A lack of government oversight and antitrust law enforcement has given rise to the ‘Big 4’- four major firms who control more than 60% of global proprietary seed sales. When these providers make money at the expense of their customers’ health and the environment- as seen with agrochemical company Monsanto- it impacts on the ability to ensure a sustainable food supply for the planet’s ever-growing population. 

—

The Monsanto Scandal

Monsanto produced pesticides and genetically modified organisms and seeds. It was acquired by Bayer, a pharmaceutical company, in 2018, who proclaimed that Monsanto would continue to operate as a separate legal entity in many countries for several years, and that there would be no changes to Monsanto’s name. It’s estimated that Monsanto seeds account for up to 90% of the US production of soybeans. 

Monsanto argues that its work has the potential to improve crops, while using natural resources more efficiently, fighting pests and disease, and conserving natural habitats. Its genetically modified seeds around the world include alfalfa, apples, canola, corn, papaya, pineapples, potatoes and soybeans. Some institutions and communities have criticised Monsanto because it developed genetically modified seeds that would resist its own herbicide, RoundUp, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. 

According to Professor Alan Boobis, Monsanto’s products are carcinogenic. In April 2019, a French court found Monsanto guilty in the poisoning of a farmer after he was exposed to Lasso, Monsanto’s weedkiller that contains monochlorobenzene, which was banned in Canada in 1982, Belgium and Great Britain in 1992 and France in 2007. The farmer argued that Monsanto was aware of the dangers of the substance long before it was banned in the French market and sought damages for long-term neurological damage after accidentally inhaling the fumes. 

In attempting to create as high a crop yield as possible through the use of pesticides, food may contain trace particles of the substances, which can pose serious health problems for children and adults alike, including Parkinson’s, ADHD and autism.

Institutions such as The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a World Health Organisation (WHO) agency devoted to cancer research, conducted an investigation into the link between glyphosate- found in herbicides used by Monsanto- and cancer using urine samples from farmers. The research found that 60% of farmers had glyphosate in their samples taken within 24 hours after they applied a formulation containing the chemical. 4% of their spouses and 12% of their children were also found to have traces of glyphosate in their samples. The agency concluded that the herbicide is a ‘probable human carcinogen’.

Despite having evidence of the risks that Monsanto products pose, governments, policy-makers and other institutions still approve their use and consumption. Argentina, the world’s third largest producer of soybeans, has increased the spraying of agrochemicals near residential areas and schools. Each region of the country creates and applies its own laws and rules regarding the use of agrochemicals and hence there are no standard regulations. However, the people living in these areas have reported illnesses resulting from exposure to the chemicals. 

This situation is mirrored in Mexico where children from rural communities such as Jalisco have been found to have agrotoxics (around 12 types) in their urine samples. The government has ignored these findings in favour of increased agricultural production. While the production of transgenics (species that have been modified by introducing the DNA of a different species) has been banned in Mexico, it is still legal to purchase them, which has resulted in the importation of corn, soybeans, potatoes, tomatoes, cotton alfalfa and canola. Monsanto has control of over 70% of the seed market in Mexico, impacting not only the food and nutrition derived from seeds and the herbicides used in vegetable cultivation, but also on the animals which feed on these same seeds.  

Under Bolsonaro, Brazil’s government has approved more than 160 pesticides, some of which are classified as ‘highly hazardous’. In August 2019, this increased to 290. Additionally, 1942 registered pesticides were reevaluated and the number of those considered to be ‘extremely toxic’ dropped from 702 to just 43. In total, 474 agrotoxics were approved in 2019. On the list of approved products is the controversial herbicide, Roundup, notorious for its poor health effects. The new active chemical ingredients were Florpirauxifen-benzyl, Fluopiram and Dinotefuran; the latter is considered by Anvisa (national health surveillance agency) to be ‘extremely toxic’. 

Colombia has not been spared either. In 2015, ex-president Juan Manuel Santos banned the use of glyphosate, after a WHO literature review found that it was carcinogenic to humans. However, the current president, Ivan Duque, defends aerial spraying of coca plantations with the toxic herbicide. The government announced in January that it would resume aerial fumigation of coca with glyphosate, however the Constitutional Court of the country has said that it must provide evidence that aerial fumigation poses no health and environmental hazards. 

Communities affected by the government’s decisions are now starting social movements through actions such as March against Monsanto. The use of alternatives in ensuring food security is possible and it is imperative that nature is used wisely to ensure a sustainable source of food for the world. 

In March 2020, it was found that Monsanto secretly funded academic studies indicating ‘very severe impacts’ on farming and the environment if its controversial glyphosate weedkiller were banned. The research was used by the National Farmers’ Union and others to successfully lobby against a European ban in 2017.

The post The Monsanto Effect: Poisoning Latin America appeared first on Earth.Org.

The surge in fires that tore through the Amazon rainforest this year made headlines around the world and stirred up controversy for the Brazilian government. However, another environmental disaster- the third that Brazil has experienced this year- has been affecting the country’s coastline: a mysterious oil spill whose origin is still unclear. 

—

Since August, oil has been washing up on the northeastern shores of Brazil with little explanation from the authorities. The president, Jair Bolsonaro, first pointed the finger at neighbouring Venezuela and later suggested that it was an act of terrorism initiated by Greenpeace. Conflicting reports continue to emerge, with the blame being put on both Greek and Marshall Islands-flagged tankers.

Brazil Oil Spill Cause

‘Bilge dumping’ (when cargo vessels and tankers illegally dump oily “bilge water” into the ocean) could be the cause of the oil spill, but authorities in Brazil say that this is unlikely. The government has been criticised for its disaster response, having failed to implement contingency plans until October.

While the blame game rages on, the oil spill has continued to pollute shorelines. As of November, 2 500 kms of tropical Brazilian beaches have been stained, more than a third of the total length of Brazil’s coast (7 367 km according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics).  

You might also like: Endangered Sea Turtles Thriving Amid COVID-19 Restrictions

Based on maps of the pollution created by locals and IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), the oil spill has stained beaches in Praia de Flamengo, Piatã and Boca do Rio (among others), as well as 123 cities, including Salvador, Lauro de Freitas and Esplanada. 14 natural reserves and parks are also among the affected areas. 

Brazil Oil Production

The country’s production of oil and natural gas increased in 2019 compared to the previous year and a record-breaking August saw oil production reach 2.989 million barrels per day, up 18.5% from August 2018, while natural gas production rose 25.3% from August 2018 to 133.3 million cubic meters per day. 

While this increased production will no doubt boost the oil industry (the resource contributes 7% to the country’s GDP), ecosystems and local communities should be considered. Fishermen are especially affected, given that their main economic activity is reliant on the sea; sales of seafood have fallen sharply because of potential oil contamination. 

The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply conducted a study of fish in the affected areas. It identified two fish samples with values above the levels of health concern as defined by the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), while another 66 fish, shrimp and lobster samples analysed so far have results below these levels. The study noted that there is a risk of contamination ‘only if there is continuous consumption of the same product at these levels for several years’. It is therefore perhaps too early to determine the effects this incident will have on the consumption of fish from the affected areas.

Researchers point out that, in addition to the visible impact that the spill has had on beaches, mangroves and estuaries, traces of oil have been found in animals including shellfish, birds and fish. IBAMA has reported that of 151 oiled animals that have so far been recovered from affected areas, 106 have died. Further impacts on wildlife include asphyxiation, a reduction in fish larvae being fertilised and disturbances in food chains. 

The coral reefs in the areas of impact have also been affected. Experts say that this is the worst disaster in history for Brazilian corals; the reefs were hit as they were recovering from unprecedented bleaching caused by rising sea temperatures that led to 90% of one species dying. Greenpeace explains that coral reefs are affected by decomposing oil, which increases the resource’s density and causes between 10% and 30% of it to be absorbed by sediments and suspended materials, often settling into corals. 

Local communities have taken action to clean up the spill in light of government inaction. However, compounds found in fuel oil can be inhaled without proper protection and are volatile. These compounds (benzene, toluene and xylene) are highly carcinogenic and acute intoxication can cause nausea and headaches. Some volunteers have been hospitalised due to toxin exposure. 

The government of Brazil needs to implement corrective and proactive measures to prevent an accident like this oil spill from happening again or the region will continue to suffer. Unfortunately, this looks to be unlikely as the government has dismantled environmental laws and agencies meant to safeguard the environment and the economy, including reducing the number of fines given for illegal deforestation and essentially dismantling IBAMA. Continuing to behave without regard for the planet will render the most vulnerable inhabitants defenceless against the onslaught of climate change and harmful actions by humans. 

Featured image by: Wikimedia

The post Oil and Trouble: A Third of Brazil’s Coastline Stained From Oil Spill appeared first on Earth.Org.

A Reflection of Colombia’s President and his address at the UN Climate Action Summit Climate Crisis in South America: Real Action or Just Talk? What a President’s Speech at the UN really tells us about Commitment.

—

Colombia. A country the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) described as “at high risk from climate change impacts.” So how do the remarks made by Colombian President Iván Duque Márquez at the UN Climate Action Summit held in New York on September 23 align with this very real threat? How is Colombia’s President ignoring the climate crisis?

Colombia compromises on climate change

The President duly pointed to domestic policies aimed at protecting ecosystems and promoting clean energy production and protection of the commons. 

Natural disasters as a collateral effect of the climate crisis were also mentioned. The President said that they ‘demand that we act with a sense of urgency and determination; that we understand that this is the greatest challenge’. 

However, Márquez neglected to address the root causes of human-induced disasters in Colombia that include environmentally detrimental practices in the mining and extraction sector as well as surface level resource exploitation. This can have rippling effects on communities. 

 ‘Researchers have argued that ‘the substitution of social justice for market laws leads to different crises, especially those that erode human rights.’ 

You might also like: Germany to Phase Out Coal by 2038- A Done Deal?

Opposition to Fracking 

Columbia’s state-run oil company, Ecopetrol, plans to embark on a fracking pilot programme in 2020. Not with standing the ongoing legal challenges in national courts, the company has been given permission to proceed with the implementation of the programme galvanising opposition movements against fracking, which environmental activists have linked to water contamination.

With the government having given a green light, natural reserves both terrestrial and marine-protected areas have been put at risk. According to Alessi, Zolfagharu, Kletke, Gehman, Allen, and Goss (2017), hydraulic fracturing fluid components such as petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals that are byproducts of the extraction process, pose major health risks to humans, and are major drivers of ecosystem toxicity.

A Contradiction in Terms

As the case of Colombia attests, what is preached abroad, is often not what’s witnessed on the ground. What is delivered from the podiums to the international community, does not always bare resemblance to the realities on the ground. 

President Márquez revelled in the climate change rhetoric but his failings reside mostly in what went unsaid. Brushing aside controversial projects does not alter nor help resolve the fundamental tension between economic empowerment and the need for sustainable growth. 

Colombia’s example is not unique. A global comparison between what political leaders claim in the international arena and their actual policy implementations might reveal other significant gaps between what is said and what is being done. 

The post How Colombia’s President is Ignoring the Climate Crisis appeared first on Earth.Org.