Technical Note on the PL 6299/02 that makes the use of pesticides more flexible

The House of Representatives approved, on the last day 9 of February, the Bill 6299/02, original senate, which is the regulatory framework for the use of pesticides in Brazil. More specifically, Proposes, through changes in Law No. 7.802, of 1989, modify the pesticide registration system, its components and the like. Due to the changes approved by The, the PL 6299/02, back now to the senate for a new vote.

The PL was quickly popularly known as Poison Pack. The nickname makes perfect sense. According to the text of the Project, and although the Federal Constitution calls these products “Pesticides”, the term in the Law would change from pesticides to “pesticide“. The proposal also flexibilise so-called "pesticide" approval rules (that are, remember, Pesticides), allowing the registration of even more toxic products, like those that cause cancer, reproductive problems, hormonal and birth disorders. Besides that, the PL proposes to accumulate only in the Ministry of Agriculture (Map) the different decisions that deal with the release of these products - what, explicitly, would recognize only the components of agricultural productivity and business from the use of these substances, putting in the background their human aspects, social and environmental.

currently, the chain of approval of pesticides involves other organs, ministry of health and the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), technically operating in the chain responsible for assessing the toxicity of substances, considering aspects beyond those relating to business, especially beyond the interests of immense agricultural businesses and their corporations.

In Adel, we believe in the power that exists in community-based family farming. From the development of capacities of rural producers so that they can qualify and manage their productive and marketing activities so that they can gain competitiveness in the market. We believe in a sustainable agriculture model, that considers the human aspects, Cultural, social and environmental activities in the organization of productive activities, from innovations that are compatible with the realities of family farmers and that generate new practices and technologies that ensure viability and increase efficiency, productivity and profitability to rural enterprises and establishments. We believe that there are models of organization and management that make family farming economically viable and with great potential for business development at community level, such as the formation of cooperatives and other local productive arrangements based on community bonds, collaboration and reciprocity. Believe, so, in the farmer, families and communities.

We advocate for the construction of public policies that promote socio-productive inclusion and a democratic model of agricultural development, sustainable in all respects, considering social functions and the necessary ecosystem view on Brazilian biodiversity. Advising, so, for social and environmental justice, reflected in advances in legislation that place farmers and farmers at the heart of rural development strategies.

Family farmers are resilient entrepreneurs by nature, act in extremely hostile contexts, dealing with significant challenges to follow their production and ensure their livelihood. To preserve your ways of life, to stay in their communities, with scarce investments, often ignored or underrepresented in public policy building spaces. Practically invisible in the spheres that talk about how agro is pop in Brazil, with their trends and new technological solutions aimed at big business models. Family farming, Today, is overconsidered in the future vision of rural and agricultural development in Brazil.

As it is being deconsidered in this legislative process of the Poison PL. In which the debates, attentions and concerns are guided by agribusiness interests, of large corporations, minimizing your costs and maximizing your profitability. While all over the world, agricultural businesses, especially the large companies that work, invest in research and development of sustainable solutions so that they can grow considering the systemic impacts of their operations, creating shared value, and need to adapt to environmental legislation that seeks to protect people and communities, in Brazil, one tries to create here a corner on the planet where toxic agriculture is accepted and even stimulated, polluting and that leaves as legacy diseases that devastate families of rural workers and that also reach consumers of agricultural products (IE, to all of us), social inequality in the countryside and a trail of devastated land.

Adel's attention and concern, at this point, are focused on the rural communities and farmers' families.

Large agribusiness companies have the resources to afford the acquisition of Personal Protective Equipment (EPI) for your employees, to implement mechanisms to mitigate health impacts for them (all limited, that only reduce exposure, but do not guarantee total safety in an environment where aggressive use of poisons is allowed), to buy pesticides that are less aggressive maybe. They also have the resources to count on the services of the best law firms and lobbyists in the country, to bear the costs of thousands of lawsuits and to pay negotiated indemnities with families affected with illnesses and even the loss of loved ones – families that have no, generally, the slightest condition of having fair judicial representation, able to fight for their interests.

But Brazilian family farmers, in its vast majority, do not have those same conditions. They are at a disadvantage in these processes and there is no measure planned or even discussed to compensate for this gap between segments in Brazilian agricultural development. So they can stay minimally competitive, considering the proposed changes in the Poison PL, will be more exposed to extremely toxic substances. Lethal to themselves, who cannot afford the costs or have the same knowledge about the use of Personal Protective Equipment (EPI) and other security practices, and that they will need to buy more aggressive and poisonous pesticides, because they will be allowed to market on the market and will have lower and more affordable prices. And also harmful to consumers of the food they produce, for families and communities that use contaminated water. And we could continue here by shredding the many other systemic impacts of these toxic substances to absolutely the entire environment – until it reaches you and your family members, as far away as they appear to be from the front, where this war has left its first victims.

The Adel, so, advocates and asks the Senate, which will now follow up on the debate, legislation that considers the necessary systemic vision on a sustainable and fair rural and agricultural development model, to broaden its gaze beyond the perspective of big business and give visibility to the challenges of all actors in the production chains, especially for those in higher exposure situations, risk and vulnerability. That respects and protects Brazilian biodiversity, its fauna and flora, and that verse about the safety of the population, consumer of national agricultural products. To project a positive legacy for agriculture in the country, in rural communities and cities, for society as a whole.

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *