Brazil Is Main Market for ‘Highly Dangerous’ Agrochemicals

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Brazil tops the list of recipients of agrochemical products classified as “highly dangerous,” accounting for about US$3.3 billion in 2018, according to the non-governmental organization (NGO) Unearthed.

“Brazil buys more pesticides than any other country. The approval of new pesticides by Brazilian regulators, including those containing HHPs (highly hazardous pesticides), has grown under the governments of Michel Temer and Jair Bolsonaro,” said Unearthed, which is funded by the NGO Greenpeace in a partnership with the Swiss NGO Public Eye.

An analysis of a vast database of the world’s best-selling “crop protection products” in 2018 showed that the world’s leading agrochemical companies made over 35 percent of their sales from pesticides classified as “highly dangerous” to people, animals or ecosystems.

The investigation found that 41 percent of the leading products of BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC and Syngenta agrochemical giants – companies part of the influential agribusiness and agrochemical trade association ‘CropLife International’ – contained at least one HHP.

In addition, more than a billion dollars of these companies’ sales came from chemicals – some now banned in European markets – that are highly toxic to bees. More than two-thirds of these sales were made in countries with emerging economies, such as Brazil and India.

“By far the most valuable markets for the highly dangerous pesticides sold by these companies were soybeans and corn, grown largely to provide animal feed for the meat industry,” the NGO said.

The survey also pointed out that 27 percent of pesticides sold in wealthy countries are considered highly dangerous.

Unearthed, in partnership with Public Eye, analyzed data from the 43 countries using the most pesticides in the world, cross-referencing them with the list of highly dangerous products from the ‘Pesticide Action Network’ (PAN), a coalition of some 600 NGOs that oppose the use of pesticides.

According to the NGO, ‘CropLife International’ disputed the research and criteria used to define products as ‘highly dangerous’, and argued that HHPs are a “critical tool to fight crop loss” and should be used as a last resort to help farmers “produce enough food for a growing population”.

The group argued that most HHPs sold in developing countries are not manufactured by their member companies and that the companies in ‘CropLife International’ have “led for a good example” through measures such as instructions on how to reduce the risks of using the substances.

However, in statements to Unearthed, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and toxic substances and waste, Baskut Tuncak, rejected the idea that the risks of HHPs could be safely managed.

“There is nothing sustainable about the widespread use of highly dangerous pesticides in agriculture. (…) If they poison workers, extinguish biodiversity, remain in the environment, or accumulate in breast milk, they are unsustainable, cannot be used safely, and should have been stopped long ago,” Tuncak said.