The fight between scientists and soy producers that created a rift in agribusiness and ended up in the STF

A disagreement that has dragged on for at least two years between technicians and soy producers in Mato Grosso escalated and reached the STF (Supreme Federal Court).

The fight revolves around the extension of the soybean planting calendar, which by law runs from September to December in the state.

A group of farmers is asking for the possibility of sowing longer, until February. Embrapa (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária), in turn, warns that straining may favor the uncontrolled proliferation of a pest called Asian rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) and, in the medium term, jeopardize the productivity of Brazilian soybeans.

Representatives of the pesticide industry have already warned that, if the fungus becomes more aggressive, there are no products currently on the market or in development that can deal with it.

The issue became a soap opera, with the right to investigation by the Public Ministry and an unusual opposition between Embrapa and the Ministry of Agriculture, which some sources heard by the report compare to the friction between Anvisa and the Ministry of Health in relation to vaccines.

The ministry even published an ordinance authorizing the extension of the planting period — although Embrapa scientists advised against the measure. In December, the case reached the STF, which has no deadline for issuing a decision.

the beginning of the story

At least since 2015, Embrapa has participated in discussion forums on the sowing of soybeans in February in Mato Grosso, as the entity recently highlighted in a clarification note, also sent to the report.

Positioning has always been the opposite. Soy planting for a longer period of time reduces what researchers call the “sanitary vacuum”, the period in which there is no plantation in the field. Without vegetation, the reproductive cycles of pests are interrupted and the spread of diseases remains, in a way, under control.

“These toilet voids exist naturally, due to droughts or, in other countries, from snow”, explains professor at the Unesp Faculty of Agronomic Sciences Ciro Rosolem, vice president of communication at CCAS (Conselho Científico Agro Sustentável), an entity who took a stand against the extension of the calendar.

“But the fantastic development of agriculture in Brazil in recent years allowed the producer to do more than one crop per year, and we ended up without this void – hence the need to regulate [e a criação do calendário].”

This is because the extension of the sowing period creates a “green bridge” (that is, an uninterrupted sequence with live plants in the field) that allows some pests, including Asian rust, which arrived in Brazil in 2001, to continue to proliferate. .

“This results in the acceleration of the natural process of selection of fungus resistance to fungicides”, says Embrapa.

This position, according to Professor Rosolem, is now a consensus in the scientific community.

“This is the fight, it’s science versus market. Which is not to say that the market is a bad guy and the science is good, it’s complicated,” he says. “But we have enough data to stick with the science.”

Illegal planting and MP investigation

In early 2020, before the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the MP-MT (Public Ministry in Mato Grosso) began to receive several complaints that a group of producers in the state had been violating the legislation and planting soybeans after the allowed date. .

The promoters then asked the producers for clarification, who replied that it was a scientific experiment carried out within the scope of a representative entity, Aprosoja, and not commercial cultivation itself.

In order to be configured as an experiment, however, agricultural practice had to follow a series of scientific standards that were not observed, including having the approval of the ethics committee of a scientific body, says prosecutor Joelson de Campos Maciel, who worked on the case. .

“We talked to Embrapa and we understand that it would be good to make a recommendation notification to inspect [o cumprimento do vazio sanitário].”

Even after the inspection, however, the producers kept the crops, which led the MP to open a series of public civil actions, which include Aprosoja, who had been carrying out the so-called experimental planting, and Antônio Galvan, president of Aprosoja MT at the time, who planted it on his property. Some of them, according to the prosecutor, have already won in the first instance and are still being processed.

This was not the only recent controversy involving the entity. It was at Aprosoja’s headquarters in Brasília that, last August, country singer Sérgio Reis published a video in which he called on protesters in the days before the September 7 holiday to camp in defense of President Jair Bolsonaro.

After the video was released, an audio sent by the singer to a friend became public, in which he referred in a threatening tone to the president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (DEM-MG), and to the ministers of the STF.

Because of the episode and its consequences, Reis and Galvan, president of the national entity since 2021, were summoned to testify at the Federal Police, within the scope of the investigation that investigates the organization and financing of acts that defend anti-democratic flags. On the eve of September 7, the Supreme Court decided to temporarily block withdrawals from Aprosoja’s bank account.

non-agro streak

The entity was named by three agribusiness sources heard by the report as the leader of a small group that has defended the extension of the soybean planting calendar and pressured the Ministry of Agriculture to authorize the practice even with the contrary recommendation given by its technical body, to Embrapa. Sought, Aprosoja informed through its press office that it does not comment on the subject.

One of them is businessman Carlos Ernesto Augustin, vice president of Aprosmat (Association of Seed Producers of Mato Grosso), who says he is critical of the authorization for planting at the beginning of the year because of the health risk it represents. In his view, one of the motivations of the producers who have been pushing for the measure would be to take advantage of the drier months of January and February to produce their own seeds (instead of buying from third parties) and seek greater profitability.

“The ‘normal’ soybean yield is usually 60 bags [por hectare], but in February it is less than half – the intention there is to make seed”, he says. “But for that they want to jeopardize the spread of the fungus.”

The businessman says that, initially, until 2014, 2015, he himself had a favorable position to extend the planting calendar. He changed his mind after Embrapa and its “anti-rust consortium” sent a researcher to the state, who, in addition to closely monitoring the crops, started meeting with producers and explaining why the sanitary vacuum and the calendar were necessary.

Between 2010 and 2014, according to him, rust was spreading rapidly in Mato Grosso. After the 2015 regulation that instituted the changes, crop productivity grew significantly, says Augustin.

Former Minister of Agriculture Roberto Rodrigues also mentioned the issue of seeds. “It’s a difficult discussion. But I’m an agronomist, so I follow the academic and technical booklet, although I’m a rural producer and know the interests of producers”, says he, who is the coordinator of the Agribusiness Center at FGV Agro.

For Christian Lohbauer, president of Croplife, which brings together institutions and companies that work in the research and development of technologies of germplasm, biotechnology and chemical pesticides, despite the possible motivations of the producers, the central point of the discussion is not in the seeds, but in the resistance of the fungi and the effectiveness of fungicides.

“A dozen technical institutions, in addition to Embrapa, have already warned that it is necessary to have a sanitary vacuum, two, three months free of soy, so that the fungus is prevented from proliferating. [de defensivos] is stating that there are no new products in the pipeline [para combater o fungo caso ele se torne mais agressivo], it says.

“Fighting rust is difficult, expensive work and requires new technologies – we need to give the products we have a long life. A noisy minority thinks there is no danger, but who will pay for it in the end is Brazilian agriculture”, complete.

“We have to obey the health rules that have been established by science”, echoes Eduardo Daher, executive director of Abaq (Brazilian Agribusiness Association), one of the signatories of a letter sent to the Minister of Agriculture, Tereza Cristina, in September of last year asking for the revocation of the release.

“I get so nervous about disrespecting the ordinances of the empty toilet. It’s like finding someone who says they won’t be vaccinated, the reasoning is the same”, he says.

The president of the National Cereals, Fibers and Oilseeds Commission of the CNA (National Confederation of Agriculture), Ricardo Arioli, in turn, says that the entity has been “discussing with experts on the subject for a long time” and says that its position is the same from Embrapa.

Authorization by the Ministry in absentia of Embrapa

An indication that the measure is defended by a minority and the result of internal political pressure, in Augustin and Lohbauer’s view, would be the fact that, even with the authorization of the Ministry of Agriculture, Central-West states such as Mato Grosso do Sul and Goiás maintained the calendar until December 31.

“The ministry, which should be an entity that arbitrates, always said that it could not [estender o calendário], until this time. And he played for the secretariats of state, said that they would decide. And then they decided – Mato Grosso de Sul, Goiás, Paraná said they couldn’t, Mato Grosso said yes. It’s a political issue,” says Lohbauer.

According to him, this type of arrangement is problematic because pests do not know or respect the borders between states. If there is a lack of control of the reproduction of rust due to the extension of the calendar, the problem can spread geographically and reach the States that are respecting the recommendations of the scientists.

The ministry did not respond to the request for a position made by the report.

Embrapa has not commented publicly on the matter. Upon request for an interview, its press office sent the last “official clarification”, from September 2021. The company’s assertive position, however, was reiterated by its president, Celso Moretti, in October last year at a Senate hearing. Asked by a congressman about his opinion, he said: “Embrapa’s position is always guided by science. They may not like it, but science is our guide.”

With no resolution to the dispute, in December the PSB filed an ADPF (Action for Noncompliance with a Fundamental Precept) against the ordinances of the Ministry of Agriculture. The text of the piece, in addition to exposing the issues related to the possible resistance of the pest to fungicides, highlighted that the intensive use of pesticides is also a problem, as it can harm the soil and the environment in general.

To BBC News Brasil, Aprosoja said it did not comment on the matter and asked the report to get in touch with Erlei Melo Reis, a researcher at the Rio Verde Foundation and co-author of a study that has been used by the entity to defend the extension of the cultivation.

The agronomist said that the focus of the study conducted by him and three other researchers was to “prove” that sowing in February is affected less intensely by rust than in December. Thus, cultivation would require less fungicides, which would be “good for the environment and good for the producer”.

The entities that have been against the extension argue that the research does not assess the issue of natural selection of more resistant forms of the fungus with the longer planting period, considered a central point of concern for those who are critical of the measure.

The researcher, in turn, says that the measure that established the calendar in 2015 was taken “with little scientific basis” and that organizations such as Embrapa do not have research that proves the risk of planting in February.

Reis also said that he had met with Minister Tereza Cristina in December to present, together with the other co-authors, the results of the research. The meeting, held on December 7, is identified in the minister’s agenda as “Audience with Aprosoja/MT”.