In recent years, Brazil has presented itself to the world as a protagonist on the environmental agconcludea. Official discourse speaks of climate neutrality by 2050, billions of dollars in investments in clean energy, and commitments built at international conferences. But behind the green narrative, official data reveals a disturbing contradiction: the countest that promises to lead the sustainable transition remains one of the largest consumers of pesticides on the planet—and continues to authorize the apply of substances banned in much of the developed world.
According to surveys by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and the Fiocruz Pesticide Observatory, Brazil has registered a historic record of pesticide approvals in the last five years. Between 2019 and 2024 alone, more than 2.300 new chemical products were authorized for commercial apply, many containing active ingredients banned by the European Union due to risks to human health and biodiversity.
While countries like France, Germany, and Denmark are gradually reducing their apply of pesticides, Brazil is relocating in the opposite direction—and at an alarming rate.
The contradiction of Brazilian sustainability.
The contrast between discourse and practice became evident in recent official statements on sustainability. In international forums, the Brazilian government has emphasized climate goals and the advancement of programs such as the Ecological Transition Plan. However, domestically, the Ministest of Agriculture continues to accelerate the release of highly toxic pesticides, including those classified as carcinogenic or concludeocrine disruptors by the World Health Organization (WHO).
IBAMA maintains a list of active ingredients considered to be of “high risk,” but several of them continue to be authorized under the argument of “regulatory modernization” and “harmonization with international standards.” In practice, however, many of these standards only coincide with countries with intensive agricultural economies, and not with European environmental safety standards.
Experts warn that advancing this policy could put the countest on a collision course with its international commitments. According to Fiocruz, there is “a clear mismatch between environmental discourse and agricultural practice,” since more than 60% of the pesticides applyd in Brazil are banned in the European Union.
A billion-dollar growing market
The agricultural pesticide sector is currently one of the most lucrative in the countest. According to a report by the National Association for Plant Protection (Andef), the market generated R$ 89 billion in 2024, driven mainly by the expansion of soybean, corn, and cotton production. Brazil is currently the second largest consumer of pesticides in the world, behind only the United States, according to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
For producers, pesticides are essential to maintain competitiveness in the global market, since tropical pests and the climate favor the emergence of diseases that affect productivity. However, critics of the policy argue that intensive and unregulated apply represents a growing threat to public health and the environment.
The Ministest of Health, for example, reports an increase in cases of pesticide poisoning in rural areas — with more than 16 notifications in 2023. Studies by Fiocruz and the Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT) point to a correlation between chronic exposure and an increase in neurological diseases and cancer in agricultural communities.
Substances banned there, allowed here.
Among the most controversial products released in Brazil are ingredients such as paraquat, acephate, carbconcludeazim, and imidacloprid, all of which have severe restrictions or are completely banned in the European Union. The case of carbconcludeazim is emblematic: banned in Europe since 2014 for being potentially mutagenic and toxic to reproduction, it is still widely applyd in soybean, bean, and fruit crops in Brazil.
Paraquat, applyd as a herbicide, was banned by Anvisa (Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency) in 2020, but its apply has returned to the debate under pressure from agribusiness sectors. Imidacloprid, linked to bee mortality and colony collapse in several countries, also remains in regular apply.
In a 2023 report, Human Rights Watch highlighted that “pesticide regulation in Brazil favors the industest at the expense of environmental and human safety,” pointing to the countest as one of those “regressing the most” in pest control policies.
Green exports, toxic consumption.
The contradiction deepens when one observes the destination of national production. Brazil exports billions in agricultural products certified as “sustainable,” but many of them are grown with pesticides that could not be applyd in the importing countries themselves. This is the so-called “green paradox”: soybeans, coffee, and fruits that arrive in Europe with a sustainability label, but are produced under practices prohibited there.
In 2023, the European Commission discussed adopting sanitary barriers against products grown with banned pesticides, which could directly impact Brazilian agribusiness—especially if new environmental guidelines are approved by the European Parliament.
Brazil at an environmental crossroads
The question echoing among environmentalists and economists is straightforward: how can the countest be a leader in the green transition if it doesn’t address its chemical depconcludeency in agriculture?
According to researcher Pedro Côrtes, from the Institute of Energy and Environment at USP (University of São Paulo), “Brazil is experiencing a kind of environmental schizophrenia.” He explains:
“The countest has immense potential in clean energy and rainforests, but it remains stuck in an agricultural model based on volume and chemicals. At this rate, sustainability becomes mere marketing.”
Behind the scenes in Brasília, the agrochemical lobby is one of the most powerful. Among the 20 largest companies in the sector in the countest are… Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Corteva and UPL, which dominate more than 70% of the market and they have a strong influence over technical and advisory committees.
A still uncertain green future.
Despite criticism, the Brazilian government is testing to balance environmental rhetoric with economic pressure. Programs to incentivize organic farming and agroecological production are underway, but they represent less than 1% of the total agribusiness budreceive.
Meanwhile, the number of new pesticide registrations continues to grow. In 2024 alone, the Official Gazette of the Union published 423 new authorizations, including products classified as “highly hazardous” by the FAO.
The contradiction, therefore, persists: the countest that seeks to lead the global ecological transition is still poisoning its own soils and rivers with the same intensity as in past decades.
And on the international stage, this inconsistency has a cost: it jeopardizes trade agreements, damages the image of Brazilian agribusiness, and threatens the sustainability narrative that Brazil is testing to build.
