Approved on February 9th in the Chamber of Deputies, it was sent to the Federal Senate on the 15th, the 6.299 / 2002 Bill. If approved there, there will be profound changes to the Pesticides Law (Law 7.802/1989). Environmentalists, scientific institutions and associations linked to the topic have spoken out against the PL. The Brazilian Association of Mutagenesis and Environmental Genomics (MutaGen-Brasil), the Brazilian Society of Toxicology (SBTox), the Brazilian Society of Ecotoxicology (Ecotox-Brasil), the Brazilian Society of Chemistry (SBQ), the Brazilian Society of Cell Biology ( SBBC) and the Brazilian Society of Genetics (SBG) jointly published a Public Motion of Repudiation of Bill No. 6.299/2002. In this text, they speak out vehemently against the approval of the project, already nicknamed the “poison package”. “This Bill is a setback in relation to current legislation, placing agricultural workers and all citizens in extreme vulnerability when consuming water and food, in addition to affecting the fauna and flora of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems throughout the national territory. ”, says an excerpt from the motion.
The proposal to be considered in the Senate should make cases of prohibition of pesticide registrations more flexible. One of the largest food producers in the world, Brazil is also one of the champions in the use of pesticides. Between 2010 and 2015, 815 products were registered. Between 2016 and 2020 the number more than doubled, with 2.009 products of this type being released. Today the Pesticides Law prohibits the registration of pesticides with carcinogenic, teratogenic (which affect the formation of the fetus) and mutagenic properties; that cause hormonal disorders, damage to the reproductive system and damage to the environment. PL 6.299/2002 allows the continued use of these compounds and prohibits registration only when the product reveals an “unacceptable risk”, but without making clear what this means. “We will never have complete data on a pesticide at the time of registration that would allow us to carry out a risk assessment with the necessary rigor, in order to protect human and environmental health. I am completely against the approval of compounds with these properties”, says professor at the Faculty of Technology at Unicamp, Gisela Umbuzeiro.
Clearance – Another important change in the PL concerns the decision-making power of the Ministries of Health and the Environment. Today, the registration and reevaluation of pesticides involves these ministries and the Ministries of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), all with autonomy and veto power. The guidance is that the principle of health protection must prevail in all assessments. The PL changes this format and concentrates decision-making power in MAPA.
Em Note, the National Association of Environmental Servers (Ascema) highlights that the change in competences of the bodies responsible for the evaluation and control of pesticides (Ibama and Anvisa) seriously compromise the mechanisms of protection of human health and the environment. “The proposal is suppressing the powers of federal bodies linked to health and the environment, by replacing the evaluation of ecotoxicological and toxicological studies with the simple approval of technical opinions presented by the private sector (companies), that is, it would be up to Ibama to validate the documents presented by the registrant of the product, as provided for in item “There is no reason for us to change the current law”, emphasizes Gisela. “I agree that it is necessary to improve the current process, establishing increasingly clear rules for registration, as was done in 2 by the standard issued by Anvisa (RDC 2019). But to continue the process of improvement and alignment with the most current scientific practices, we need enough qualified professionals to evaluate registration processes quickly and efficiently,” she adds.
According to the definition of the National Cancer Institute (Inca, 2021), pesticides are synthetic chemical products used to kill insects, larvae, fungi and ticks, under the justification of controlling diseases caused by these vectors and regulating the growth of vegetation, both in rural and urban environments. Toxicity is, therefore, an intrinsic characteristic of them. Damage to human health depends on the active ingredient used, its concentration, time and form of exposure. “The term pesticide is correct because these compounds must present toxicity to be efficient in controlling pests, whether they are herbicides, insecticides or fungicides”, explains Gisela.
In the proposal approved by the Chamber, it is planned to replace the term pesticide by pesticide, agricultural pesticide ou phytosanitary protection. The 1988 Constitution uses the theme pesticide and, in line with the current Law, all legislation and regulations on the subject also do so. “This change does not bring any gain to society, on the contrary, it increases misinformation. The objective seems to be to get society to perceive such products as friendly compounds. This can lead to indiscriminate use and without the necessary protection during application. We are on the wrong path”, emphasizes the teacher. For her, it is urgent to mobilize society, especially through the mainstream media. “We have to contact the senators and avoid this setback at any cost”, she concludes.
