Ceará may ban aerial spraying of pesticides.

Edwirges Nogueira – Reporter for Agência Brasil

"The planes would turn around above the community and fly over the church. The whole community would turn white, as if it were snowing." This account from farmer Socorro Guimarães, 42, refers to the practice of aerial spraying of pesticides on rural properties near the Tomé community in Limoeiro do Norte, 200 kilometers from Fortaleza. The municipality is located in the Chapada do Apodi region, one of the areas most occupied by agribusiness in Ceará, near the Jaguaribe-Apodi irrigated perimeter and the border with Rio Grande do Norte.

Aerial spraying, a method of applying pesticides to agricultural crops, may be banned in the state. A bill seeks to prohibit the use of the technique, considering it the most harmful to health and the environment.

"The spraying is done with a large quantity of toxic liquid, which is a mixture of vegetable oil and poison. For the producer, aerial application represents a large quantity applied at once. Therefore, for him, it is a better cost-benefit ratio. For the environment and for health, it is bad, because there is drift [when the pesticide does not reach the desired location] caused by the wind, which exposes more soil, water, and communities," explains state deputy Renato Roseno (PSOL), author of the proposal.

The project was named after Zé Maria do Tomé, a tribute to the community and environmental leader from Limoeiro do Norte (CE) who was murdered in 2010. He was known for leading the fight to ban the aerial spraying of pesticides. At that time, the city's Municipal Chamber approved and enacted a law prohibiting the technique. Five months later, in April, Zé Maria was killed with 19 shots. The following month, the law was repealed. The proposed state law currently being processed in the Legislative Assembly has already been approved in two of the six committees to which the text was distributed.

Rules

A regulatory instruction from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply, issued in 2008, imposes rules for agricultural aircraft that spray pesticides, establishing, for example, minimum distance limits between cities, towns and villages, water sources and animal gatherings, which are between 250 and 500 meters from the area that will receive the pesticide spraying, in addition to ideal wind speed and humidity conditions.

However, according to Socorro's account, these limits were not respected. In 2010, the 120 chickens she raised were loose in her yard when an agricultural plane passed by with its sprayer on. The next day, 80 birds died. There are also reports in the community of people who have suffered poisoning. However, according to the farmer, many do not associate the symptoms with contact with pesticides because they work for companies that use the technique.

Professor Raquel Rigotto, from the Department of Community Health at the Faculty of Medicine of the Federal University of Ceará (UFC), witnessed the practice of aerial spraying in Limoeiro do Norte in 2007, during fieldwork in the city on the impacts of exposure to pesticides on health. "In fact, it was Zé Maria who warned us. He showed us dead chickens in the yard, clothes on the clothesline smelling of poison," said the coordinator of the Work, Environment and Health Center (Tramas).

Raquel and the research team began tracking the flights of aircraft that applied pesticides to crops during the rainy seasons (the period from February to May when Ceará receives the most rain) of 2008 and 2009. The time frame chosen coincides with the moment when fruit growers begin to take action to eradicate yellow sigatoka, a pest that affects banana trees, especially during the rainy season.

"We were very impressed by the vulnerable situation the population was in, because there were only employees of the agricultural aviation company there, with a truckload of pesticide containers at the Chapada do Apodi airstrip. The plane would come, load up with a large volume of pesticides, take off, spray it all, come back, do it again, and there was no public authority overseeing the procedure."

The Ministry of Agriculture's normative instruction requires a report with a series of information about agricultural aviation activities, including the name and quantity of the product applied, a sketch of the treated area, and parameters such as flight altitude and meteorological data, in addition to the presence of an agricultural technician with a course in agricultural aviation, who can interrupt the flight if the basic parameters reach the maximum safety limits.

According to Socorro, aerial spraying was most intense in the Tomé community between 2004 and 2010. From 2012 onwards, according to the agricultural sector, there have been no new applications due to the low rainfall in recent rainy seasons.

Aerial spraying of pesticides causes persistent damage, experts say.

Edwirges Nogueira – In 2006, a toxic cloud originating from aerial spraying on soybean plantations reached an urban area and caused acute poisoning in children and the elderly in Lucas do Rio Verde (MT). Then, in 2013, nearly 100 people, including teachers and students, suffered poisoning after a plane sprayed pesticides over a school in Rio Verde (GO).

Professor Wanderley Pignati, from the Center for Environmental Studies and Occupational Health at the Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT), who participated in the investigation of both cases, believes that the pollution caused by pesticides can be considered intentional, since, in order to reach its target, it also affects the soil and water.

"It's not an accident. The plane passes by and, either way, the wind will carry it one way or the other. This idea that the wind doesn't carry the poison to another place violates the principles of aviation, because if the wind is still, the plane won't even take off," said the expert during a lecture at the Legislative Assembly of Ceará, in Fortaleza, in May of this year.

One of the main arguments against aerial spraying is the so-called drift, when the application of pesticides does not reach the desired location and spreads to other areas. Researcher Aldemir Chaim, from the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), in his 2004 article "Technology of Pesticide Application," states that the application of pesticides in the current century is not very different from how it was practiced in the last century. The main characteristic of this application is the waste of chemical product.

In 1999, Chaim and other researchers developed a way to quantify this waste in different forms of pesticide application. Depending on the height of the plants, only half of the applied product reaches the target. The rest falls on the ground or is lost through drift. In 2013, Embrapa developed the Gotas Program, a software that helps calibrate spraying.

According to Pignati, in the case of aerial spraying, drift can reach more distant areas due to the space between the target and the aircraft: the higher the aircraft is above the crop that will receive the pesticides, the greater the drift will be due to the action of the wind.

Professor Raquel Rigotto, from the Department of Community Health at the Faculty of Medicine of the Federal University of Ceará (UFC), participated in a study that identified active ingredients of pesticides in the soil of the Chapada do Apodi region – one of the areas most occupied by agribusiness in Ceará. According to the specialist, the substances found – difenoconazole and epoxiconazole – are very toxic: difenoconazole, for example, can seriously damage the liver and is considered a possible cause of cancer, according to the classification of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The expert believes that the substances can even reach the cisterns that supply homes during droughts. Active ingredients of pesticides were also found in the Jandaíra aquifer, located between Ceará and Rio Grande do Norte. The groundwater is used both by the productive sector and by the populations of the eight municipalities in Ceará, including Limoeiro do Norte, and Rio Grande do Norte that encompass the aquifer.

"These contaminants are carried by the wind, can settle on the roofs of houses, and when it rains, it washes the roofs, and this is the water that the gutters collect and direct to the cisterns. We are very concerned that this water, which often guarantees the water supply for families during periods of drought, may also be contaminated with these products," asks Raquel.

Banning aerial spraying is a disproportionate measure, says researcher.

Edwirges Nogueira – The large expanses of farmland and the size of some crops make aerial spraying of pesticides an essential method for Brazilian agribusiness, according to agricultural engineer Ulisses Antuniassi, professor in the Department of Rural Engineering at the State University of São Paulo (Unesp), who advocates for the maintenance and improvement of this technique.

"The ban on aerial spraying is a disproportionate measure. It doesn't make sense in the context of such an important agricultural country. If a ban were to occur, we would suffer enormous losses for crops that have no other options. I believe that aerial application should not be prohibited. It should be regulated and monitored."

The researcher explains that aerial spraying is a complementary activity to other methods and is used when there are restrictions on ground application. "Once sugarcane reaches a large size, for example, it becomes difficult and even impossible to use other methods. Therefore, aerial spraying is fundamental. In other crops, in general, it is highly desirable when the producer needs to carry out a quick and efficient treatment in the face of a pest or disease outbreak. When the option is to use a pesticide, aerial application has the advantage of allowing the work to be done quickly."

Another example cited by the professor is that of yellow sigatoka, which affects banana plants. Due to the tall stature of the plants, aerial spraying represents a better cost-benefit ratio for the producer and also for the environment. "Application with ground equipment in banana cultivation becomes inefficient and has a large environmental impact. If the product is applied with ground equipment, it is done from bottom to top. So a lot of product is released into the environment. When aerial application is possible, a smaller amount of spray solution [dilution of chemical products in water or another type of solvent] is used, resulting in a more efficient treatment with less environmental impact."

According to Antuniassi, aerial spraying of pesticides currently accounts for about 25% of applications carried out in Brazil, but, depending on the crop, the use of this technique can reach 100%, as in the case of bananas and sugarcane.

Unesp, in conjunction with the Federal Universities of Lavras (UFLA) and Uberlândia (UFU), coordinates the Sustainable Aerial Agricultural Certification program, which aims to encourage good practices in agricultural aviation to make pesticide spraying more effective. Antuniassi emphasizes that compliance with the rules of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (Mapa) reduces the impacts of drift to almost zero.

"The question of whether or not to obey the regulations is closely linked to following what we call best practices in aerial application companies. They undergo training, and perhaps the main factor to consider is obeying these rules and the safety zones (which are 250 to 500 meters from the area that will receive the pesticide spraying). We have cases where the rules are not followed, but this is not widespread; these are isolated situations. The accidents that occur are few because the companies are aware that society observes and criticizes them."

In Brazil, according to him, 54% of agricultural aviation companies are already certified. In São Paulo, that number reaches 90%. In the Northeast region, only four companies in two states adopt the best practices taught by the program: Maranhão, with three companies, and Alagoas, with one.

According to the professor, the negative publicity surrounding accidents involving aerial spraying of pesticides turns the technique into a villain. "There's a bit of a myth that aerial application is something evil. It's a tool. Just as on a small property there's a hoe and a backpack sprayer, on a large property there's a tractor and an airplane. If used in accordance with the law, they are completely safe."

Productive sector

Representatives of the agribusiness sector believe there are no grounds for the proposed ban on the technique in Ceará. The president of the National Fruit Growing Commission of the Brazilian Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock (CNA) and member of the Ceará Fruit Growing Sector Chamber, Tom Prado, explains that the state uses aerial application the least in Brazil for pest control. According to him, neighboring Piauí performs 200 times more applications than Ceará.

"To date, in all applications carried out in Ceará, there have never been any records of damage to health or the environment on the part of the bodies responsible for their authorization and oversight," Prado argued.

According to him, of all the techniques, aerial spraying is the safest for the worker, as it does not expose the farmer to pesticides as happens with backpack sprayers.

In addition to disagreeing with the bill that prohibits aerial spraying, the president of the Federation of Agriculture and Livestock of Ceará (Faec), Flávio Viriato de Saboya Neto, points out that the proposal could be considered unconstitutional, since there is already a regulation from the Ministry of Agriculture that governs the technique and other rules from the National Civil Aviation Agency (Anac) that regulate agricultural aviation.

For him, the issue became controversial after the assassination of community leader and environmentalist Zé Maria do Tomé, who advocated for the end of the method. "The state of Ceará does not have significant aerial spraying because we do not have intensive agriculture. This problem with agricultural aviation arose because of Limoeiro do Norte, which stirred up the passions of some environmental entities that were debating the validity of the method in the municipality."