Discussions on pesticides divide the Brazilian government

Brasil de Fato

Although the Planalto Palace – the headquarters of Brazil’s government – is trying to keep the government cohesive, some issues divide opinions among ministers. There have been recent disagreements between the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA, in Portuguese) and the Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA, in Portuguese) on pesticides. 

On Monday (12), at a formal session in the Senate to honor the 40th anniversary of the Female Farmers’ Movement, MDA minister Paulo Teixeira argued that, in the context of tax reform regulations, pesticides that pose a high risk to health and ultra-processed foods should be selectively taxed, in order to promote healthy eating. 

Teixeira’s statement was well received by organizations that advocate for an agroecological transition. “Minister Paulo Teixeira’s signal is very coherent with a government committed to a set of political priorities aimed at promoting food, nutritional security and health, and dealing with climate emergencies,” says Paulo Petersen, executive coordinator of the NGO Family Farming and Agroecology (AS-PTA, in Portuguese) and a member of the Executive Nucleus of the National Articulation of Agroecology (ANA, in Portuguese).

“Tax policy is decisive because it shows what Brazil, as well as society, values or fails to value. So, if we have proven alternatives in agroecology to tackle this set of priority issues for the country and the planet, we must encourage them through tax policy too,” he adds.

Petersen believes that the resources from taxing pesticides should be used for the agroecological transition, focusing on producing healthy food. “It is expected that these products and ultra-processed food will be targeted from a fiscal point of view so that there are public resources to promote agroecology, family farming and healthy food on an agroecological basis because this is exactly the mechanism we have to reconcile this set of priorities.”

Alan Tygel, from the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life, celebrated Teixeira’s speech, but demanded that the government, including the MDA, make a greater effort to advance the agenda.

“Rather than words, we should already have concrete action to reduce pesticides, including within the Ministry of Agrarian Development itself,” he said. “We’re also waiting for more concrete positions and actions on the part of the MDA, especially in this task force we’ve been working on over the last few months to implement Pronara [the National Program for the Reduction of Pesticides],” he added. 

Conflict breaks out

On the one hand, movements are celebrating the statement by the Minister of Agrarian Development; on the other hand, they have been fighting with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture over the very issue of pesticides. 

The Ministry of Agrarian Development and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock are part of the Interministerial Chamber for Agroecology and Organic Food Production (Ciapo, in Portuguese), which brings together bodies and entities of the federal executive branch to implement the National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Food Production (Planapo, in Portuguese). The plan’s launch was postponed twice due to the refusal of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to sign it.

At a meeting of the Cnapo, held on July 18 at the Planalto Palace, Cássio Trovatto, general coordinator for Agroecological Transition at the Ministry of Agrarian Development, reported the surprise among Ciapo members at the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock’s refusal to sign Pronara. 

“Everyone was frightened by the situation. Scared, first of all, because we’re experiencing an unprecedented situation. The other two previous plans had the initiative to institute the National Program to Reduce the Use of Pesticides. This time, we’re not managing to launch Planapo because there’s an early refusal by a ministry about this initiative,” he said.

Answers

Brasil de Fato contacted the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to ask about the ministry’s adherence to the Pesticide Reduction Program, and Minister Paulo Teixeira’s speech defending the selective taxation of pesticides, but had not received a response by the time this news story was concluded.  

The Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services said the discussion on the proposal to selectively tax pesticides and ultra-processed food “is currently being debated by the National Congress”.

According to the ministry, “the issue involves various technical areas, with repercussions on different public policies for health, agriculture, industry, tax, jobs etc. The ministry’s position is the government’s position,” said the ministry, headed by vice-president Geraldo Alckmin, who also explained that the Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services is not part of Cnapo.

Brasil de Fato also contacted the Ministry of Finance, which agreed to send a statement on the matter. Once received, it will be included in this news story.  

‘Poison Package’ is the target of a lawsuit at the Supreme Court  

Brazilian political parties and popular movements have filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI in Portuguese) with the Federal Supreme Court (STF) against Law 14.785/2023, known as the “Poison Package.” The law approved at the end of 2023 makes the regulation of pesticides in Brazil more flexible, which could further increase the use of these products in the country, which already leads the world in pesticide consumption.  The plaintiffs argue that the law violates fundamental rights, such as access to an ecologically balanced environment and the population’s health. 

Authored by former senator Blairo Maggi (Progressive Party), known as the “king of soybeans,” the “Poison Package” had the intense support of the Parliamentary Agricultural Front (FPA in Portuguese) and the agribusiness lobby during the process.  

The ADI was filed by parties like the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), Workers’ Party (PT), trade unions and social organizations. They point out that the legislation favors agribusiness interests to the detriment of public health and the environment. The STF is expected to analyze the law’s constitutionality, considering its adverse impacts on human health and biodiversity.