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.
Brazil’s pesticide law: opening the door to catastrophic consequences
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.
Pesticide exposure causing ‘extinctions, mutations, and anomalies’
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.
Pesticide companies know…
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).
A ‘severe regression in environmental and public health protection’
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 bill, 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.
Dr. Lucas Ferrante, a renowned Brazilian scientist and advocate for sustainable trade, has been at the forefront of international discussions, raising these pressing concerns to ensure that Brazil aligns with global standards for trade and environmental stewardship.
Featured image via the Canary
