“Poison PL”: poisoned is the activism that denies science

Since the Neolithic period, when man began to cultivate and create in an organized way, laying the foundations of what we know today as agriculture and livestock, he has fought, not always successfully, pests that reduced or even decimated his crops and herds. This struggle lasted thousands of years until just under a century ago, organic chemistry began to contribute to agriculture through molecules with biological activity capable of controlling and even eliminating pests and diseases that infested crops and animal breeding sites.

Since then, research and development of new molecules and formulations have been improving with the aim of creating increasingly specific substances to combat pests, and increasingly less aggressive to the environment, animals and humans. Contrary to Malthus and feeding the world has become the mission of modern agriculture, after all, the global population will continue to grow in geometric progression and only with high productivity will we be able to supply food for all inhabitants of the planet.

The technology behind modern agriculture has as one of its main allies phytosanitary products, which are the result of years of research, development and careful assessments of their danger to humans, animals and the environment. In Brazil, these evaluations last up to 10 years, meaning that, often, when a product is released for use on crops, there is already a substitute with better performance and lower risks to health and the environment. It does not become obsolete, but it becomes outdated. Just remembering, our legislation is clear regarding the registration of new molecules and formulations: without proof that they are better than current products, with no chance of registration and use in the country. By better, it is understood as more efficient (lower dosage) and less aggressive to the environment, animals and humans.

However, after years of back and forth in the Chamber of Deputies, the text of PL 6.299 was finally approved, absurdly dubbed the “Poison PL” by the activists on duty. According to these activists, from now on, with the approval of PL6.299, Brazilian farmers will be able to “poison” the food that reaches Brazilian tables at will. In fact, how this ideological shock troops continually demonizes Brazilian agriculture, in defense of who knows what interests.

By this logic, I who have been consuming food produced in a conventional way, with the use of pesticides, since my childhood in the 70s, as well as many of those reading this text at the moment, should already be suffering from chronic diseases or even have died from the poison ingested all these years. But why didn't that happen?

When we get sick, doctors prescribe medicine based on the diagnosis of the disease to be treated. Likewise, agronomists prescribe the necessary medicines to combat plant pests and diseases. Your name? Phytosanitary products, that is, products to maintain plant health. Which follow a path identical to that of pharmaceuticals, from the beginning of their development to their commercial launch. A lot of research and development, to arrive at recommended dosages that are efficient and safe for both humans and plants.

But aren't these products being applied without any criteria, in dosages far above those recommended?

The results of monitoring pesticide residues, carried out by ANVISA, through PARA (Pesticide Residue Analysis Program in Food) tell us exactly the opposite. The last monitored period shows a compliance rate of 99,11% of samples of 25 foods representing the basic diet of Brazilians.

But isn’t Brazil the biggest “consumer” of pesticides in the world?

This is not what the FAO figures demonstrate, which even show that when it comes to the average consumption of pesticides per hectare, Brazil occupies the 25th position, while first world countries such as Japan and the Netherlands occupy the 8th and 15th positions respectively. . With a small detail: we produce two or even three crops, depending on the crop, with much higher productivity, and with an extremely efficient “consumption” of pesticides compared to the amount of food produced in the country. In other words, if the quantity of food and/or number of crops were taken into account in this calculation, we would probably fall even further down this list.

No matter how clear the data, facts and arguments are regarding the safety of using agricultural pesticides in Brazil and around the world, denial of the science behind conventional agriculture continues to misinform and issue opinions based on criteria and numbers taken from, you know, it's where from. And for these imaginary apocalypse alarmists, there is no science capable of convincing them to see the facts and come to the conclusion that we were only able to contradict Malthus thanks to the correct application of these products throughout the world. After all, conventional agriculture occupies 98,5% of cultivated areas across the planet.

Finally, it must be clarified that bill 6.299 does not propose to relax the rigor of safety criteria when approving the use of new pesticides. Contrary to this, it proposes new requirements and additional analyses, such as risk assessment, which is extremely important as it considers not only the characteristic danger of a product, intrinsic to its chemical composition, but also the degree of exposure of individuals since its application in the treatment of crops until the consumption of foods treated with the new products. And most importantly, all assessments are based on science, in line with parameters and procedures adopted around the world.

We need to remember that the use of phytosanitary products in crops, together with other modern tools (genetic improvement, equipment, fertilizers, good practices), aims to produce food in a sustainable way and mainly at a cost that can be paid by the population. Therefore, PL 6.299 is the evolution of an obsolete regulatory framework that urgently needs to adapt to modern practices and technologies used around the world. Its main objective is to allow our farmers to have access to the same technologies available to our competitors, placing the country on the same level as other food producers and exporters. Thus, farmers and especially food-consuming citizens will be the main beneficiaries of its approval. After all, the modernization brought about by the new law reduces the sanitary and environmental risks inherent to phytosanitary products – if new products to be approved must be safer and with lower risks, their faster introduction in agriculture is a benefit that is done more than necessary.

Marcelo Hilarious

Chemist Responsible for Research and Development at Sell Agro