Will Glyphosate Be Banned in Mato Grosso, Brazil’s Largest Agricultural State?

AgriBrasilis – Will glyphosate be banned in Mato Grosso?

Fábio Kagi – There is no final decision on the ban on glyphosate in Mato Grosso at this time. In 2019, the Federal and State Public Prosecutor’s Offices filed a Public Civil Action requesting the suspension of the use of glyphosate-based products in the state by farmers’ associations, which would culminate in a ban on their use. The case is being reviewed by the Regional Labor Court of the 23rd Region through a special procedure called Incidente de Assunção de Competência (IAC). The discussion is currently in the public hearing stage and is still awaiting a final decision from the court.

AgriBrasilis – What is the basis for this Public Civil Action?

Fábio Kagi – The Public Prosecutor’s Office alleges that glyphosate may pose risks to workers’ health and the environment. However, Sindiveg points out that the product has undergone rigorous scientific evaluation processes conducted by official agencies such as Anvisa, which concluded that its use is safe when applied correctly. For the Union, decisions such as this should be based on solid technical evidence, not just assumptions or perceptions of risk.

AgriBrasilis – What evidence justifies the ban, considering that the product has already been approved by Anvisa?

Fábio Kagi – Sindiveg believes that there are no technical justifications for this possible ban.

“Any replacement of a product on the market must be based on the launch of technologies that farmers perceive as more viable…”

AgriBrasilis – What would be the consequences of a ban?

Fábio Kagi – Glyphosate is undoubtedly the most widely used herbicide in Brazil and worldwide. A possible ban on glyphosate could have a significant impact on the countryside. One of the main impacts would be an increase in production costs, which could affect the competitiveness of agriculture and reduce the number of jobs in the sector.

From an environmental perspective, there is a risk of regression in sustainable practices, such as no-till farming, which helps preserve the soil and reduce carbon emissions. Without glyphosate, this technique may become unfeasible in many regions.

In addition, weed control would become more difficult and less efficient. Thus, farmers would find it more difficult to maintain productivity and would face greater challenges in ensuring proper crop management.

It is important to understand that anything that has a significant cost impact on agriculture does not only affect the countryside. More expensive food, fiber, and energy mean reduced access to food, especially for lower-income populations, more expensive clothing, higher electricity bills, and higher gas prices.

AgriBrasilis – Without glyphosate, is there a viable alternative in terms of cost and efficiency for farmers?

Fábio Kagi – Any replacement of a product on the market must be based on the launch of technologies that farmers perceive as more viable. In the natural process of technological innovation, companies always seek to launch new products with greater agronomic efficiency and safety for the applicator, consumer, and environment. Farmers adopt these new technologies. Even in this environment, glyphosate has remained one of the best alternatives for many years.

But the main issue in this case is not the existence or absence of alternatives. It is the absence of plausible risks that justify the need to shift to alternatives. This assessment can only be carried out, in a technical manner, by regulatory authorities.

AgriBrasilis – What is Sindiveg’s position?

Fábio Kagi – Sindiveg emphasizes that all products used in crop protection, including glyphosate, undergo rigorous technical analysis by government agencies, such as the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment, and Health, through Anvisa. In this scenario, the entity is in favor of reevaluating substances, provided that this process follows current legislation and is based on reliable and up-to-date scientific information.

However, the Union expresses concern about external decisions that are not based on solid technical criteria. This type of interference can generate insecurity in the sector, directly affecting farmers.