet to be created for this type of cancer.

Lack of Hope in Diagnostics and Bespoke Treatments

During the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Heather Cripps, a public servant at the Home Office, experienced severe back pain and was prescribed pain medication for what was initially believed to be a musculoskeletal issue. Unfortunately, her condition worsened rapidly, and she was eventually diagnosed with stage four ILC (the cancer had spread from its primary site). By the time of diagnosis, the cancer had already spread to her spine. Heather underwent chemotherapy for three years but tragically passed away on 30 August at the age of 48.

At a parliament debate on ILC on 10 December 2024, Helen Hayes, Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, said:

“We need to do better for women affected by lobular breast cancer, in memory of Heather and many more women like her who will not live to see their children grow up.”

Like Heather, many women are diagnosed with ILC too late and with poorer long-term outcomes. This is due to the difficulty of detecting these tumours through physical exams or standard imaging techniques such as mammograms and ultrasounds. ILC cells typically spread through breast tissue in a diffuse pattern, rather than forming a distinct lump.

Most ILCs are diagnosed at a more advanced stage with up to 30% of patients with early-stage primary ILC may experience metastasis to other organs, which can occur many years after the initial diagnosis.

Currently, there are no specific treatments designed for ILC, which is known to have poorer long-term outcomes. The available therapies were not tailored made for the unique biology of this cancer type.  Moreover, although MRIs are widely recognised as significantly more effective than mammograms at detecting and monitoring ILC, they are not recommended for use under the NICE guidelines for detection or ongoing monitoring. 

Women’s health in the UK has been neglected and underfunded. A report by the NHS Confederation highlights that prioritising women’s health could contribute £319 million in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy.

Research from Breast Cancer Now shows that breast cancer currently costs the UK economy £2.6 billion, a figure expected to increase to £3.6 billion by 2034.

Lack of Research Investment

ILC remains poorly understood, as it is a type of cancer that has received limited research and funding. To provide accurate diagnostics and effective treatments for patients with ILC, further research and financial support are essential to fully uncover its basic biology.

The Manchester Breast Centre has announced its plans to conduct research aimed at understanding the basic biology of ILC, which could lead to the development of targeted treatments. This research is expected to take around five years and require an investment of £20 million. The Centre is collaborating with the Lobular Moon Shot Project.

The Lobular Moon Shot Project was founded in 2023 by Dr Susan Michaelis, a former Australian pilot, to address the urgent need for ILC research funding. This is a £20 million research project and a volunteer-driven initiative supported by an increasing number of women diagnosed with ILC and their families.

Dr Michaelis was first diagnosed with ILC in 2013 and later diagnosed with stage four metastatic lobular breast cancer in 2021. Her cancer has since spread to her neck, spine and pelvis area, head, eye area, and ribs.

In December 2023, Dr Michaelis, along with several MPs supporting her cause, met with former health secretary, Ms Victoria Atkins. Convinced of the need for action, Ms Atkins agreed to fund the Lobular Moon Shot Project and integrate it into England’s 2024 women’s health strategy, but a change of parliament has not yet seen this become a reality. Currently, the Lobular Moon Shot Project has the backing of over 200 MPs.

Several MPs have written to the government expressing their concerns, only to receive generic responses from civil servants stating that £29 million has been allocated to the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). However, these responses fail to clarify that the funding is not specifically targeted at lobular breast cancer. Despite repeated efforts from MPs to reach out to the health secretary, Wes Streeting, regarding the project, they have yet to receive a reply.

Dr Michaelis commented:

“Each year, 11,500 people die from secondary (metastatic) breast cancer, yet none of the studies referenced by the government tackle the unique biological challenges of invasive lobular carcinoma. This area remains a scientific black hole, with crucial work still undone. That’s precisely why we are calling for dedicated funding.

“The 10 National Institute for Healthcare Research Network studies cited in the government’s letter to MPs are a smokescreen. A closer examination reveals that nine out of 10 of these studies do not appear to address lobular breast cancer. We need to focus on understanding the basic biology of the disease through a ‘Moon Shot’ approach, instead of attempting to repurpose drugs that were not designed for this disease.

“Cancer Research UK has allocated no funding to ILC research, and Breast Cancer Now has dedicated less than 1% of their research budget funding. This means the government needs to step in and resolve this unmet clinical need. This would equate to under £240 per person in the UK who would be diagnosed with the disease over the next 10 years.

“The former health secretary, Victoria Atkins, had agreed to fund the project. Since the general election in 2024, 180,000 people globally have been diagnosed with ILC, and we are still waiting to hear from the new health secretary, Wes Streeting.”

Katie Swinburne, diagnosed with ILC at the age of 47, endured a double mastectomy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy and is now on a 10-year endocrine treatment therapy. Her experience was shared during the parliament debate on 10 December, 2024:

“It’s very hard to accept that none of my treatment is specific to lobular breast cancer and no one can tell me if it’s working or has been effective… I find myself living in fear of recurrence. I deserved to have an early diagnosis; I did not get this. I deserve a specific treatment; I do not have this. I have three young children; they deserve to have a mum. I deserve effective follow up; I do not get this. I need you to change this for me, my husband, my family, all the women with a lobular diagnosis and all the women who will be diagnosed in the future.”

Health secretary Wes Streeting, and under-secretary at the department of health and social care, Baroness Merron, did not respond to a request for comment.

BR-319: A Highway to Climate Chaos in the Heart of the Amazon

Monica Piccinini

20 November 2024

As Brazil prepares to host the 2025 United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP30, the Brazilian government is sending a powerful message about its commitment to environmental conservation and sustainable development. Central to this message is the protection of the Amazon rainforest, vital to the planet’s ecological balance. Yet, a controversial project hangs over these declarations: the planned Amazon’s BR-319 highway, a proposal that has sparked intense debate over its potential to disrupt one of Earth’s most critical ecosystems.

The reconstruction of the Amazon BR-319 highway in Brazil, connecting Manaus, the capital of Amazonas, to Porto Velho, on the southern edge of the forest, cutting through one of the most preserved blocks of the rainforest, could trigger a climate crisis chain reaction with severe irreversible impacts on the Amazon, Brazil and the entire planet.

Although the Brazilian government promotes the BR-319 project as essential for regional economic development, it represents one of the most significant threats to the Amazon’s survival. This project endangers at least half of Brazil’s remaining rainforest, putting 69 Indigenous communities, 64 Indigenous territories, and over 18,000 Indigenous people at risk.

Map of Indigenous lands and communities impacted by Brazil’s BR-319 Highway. Reference: Ferrante et al., 2020.

During a visit to Amazonas in September, Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, showed his commitment and full support for the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway by saying, “this road will now begin to be built.”

“BR-319 is a necessity for the state of Amazonas, it is a necessity for Roraima, and a necessity for Brazil,” he added

Lula’s ambition to lead on the climate agenda appears to conflict with his own policies and actions.

Philip Fearnside, a senior researcher at Brazil’s National Institute of Amazonian Research (INPA), and Nobel peace prize winner, mentioned:

“In Manaus, every politician supports the reconstruction of the BR-319 highway – on the condition that the federal government, and by extension, the 99% of taxpayers who live outside Manaus, foots the bill. After more than two decades of consistent misinformation about the project, nearly the entire local population now favours it, and questioning the initiative would be political suicide for any candidate.

“Repaving the BR-319 highway would link the relatively undisturbed central Amazon to the AMACRO region – a deforestation hotspot named after the states of Amazonas, Acre, and Rondônia. Although AMACRO is promoted as a sustainable development zone (ZDS), it has become a major driver of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest,” he added.

The BR-319, an 885-km highway, was inaugurated in 1976 during Brazil’s military dictatorship, but was abandoned in 1988. In 2015, under Dilma Rousseff’s government, a maintenance program was launched to revive the highway. Since then, various governments have made multiple attempts to reconstruct a 406-km section of the highway.

Catastrophic and Irreversible Consequences

The fishbone effect results from the opening of illegal branches on both sides of the BR-319 highway, created by land grabbers. This phenomenon is already unfolding around the highway, with over 6,000 km of illegal extensions, which is more than six times the length of BR-319. Furthermore, proposed roads along BR-319, such as the AM-366, would provide deforesters with access to a vast area of rainforest in the Trans-Purus region, west of BR-319.

Brazilian Amazonia and Highway BR-319 (Manaus-Porto Velho). Source: map produced by researcher Lucas Ferrante in the ArcGIS software, deforestation data from INPE 2021.

The reconstruction of the BR-319 highway could lead to catastrophic and irreversible consequences, including widespread deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and environmental degradation. It may also fuel an increase in illicit activities such as organised crime, illegal logging, mining, and encroachment on Indigenous lands. Furthermore, the risk of zoonotic leaps and the emergence of new pandemics could rise. These impacts could push the rainforest beyond its ability to survive, causing it to cease functioning as a carbon sink and disrupting its role as a regional and global climate regulator.

Lucas Ferrante, researcher at the University of Sao Paulo (USP) and Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), discussed the critical role of flying rivers in climate regulation:

“In this forest region, a crucial environmental ecosystem service occurs, known as flying rivers, plays a crucial role in regulating Brazil’s climate. Moisture from the Atlantic Ocean is carried into the continent through the North region, where it enters the Amazon. Evapotranspiration from the preserved forest generates high-pressure systems that produce rainfall, which then travels southward, supplying water to the southeast, central-west, and southern regions of Brazil.

“For instance, 70% of the rainfall that supplies the Cantareira system – responsible for providing water to São Paulo, the most densely populated area in South America – originates from this forested region. However, deforestation along BR-319 poses a serious threat to these flying rivers, and continued destruction could lead to devastating consequences for the entire country.

“We will face severe water shortages in densely populated regions, leading to the death of the most vulnerable populations, industrial disruptions, and devastating impacts on agriculture, rendering these areas uninhabitable. Essentially, the collapse of the flying rivers will trigger the breakdown of the country’s economic sectors, potentially causing annual losses of up to $ 500 billion (R$3 trillion),” Ferrante warned.

Wildfires, Drought, and Disease

Brazilian Amazon Forest burning to open space for pasture. Credit: ID 69667961 @ André Costa | Dreamstime.com

A survey by MapBiomas‘ Fire Monitor reveals that from January to September this year, Brazil saw 22.38 million hectares burn, marking an increase of 13.4 million hectares compared to 2023. This represents a 150% rise from the previous year. Over half of the burned area (51%, or 11.3 million hectares) occurred in the Amazon.

Commenting on the fires in the Amazon and across Brazil, Ferrante stated:

“It’s crucial to recognise that Brazil has surpassed its greenhouse gas emissions targets, with the highest levels originating from the Amazon due to widespread fires in the biome.”

The fires and drought in the Amazon are expected to worsen due to climate change and other factors, including the rampant expansion of agribusiness, particularly cattle farming, both legal and illegal mining, logging, and large-scale biofuel production – especially with the recent biofuel mandate increase announced by Lula. This is further intensified by Lula’s push to extract “every last drop” of oil. The BR-319 highway plays a central role in facilitating these developments in the region.

The Amazon rainforest is recognised as one of the largest reservoirs of zoonotic diseases. Scientists consistently warn that reconstructing the BR-319 highway, in conjunction with climate change, will accelerate forest degradation driven by agribusiness expansion, mining, oil and gas exploration, illicit activities, and infrastructure projects. This would lead to increased human mobility and urbanisation, heightening the risk of zoonotic spillovers -diseases stored in the forest potentially jumping to humans, which could trigger a global pandemic or a series of them.

Deforestation along the BR-319 has already resulted in a 400% increase in malaria cases in the region, highlighting the potential environmental damage caused by this project and its role in the emergence of a new global pandemic.

An article in Nature reported that the western Brazilian Amazon is facing its largest confirmed outbreak of the Oropouche virus (OROV), with over 6,300 cases recorded between 2022 and 2024. Researchers identified a novel genetic variant of the virus and highlighted fragmented forest landscapes and vegetation loss caused by deforestation and expanding agricultural activities as significant factors driving its transmission. Most OROV-positive cases in 2022–2023 were concentrated in the AMACRO region, a hotspot for deforestation.

“Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and other tropical regions increase the risk of emergence of new human diseases by increasing contact between rainforest wildlife and the human population and its domestic animals. It also contributes to climate change, which can create conditions favouring the emergence of parasitic, fungal, viral, and bacterial infections,” explained Fearnside.

Profit Driven

Deforested and burned area long the middle stretch of BR-319 highway. Credit: Lucas Ferrante.

The BR-319 highway will serve an expanding range of national and international industries, particularly those focused on the significant profits that a ‘bioeconomy’ can generate. Additionally, it will play a crucial role in facilitating oil and gas exploration in the region, including Petrobras’ operations along the equatorial margin, a project that has the full backing of Lula.

Russian oil and gas company Rosneft will also benefit from the BR-319 project, as it holds drilling rights to 14 oil and gas blocks situated west of the highway, around 35 km from the Purus River, within the Solimões Sedimentary Basin. This pristine area is larger than the state of California.

Other sectors would also gain from the BR-319 project, such as the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, both legal and illegal mining, logging, and organised crime.

Ferrante elaborated on how BR-319 is facilitating the expansion of agribusiness, cattle farming, and mining:

“BR-319 is accelerating the growth of agribusiness in the region, especially on unallocated public lands (‘terras devolutas’). Soybean farmers from Mato Grosso do Sul are migrating to Rondônia, purchasing land from livestock farmers who, in turn, are moving south of Amazonas within the BR-319 corridor. These lands are often occupied illegally, either through land grabbing, illegal deforestation, or violent eviction of traditional communities.

“Since 2023, Manaus has experienced a rise in smoke levels during the dry season, primarily due to forest fires spreading along the newly paved sections of BR-319, where cattle farming is rapidly expanding. The presence of asphalt accelerates deforestation, and fires are commonly used to clear land for pasture.

“Moreover, there is a well-documented connection between land grabbers and organized crime along BR-319. Criminal groups seize land, expelling legitimate owners and traditional communities, and often use the profits to force these displaced communities into labour in illegal mining operations.”

Smokescreen

Supporters of the BR-319 project, including politicians, corporations, and individuals, have presented various justifications for the highway’s reconstruction, citing the ongoing drought in the region. However, Ferrante points out that despite the drought, the Madeira River remains navigable. Furthermore, the BR-319 does not connect to any of the municipalities impacted by the drought, as they are located across the Rio Negro.

The Madeira River has long been the primary transportation route in the region, running parallel to the BR-319 highway, and offering a safer, cleaner, and more cost-effective means of transporting goods.

Rodrigo Agostinho, president of Brazil’s environmental protection agency, Ibama, told AmazoniaReal on November 14 that without good governance, the BR-319 project could become a “major deforestation front.” He further noted that those who construct a road do not take on responsibility for managing the surrounding area, which remains a highly contentious issue.

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

The Brazilian government continues to advocate for governance along the BR-319, with support from a few NGOs backed by an international philanthropic organisation. These groups, however, refuse to oppose the BR-319 project.

Meanwhile, members of the Brazilian federal police and army have made it clear that any future governance scenario is unrealistic, as the inspection bodies would lack the necessary resources to monitor the area due to its vast size, complexity, and danger. Organised crime already controls land grabbing and mining in the region, which has had a devastating impact on traditional communities.

Who stands to benefit from the BR-319 project? The primary beneficiaries are those financing illicit activities, such as illegal mining and organised crime, as well as the expansion of agribusiness, large-scale biofuel production, cattle farming, oil and gas exploration, and the development of a “bioeconomy.” These highly profitable ventures are financed by both national and international stakeholders.

“The 2009 environmental impact assessment (EIA) indicated that business leaders did not view this project as a priority for Manaus’s industrial hub. In the years following, the unanimous political support for the project naturally prompted businesspeople to adopt the same position, given their reliance on political backing.

“However, academic studies assessing the project’s feasibility have found it to be economically unjustifiable. Notably, it remains the only major project in Brazil without an official economic feasibility study (EVTEA), which is unlikely to be a coincidence,” mentioned Fearnside.

The reconstruction of the BR-319 highway lacks the required economic feasibility study (EVTEA) mandated by Law 5917/1973, and has failed to conduct crucial consultations with Indigenous communities, as stipulated by both the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 and Brazilian Law 10.088/2019, making the BR-319 project unconstitutional.

Following Ferrante’s presentation at the ministry of the environment on October 29 highlighting the negative impacts of the BR-319 project, he is calling the suspension of all licenses and tenders until consultations are held with all affected Indigenous communities.

Additionally, he urges the suspension of the maintenance license for the entire highway due to significant environmental harm already inflicted by the national department of transport infrastructure (DNIT) on ecosystems, streams, and traditional communities. He further requests the removal of the illegal branches, and the expropriation of all areas occupied along the BR-319 highway since 2008.

Cabin Contaminants: The Dangerous Truth About Toxic Air on Planes

Monica Piccinini

2 October 2024

Since the 1950s, fume events have impacted the health of thousands of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers globally, as toxic chemical compounds from the air supply, known as “bleed air,” contaminate the air in the cockpit and cabin.

Synthetic engine oils and hydraulic fluids drawn from the engine or auxiliary power unit (APU) can leak into the aircraft breathing air supply (except for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner), posing a direct risk to the health of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, and jeopardising flight safety by potentially impairing the crew’s ability to operate the aircraft safely.

A Pilot’s Personal Journey

At the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024 in London, an event organised by the Global Cabin Air Quality Executive (GCAQE), a non-profit organisation representing airline employees in relation to the issue of contaminated air on aircraft, former pilot Thorsten Bush delivered a poignant and powerful personal account of his challenging journey as a pilot who experienced fume events.

Bush had a 23-year career as an airline pilot before being placed on indefinite medical leave due to the significant effects of not just one, but two fume events.

“The loss of self, the loss of mental abilities, the loss of physical function, that happens to many flights’ crew, me included, all because of fume events,” described Bush.

Bush experienced two fume incidents on the Airbus A320, in 2019 and 2022. During the first incident in 2019, he detected a foul odour like dirty socks for about a minute. Shortly afterward, he struggled to form coherent sentences, his body temperature soared to 40-42°C, his blood pressure soared to 170 over 110, and he felt extremely intoxicated for the next three weeks. This was just the beginning of his challenges; it took him 842 days, along with extensive occupational physical therapy and cognitive assessments, to regain his pilot certification. Fortunately, he succeeded in returning to his career as a pilot.

To Bush’s astonishment, a second fume incident occurred on the same aircraft in 2022. Once again, he faced the challenges of intense rehabilitation. Following these two occurrences, Bush struggled to maintain his focus and found it difficult to carry out his daily activities. He experienced various symptoms, including memory loss, blurred vision, tremors, fatigue, and dizziness.

Bush is on a path to recovery, alongside thousands of other pilots, cabin crew, and passengers who have been impacted by fume events globally.

Bush stated:

“Aerotoxicity must be recognised as an occupational disease so pilots can receive the necessary medical support through a network of informed doctors. How many more people need to be injured for the airplane manufacturers to make changes?”

Powerful Toxic Contaminants

Pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, often unknowingly, are exposed to contaminants via the breathing air supply. These contaminants include tricresyl phosphate (TCP), an organophosphate (OP); volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as aldehydes and solvents; ultra-fine particles (UFPs); carbon monoxide; de-icing fluids; among other chemical substances.

Inhaling oil and fluids that leak into the aircraft’s breathing air supply can lead to both immediate and long-term neurological, cardiological and respiratory health problems. This condition is known as ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome’ (AS). 

Emeritus Professor C. Vyvyan Howard, professor of pathology (toxicology) at University of Ulster, has been studying the toxic properties of OP mixtures and the impact of low dose exposure. His research suggests that even at low dose exposure to these chemicals may adversely affect the developing foetus, potentially resulting in functional deficits and an increased risk of cancer in adulthood.

“Repeated exposure to OPs shows clear signs of acute toxicity. This type of exposure has been associated with prolonged impairments in attention, memory, and cognition, as well as chronic illnesses,” explained Professor Howard.

During Professor Howard’s presentation at the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024, he mentioned that the toxicity of the OP mixture, including TCP, in cabin bleed air has been significantly underestimated, meaning that the cabin bleed air is more dangerous than previously thought.

“There is an increasing number of workers compensation legal cases in France and Australia, where cabin bleed air is formally recognised as a cause of Aerotoxic Syndrome (AS). We need to get AS registered with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD),” he mentioned.

Doctor’s Orders

Dr Jonathan Burdon, a consultant respiratory physician, has been supporting aircrews affected by AS for the past 25 years, in addition to conducting research and publishing studies on the topic.

In his speech at the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference, Dr. Burdon stated:

“It’s not just TCP, but there’s a cocktail of VOCs and they’ve been heated up to several hundred centigrade. Furthermore, even at low level concentrations of these chemical compounds, some individuals will be more susceptible to them than others.

“One of the things that I think has not been addressed, or not being realised, or not being admitted to by the industry, is that on the Dreamliner (Boeing 787), we have not yet had a single fume event sickness,” he added.

The Boeing 787 Dreamliner uses electric compressors (bleed-free architecture) to supply clean air to the cabin, rather than depending on air sourced from the engines or the auxiliary power unit (APU).

Misdiagnoses and Incorrect Treatment

Professor Sarah Mackenzie Ross, clinical phycologist and neuropsychologist at University College London (UCL), states that neurotoxic conditions are frequently misdiagnosed or left undiagnosed. Many individuals with neurotoxic injuries often receive incorrect diagnoses.

Professor Ross noted that functional scans (PET, SPECT, fMRI), which assess functional changes in the brain – such as altered blood flow, uptake of oxygen or glucose, or neuronal response to chemicals – are typically not available in emergency departments across the UK. She also pointed out that many neurotoxic chemicals do not result in structural brain damage; rather, they affect brain function.

Professor Ross explained:

“CT and MRI scans often fail to detect structural abnormalities in patients exposed to toxic chemicals. Additionally, many chemicals are rapidly excreted by the human body and don’t show up in urine and blood tests, unless the patient is examined shortly after exposure.”

In the UK, many healthcare professionals receive minimal training in toxicology, because it’s not part of undergraduate medical programs. As a result, the toxicological causes of patients’ symptoms are often overlooked, leading to missed and inaccurate diagnoses and inappropriate treatments.

Common misdiagnoses for AS include chronic fatigue syndrome, psychiatric disorders, functional neurological disorders, or the nocebo effect or mass hysteria.

“This is catastrophic, a cessation of exposure is required to prevent further injury,” said Professor Ross.

Potential Solutions

Jet engine of an aircraft – Photo credit: ID 99969932 | Aircraft © Andose24 | Dreamstime.com

Several solutions aimed at addressing and preventing fume event issues were introduced during the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024. These included the creation of a less toxic oil to replace Mobil (ExxonMobil) and Eastman oils; innovative sensor technology that can be installed in the aircraft to detect bleed air contamination from engine oil, hydraulic fluid, and de-icing fluid; the development of a biomarker for blood tests to identify organophosphates; filtration systems; and VOC/Ozone converters.

Professor Byron Jones from the mechanical and nuclear engineering department at Kansas State University (KSU), has been conducting research on chemical sensors capable of detecting bleed air contamination in aircraft. No aircraft currently flying has any form of detection system fitted to warn when these events occur.

According to Professor Jones’s study, “The Nature of Particulates in Aircraft Bleed Air Resulting from Air Contamination”, the development of sensors for detecting oil contamination in aircraft bleed air should prioritise ultra-fine particle (UFP) detection. It suggests that sensitivity to extremely small UFPs, specifically those measuring 10 nanometres or smaller, is essential for sensing low levels of contamination. This focus is crucial, as identifying chronic low-level leakage can prevent prolonged exposure and potential malfunctions before they escalate into critical flight situations.

French engine oil manufacturer NYCO has been conducting extensive research in their development of a new ‘less hazardous’, biobased, low carbon and biodegradable jet engine oil designed to replace toxic and CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic) products that can be suitable for use in the aviation industry. The company is waiting for commercial engine manufacturers to ‘qualify’ the new oil for use in commercial aircraft.

GCAQE board member Captain Nicholas McHugh BSc (hon) stated:

“We hope jet engine manufacturers will prioritise the introduction of the reported new ‘less hazardous’ NYCO oil and any new oils that come to market that reduce the hazard for the aviation workers and passengers routinely exposed to engine oil and engine oil decomposition products on passenger aircraft. Government agencies responsible for aviation safety and public health should also be helping to expedite the introduction of these reported ‘less hazardous’ oils.”

During his speech at the Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference 2024, Professor Clem Furlong, from the University of Washington’s medical genetics and genome department, explained that the exposure to fume events can have catastrophic consequences, leading to tremors and various effects on the nervous central system. These may include impaired short-term memory, fatigue, headaches, nausea, dizziness, balance impairment, chest pain, long-term cough, breathing difficulties, and irritation of the eyes, nose and throat.

Professor Furlong’s research has led to the development of a new blood test that detects protein decoration following exposure to contaminated air.

The airline industry has numerous solutions and protocols available to be adopted and implemented to protect the health of pilots, cabin aircrew, and passengers, as well as improve flight safety. At the same time, corporations responsible for developing these innovative technologies must be mindful of the financial challenges facing the industry and strive to find a reasonable balance in pricing their products.

Ultimately, the airline industry should prioritise greater investments in the health and safety of its pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, as well as in new technologies to tackle environmental concerns.

What Needs to be Done

Experts emphasise the urgent need to tackle various issues at a global level, including the development of a unified reporting system for medical data and protocols. Additionally, it is crucial to implement training protocols for aircrew, maintenance staff, airline operators, manufacturers, and senior management.

Captain Rudy Pont, who chairs the Air Safety Committee of the Belgian Cockpit Association (BeCA), spoke about reporting issues:

“People report only when they feel something is important, i.e., it’s worth going through the trouble of writing it. When they feel their report makes a difference and when they don’t fear repercussions.”

Industry professionals and experts have highlighted underreporting as a significant concern. Without a unified and reliable reporting system, accurately measuring data and implementing effective solutions becomes challenging.

Moreover, airlines need to adopt and implement health and safety measures, such as installing sensors and filters, as well as adopting bleed-free technology, to safeguard the health of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, while also ensuring flight safety.

Encouraging Steps, but Still Falling Short

There are several developments underway in the UK and US, suggesting that with the right determination, the industry can implement positive measures.

In August, the UK Civil Aviation Authority announced that active carbon monoxide detectors will be required in piston engine aircraft, with implementation set for 1 January, 2025.

In May, US Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost proposed “The Safe Air on Airplanes Act’, a bill aimed at mandating the installation of filters in all commercial airplanes and phasing out bleed air systems.

It is crucial for regulators, aircraft manufacturers, airlines, oil companies, medical professionals, scientists, health and safety agencies, politicians, governments, unions, and the media, to step up and take decisive action. The health of pilots, cabin crew, and passengers, as well as the safety of flights is at stake, and immediate measures are necessary.

Aircraft manufacturers have not recognised the term ‘Aerotoxic Syndrome’ and consistently claim that cabin air quality is superior to that found in homes. However, they continue to overlook recommendations from air accident departments to install contaminated air warning systems on all passenger aircraft. Despite repeated calls from air accident investigators, no passenger aircraft is currently equipped with technology to monitor the quality of the air being supplied from the engines to passengers and crew.

In the past 20 years, more than 50 recommendations and findings from 12 air accident departments worldwide have addressed contaminated air exposure on passenger jet aircraft. The British Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has twice urged the installation of contaminated air warning systems on all large passenger aircraft. Despite the global backing of unions, these crucial safety recommendations have been disregarded by aircraft manufacturers and aviation regulators, including the FAA, EASA, and the UK CAA.

Between 1954 to 2024, over 100 published papers have highlighted the issue of contaminated air, alongside numerous reports from individuals suffering severe health effects from repeated exposure to fume events. This is a significant and persistent problem that will likely affect thousands more unless effective solutions are implemented.

Captain Tristan Loraine, GCAQE spokesperson, stated:

“In my view, it is neither morally nor ethically justifiable to keep debating the health and safety risks of contaminated air exposure, while still subjecting aircrew, paying passengers – including pregnant women – and others to these harmful conditions. Immediate action is essential; lives and well-being should not be compromised any longer.”

Right of Reply: Regulators and Manufacturer’s Statements

Boeing declined to comment on the article and provide a statement.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) were approached for comments regarding the steps they are taking to expedite the introduction of a less hazardous oil developed by a French company. They were also asked if they would support research into a new blood test capable of detecting protein decoration after exposure to contaminated air, and their stance on requiring airline manufacturers to implement bleed-free technology.

The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) commented:

“The FAA is committed to protecting the safety and health of passengers and cabin crews on our nation’s airlines. The FAA has strict cabin air standards, and studies have shown cabin air is as good as or better than the air found in offices and homes.”

Part of the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) statement included:

“The qualification process for a new oil would not be something we could comment on and should be addressed to the manufacturer.

“Based on the available data submitted through our Mandatory Occurrence Reporting process, occurrences relating to engine bleed air are rare, forming only a very small proportion of the total number of fume event reports we receive each year.

“It is acknowledged that people who experience a fume event (of any type) may report symptoms such as irritation to the eyes, nose and throat. These symptoms usually resolve once the fumes or smell have disappeared. Long term ill health due to any toxic effect from cabin air is understood to be very unlikely, although such a link cannot be ruled out.

“Our priority is always the safety of passengers and crew, and we continue to work with airlines, manufacturers and international regulators to drive improvements in safety standards across the industry.”

Part of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) response included:

“EASA and the European Commission (EC) is dedicating a lot of attention to the concerns reported by some stakeholders with regard to the cabin air quality on board large transport aeroplanes.

“Historically, EASA first conducted an analysis (between 2009 and 2012) of all available scientific knowledge and stakeholders’ opinions/experiences. This resulted in 2012 in an ED Decision concluding that, based on currently available reports and evidence at that time, there was no safety or health threat that would justify an immediate and general rulemaking action (for example to mandate design changes).

“As informed by NYCO company about scientific results obtained on their side, EASA will facilitate the exchanges with the CAQIII team of toxicological experts. Other scientific research projects will benefit from and complement the CAQIII results, for instance projects undertaking biomonitoring exercises (e.g. blood testing) of aircrews exposed to so called ‘fume or smoke events. Such biomonitoring is not in the scope of the CAQIII project itself.

“At this stage, EASA does not have elements to justify a mandate for implementing a ‘bleed-free’ environmental control system architecture, similar to the one used by the Boeing 787 aircraft.”