What would change in practice with the ‘Agrochemicals PL’

The Chamber of Deputies approved last Wednesday (09) a bill that makes the control and approval of pesticides more flexible in Brazil.

The majority of deputies supported the change – 301 against 150, in addition to two abstentions. In 2016, this bill had already been approved, but, as it has undergone recent changes, it will now have to go back to the Senate for a new evaluation.

The project is criticized for further weakening legislation already considered weak by experts.

“The text does not cover the gaps in inspection, monitoring and revaluation of products, which are already precarious, and even removes the little protection that the population had”, says agronomist Marina Lacôrte, spokeswoman for agriculture and food for Greenpeace. Brazil and Master in Ecology.

What are the main points of PL

The bill 6299/2002 intends that the control of the authorization of new pesticides in Brazil is a mission of MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply), taking away the direct action of the Ministry of Health, the National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (Anvisa ), the Ministry of the Environment and Ibama (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Natural Resources) of this process.

If the proposal is approved, the bodies can still issue opinions and risk warnings about the substances, but the competence to fine companies and research institutes would fall to MAPA alone.

In this case, the Ministry of Health would assess issues such as the risk of contamination of workers, the general population and the level of health safety, and the bodies related to the environment, the dangerousness of products for environmental protection.

But opinions are not vetoes, and can be ignored.

“MAPA is the one who evaluates the efficiency of the molecule from an agronomic point of view. In addition, its approvals may be linked to commercial interests. Since past governments we have not had exempt politicians in the ministry, but people linked to the ruralist caucus, who defend this model. agricultural commodity. It’s the fox tending the henhouse,” says a spokeswoman for Greenpeace.

She reinforces that even if they were politicians who looked at agriculture together with society and the environment, it is still very dangerous to take away the autonomy of other bodies.

BBC News Brasil contacted MAPA to obtain a position on the composition of the ministry and the influence on the agricultural model and awaits a response.

Recent text changes

Although the Federal Constitution categorizes these products as “pesticides”, the rapporteur of the text, Luiz Nishimori (PL-PR), changes the term in the law to “pesticides”. The deputy justifies the change as an accompaniment of world trends.

“The world scientific nomenclature for products is [a palavra em inglês] ‘pesticides’ and we are adapting to other countries. The agro is not toxic, what presents toxicity are the products to fight pests, pests and diseases in the plants. Without protection, weeds will damage plants, and without that, we have no food. The whole world uses this name,” he told BBC News Brazil.

When used in forests and in water environments, pesticides are now referred to by the text as “environmental control products”, and their registration will be up to Ibama.

In the new version, the prohibition of the import and production of pesticides is restricted to the general term of “unacceptable risks”. Currently, the law defines the prohibition for pesticides that reveal teratogenic, carcinogenic, mutagenic characteristics and cause hormonal disorders and damage to the reproductive system.

The article stipulates faster deadlines (up to two years) for the registration of pesticides by federal agencies, which could jeopardize more robust toxicological studies. When there is no conclusive manifestation within the established deadlines, the pesticide will receive a temporary authorization.

According to Nishimori, the change serves to make Brazil equal to other countries with the same agricultural importance, which, according to him, tend to start using the products more quickly.

“In order to advance more and more, Brazil needs to be competitive and be on the same levels of access to innovative technologies in the field.”

changes and risks

The rapporteur states that “who will gain from this project is the final consumer and Brazilian society”. However, health and environmental experts issue opposing views, saying that the general population — and the planet as a whole — tend to be harmed.

“The central issue of this change in the text is that it is the Ministry of Agriculture who decides what goes to the non-market. If the assessment of other bodies indicates high danger, but MAPA decides that the product is economically interesting, it may end up “, indicates Luiz Cláudio Meirelles, researcher at Fiocruz’s National School of Public Health.

In the scientist’s opinion, the tendency is for the organs that would have less power to participate less and less in the processes.

“Anvisa already has a busy agenda in the analysis of other products, such as medicines and vaccines. Does it make sense to continue investing its efforts in an area in which it will not decide anything else?”, he asks.

In this way, assesses Meirelles, it becomes more difficult to control the health risks that the population will have in the long term, as well as the impact on the environment.

The Inca (National Cancer Institute) points out that the entire population is susceptible to multiple exposures to pesticides through consumption of contaminated food and water.

Among the main health effects, the institute lists those at an acute level, such as skin irritation, dehydration, allergies, burning nose and mouth, cough, runny nose, chest pain, difficulty breathing, mouth and throat irritation, stomach upset, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, abnormal sweating, weakness and irritability.

Among the chronic effects, which appear after repeated exposure to small amounts of substances for a prolonged period, the following symptoms are reported, according to Anvisa:

Difficulty sleeping, forgetfulness, miscarriage, impotence, depression, severe breathing problems, abnormal liver and kidney function, abnormal production of thyroid, ovary, and prostate hormones, inability to bear children, malformation, and intellectual development problems and physical condition of children and increased risk for cancer (in certain pesticide groups).

What does this mean in practice?

According to Nishimori, the objective is not to increase the variety, but for Brazil to authorize modern products that fight pests and diseases more effectively.

“The rural producer has no interest in ruining his own business, so the pesticides used are prescribed by an agronomist who analyzes the amount necessary to kill the pest and not pose a risk to human health.”

For the spokeswoman for Greenpeace, the discourse related to modernity is not sustainable.

“We already have a huge speed in approvals, but no security in these releases and no new or less toxic molecules – we have the usual menu, of products already banned in Europe and that should be reassessed here. Safe food is without pesticides, it’s food that was produced in a safe way.”

In the last three years, Brazil had the approval of about 1,500 pesticides.

“Most of them are substances that have already been banned in other countries, such as glyphosate. Here, we release more brands, when we should be working towards a programmed withdrawal”, says the Fiocruz researcher.

Glyphosate, a substance cited by the professor and which is present in most foods today, was classified by the WHO (World Health Organization) in 2015 as grade “A2”, which places it in the category of “proven carcinogenic to mammals and probably carcinogenic to humans”.

The new pesticides that would be approved, Meirelles points out, also have the aggravating factor of registration by equivalence, that is, they can be registered because they contain the same substances as another pesticide.

“If you and I make a cake with the same ingredients, they may not come out exactly the same. That’s what chemistry is. Depending on the synthesis of the raw materials, the toxicological result can be very different. Depending on the purity and small changes in concentration , the toxicity of the substance changes completely. Because we are dealing with a toxic product, as the name implies, care needs to be redoubled”, he says.

“When I talk about cancer, it doesn’t count, but the state pays. It’s a personal tragedy for the patient and a huge cost for the state. The bill is the kind of model that poisons everything and doesn’t consider the costs to society”, says the researcher.

The agronomist also points out that making the use of pesticides more flexible has prioritized the production of commodities and food, but not the fight against hunger. “We have record harvests and yet our country is back on the hunger map.”

Meirelles’ conclusion is that the project does not give priority to life. “No human being wants to consume something that is naturally harmful to health beforehand. People don’t know that when they’re eating a salad they can be ingesting dozens of different pesticides, even in tiny amounts.”

Relationship with agribusiness

A report by Brasil de Fato points out that deputy Nishimori received BRL 380,000 from agribusiness entrepreneurs and executives in the campaign that took him to the Chamber of Deputies in 2018.

Although the support is within the law, BBC News Brasil questioned the deputy if the attempt to pass the law is related to pressure and relationship with these supporters.

“There is no pressure from supporters. I am from the State of Paraná, strong in agriculture. I work for the development of the agricultural sector because I believe that the Brazilian vocation is the production of food. put Brazil in tune with the competing countries, with respect to sanitary, health and environmental standards”, he replied.

What can the population do?

“We feel powerless and society has spoken out against it. I don’t know for whom these 301 deputies govern, why not for society”, says Marina Lacôrte, who recommends that those who are against the bill continue to express their political dissatisfaction.

“In addition, we have to vote for our representatives consciously. If you are against it, find out who voted to pass the text and find out who deserves your vote.”

Although it is not enough to change the entire production structure, Lacôrte also encourages the population to help promote other food and agricultural systems, supporting small producers of organic products. “It’s very positive for your own health and for a more sustainable production chain.”

Organic foods tend to be priced higher in supermarkets, but you can get a lower price by buying directly from the person who produces them. Idec (Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection) created a list of organic fairs in cities in Brazil.