Aligned with the demands of the global market, agricultural aviation is attentive to environmental challenges, contributing to low-carbon farming and reducing agriculture’s impact on ecosystems. Yet, the sector often faces prejudice. One of the reasons is society’s lack of knowledge about the products applied in crops. Just as advances in onboard aircraft technology have enabled safer and more precise applications, agrochemicals as well as bio-inputs have also undergone significant progress over the years.
Chemical engineer and master’s in production engineering João Antônio Ramos Castro highlights that modern molecules are primarily characterized by lower toxicological and ecotoxicological risk classifications. “They also feature faster degradation, reducing the molecule’s half-life and shortening its life cycle, thus avoiding bioaccumulation,” reinforces Castro, who is also managing partner of Gran Agro Produtos Agrícolas.
According to Castro, the attacks on agribusiness’s production chain, in which agricultural aviation is included, reflect interests aimed at stalling or even reversing the progress of Brazilian agribusiness, using environmental preservation as a shield. He points out that, in the 2024 harvest, agriculture occupied 9.3% of Brazil’s territory, with some regions producing three harvests per year of different crops, delivering excellent quality grains and fruits. All this is the result of technological development and innovation in the sector. Innovations range from shorter-cycle seeds, proper management (use of crop protection products, fertilizers, and adjuvants of differentiated quality), state-of-the-art machinery, to increasingly skilled labor. Brazilian agribusiness remains focused on the dual goal of productivity and preservation, while in other countries agriculture is entirely subsidized. “Without this massive, misguided campaign, not only against agribusiness but against all industrial sectors of the country, Brazil would rank among the world’s largest economies,” believes the chemical engineer.
Product Registrations Depend on the Need for Use
Among the many controversies in narratives against Brazilian agribusiness is the issue of crop protection product registrations. These speeches often omit the fact that each crop, soil, climate, pest, and farming practice varies by country or region of the world. “And the basic premise for registering crop protection products in any location is whether they will actually be needed in management,” adds chemical engineer João Antônio Ramos Castro.
Analyzing the reality of Brazilian agriculture, the production engineering specialist observes that the same hot and humid climate that allows up to three harvests per year—depending on the crop, such as beans, corn, soybeans, wheat, and sorghum—is also more susceptible to infestations of weeds, diseases, and pests. “This tropical condition increases the importance of using control tools, such as crop protection products,” stresses the specialist.
In countries with harsh winters, marked by snow, such as Canada, the United States, and Northern Europe, the cold acts as a natural control of infestations. This means that many of the products used in Brazil are not—or will not be—registered in other countries simply because there is no demand for them. The reverse is also true. “There are products registered in other countries that are not registered in Brazil. And this has nothing to do with whether the product is safe or not,” emphasizes the chemical engineer.
20 Years
Castro emphasizes that Brazil’s crop protection regulation is among the strictest in the world. “It takes about 20 years between the research for the discovery of new active ingredients and the approval of a new commercial product,” says the chemical engineer. The same thorough evaluation applies to new formulations of already-registered active ingredients, which, in practice, take an average of one to three years for approval and subsequent commercialization.
All of this is because, before a crop protection product can be marketed, it must undergo evaluation by three regulatory agencies: the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), the Brazilian Institute of the Environment (Ibama), and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Mapa). Through testing, these agencies determine whether the product is safe for human health, for the environment, and whether it is agronomically effective, respectively. They may even request re-evaluation of a product at any time, whenever new evidence arises from national and international organizations of which Brazil is a member.
Greater Product Availability Does Not Mean Increased Use
Another recurring discussion in attacks against agricultural inputs concerns the number of crop protection product registrations approved in Brazil—figures that have been increasing since 2016. “Contrary to what many believe, this does not mean an increase in the use of crop protection products, but rather an expansion of options for farmers and greater supply, through the entry of new suppliers as well as new (and better) technologies into the market,” clarifies chemical engineer João Antônio Ramos Castro.
It is an economic issue. An increase in the use of crop protection products considerably raises agricultural production costs and risks of productivity loss, which is not in the producer’s interest. Castro emphasizes that the goal is to increasingly approve new molecules and/or new formulations with existing molecules that are less toxic and more environmentally suitable, replacing products already on the market.
Approved Registrations in 2024:
New technical products – active ingredients for industrial use;
Generic technical products – “copies” of new active ingredients – post-patent;
Formulated products – commercial product delivered to the farmer, chemical or biological;
Generic formulated products – generic product – post-patent.
Source: Gran AGRO Produtos Agrícolas with informations from Mapa
Comparisons Require Understanding of Each Agricultural Reality
Agronomist Joelson Passamani Mäder, who holds an MBA in Agribusiness and Biological Control from the Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture (Esalq) at the University of São Paulo (USP), joins the chorus denouncing the attacks faced by Brazilian agribusiness and its production chain. “NGOs that seek to manipulate the media against Brazilian farmers are unaware of the country’s reality and provide a disservice to Brazil,” stresses the specialist in biological pest control.
To counter the prejudices spread against Brazilian rural production, Mäder points to Brazil’s environmental legislation, which he considers one of the most advanced and restrictive in the world. He shares the same view regarding the legislation that governs chemical product registration. “Brazilian farmers follow stricter standards than those in Europe and the United States,” comments the agronomist.
Detractors of Brazilian rural production tend to compare Brazil’s agricultural model to that of European countries and the United States. In Mäder’s view, such comparisons require caution, especially since even the terminology used for agricultural inputs varies from country to country. He cites an example: “the term agrotóxico is only used in Brazil; in the international community, the correct term is pesticide or plant protection product.”
Another point highlighted by the biological control specialist is the importance of distinguishing between a banned product and one that is not registered. He reminds us that, in most cases, products banned in Europe are also banned in Brazil. As for products not registered in a given country, this does not mean they are prohibited—only that there is no agronomic demand for them. It is important to note that Brazil is a tropical country, with pests different from those found in Europe and the United States, where the climate is cold.
New Formulations Allow Reduced Dosage per Hectare
Analyzing Brazilian agribusiness 40 years ago, agronomist Joelson Mäder observes that the country’s agriculture has undergone major evolution and achievements, all made possible by qualified technology—including the use of crop protection products to protect crops against insects, mites, fungi, nematodes, and weeds.
He states that over the past four decades, crop protection products have gone through a continuous improvement process and continue to evolve. Mäder cites rice cultivation, one of the crops most served by agricultural aviation, as a clear example of this evolution. “Forty years ago, herbicides required dosages of up to 10 liters per hectare to control red rice. Today, herbicides are used in doses ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 liter per hectare,” explains the specialist in biological control.
This improvement means herbicides have become more specific and effective at controlling weeds with smaller doses, reducing environmental contamination and risks to applicators. Another major evolution, according to the agronomist, took place in insecticides. He recalls that in the 1980s, red-label products (extremely toxic) were used, with high potential to harm human health and the environment. Average use was 2 liters per hectare. “Today, insecticides recommended for caterpillar control in soybeans are applied at low doses, averaging 0.1 liter per hectare. They are low-toxicity products with minimal impact on non-target organisms and high selectivity,” Mäder points out.
He also highlights the availability of biological products, which are an option for some major crop pests and diseases, and continue to evolve. “However, they are not a solution for all pests and diseases and must be used within integrated management, serving as another tool for farmers,” recommends the agronomist.
Destaque: in the last four decades, the fertilizers went through a process of continuous improvement, and keep evolving.
Brazilian Agricultural Production
40 years ago
Brazil imported: rice, corn, soybeans, cotton, and some tropical fruits.
Currently:
Soybeans: Brazil is the world’s largest exporter, accounting for 42% of the global market.
Corn: Brazil is the second-largest global exporter, accounting for 30% of the market.
Cotton: Brazil is the fourth-largest exporter, representing 15% of international trade.
Tropical fruits: Brazil is one of the world’s leading producers, standing out in mango, melon, and pineapple.
Rice: Brazil produces enough to meet domestic demand.
Coffee: Brazil is the largest producer and exporter in the world, accounting for around 30% of global output.
Sugar: Brazil is the world’s largest producer, responsible for 25% of global production, and the largest exporter, with 50% of global sugar trade.
Ethanol: Brazil is the second-largest global producer.
Meat: Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of chicken meat (35% of global market). In pork, it is the fourth-largest producer and exporter. In beef, it is the second-largest producer and exporter.
Source: Joelson Mäder/Blue Pine Consultancy
Legislation on Crop Protection Products Discussed at National Seminar
Concern about the safe, efficient, and sustainable use of crop protection products runs throughout the Brazilian agribusiness production chain. Legislation regarding the use of these inputs was addressed on the opening day of the National Seminar on Agricultural Inputs (Senagri), promoted by the Brazilian Society for Agricultural Defense (SBDA), held June 10–12 in Belém, Pará.
During the panel, coordinated by CropLife Brasil’s Director of Crop Protection, Arthur Gomes, the urgency of a modern, agile, and coordinated regulatory framework was emphasized—one that would allow the country to expand access to innovative technologies without compromising competitiveness and productivity. The goal is new legislation that allows for greater speed, so that, as Gomes explained, “innovations reach the field more quickly.”
Because this is a complex issue involving federal and state agencies as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Mapa), the ministry is now focused on improving coordination among all stakeholders. “We are seeking greater alignment and efficiency in the review of processes,” said Mapa’s Coordinator of Pesticides, José Victor Torres, during the panel.
Hamilton Ramos (IAC), Marcelo Okamura (InpEV), José Victor (Mapa), Arthur Gomes (CLB)
Reverse logistics for crop protection packaging was also one of the highlights of the event. Marcelo Okamura, president of the National Institute for Empty Packaging Processing (InpEV), which manages the Campo Limpo System, presented the results of the organization’s work. “Data from January to May already show significantly better performance compared to the same period last year. The results reinforce the efficiency of the reverse logistics system and the commitment of all links in the chain to sustainability,” he noted.
Closing the debate, Hamilton Ramos, Director-General of the Agronomic Institute of Campinas (IAC), presented the evolution of the Aplique Bem program, created 18 years ago to promote the safe use of crop protection products through practical training adapted to the reality of rural workers.
Criticism Underestimates Safety Protocols in Aerial Applications
“Often, people file complaints without any foundation simply because an agricultural aircraft is flying,” laments agricultural pilot Rodrigo Sabatini Doto. An agronomist and trained Agricultural Aviation Coordinator (CAA), Doto stresses the importance of showing the population the reality of aerial agricultural operations—including the specifications of the products applied to crops.
Doto reminds us that agricultural aviation is strictly regulated, with requirements including qualified labor: the pilot, the application technician, and the flight coordinator. All are trained to perform their duties through courses certified by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Mapa). In addition to professional training, aircraft are now equipped with advanced technology that ensures applications are carried out precisely.
A pilot with Imagem Aviação Agrícola, based in Moções, São Paulo, Doto explains that all aircraft are fitted with automatic bypass valves that open and close spray nozzles according to georeferenced polygons. “These polygons define the application area and can be designed in software such as Google Earth or specialized apps like Fields Area Measure,” the pilot explains.
Strict Regulation
According to Doto, the use of such applications is essential to ensure that distances from permanent preservation areas, isolated residences, animal enclosures, river springs, and villages are respected. Beyond exclusion zones safeguarded by legislation, the goal is for all product to be applied directly to the crop. No one wants to waste product—especially when a hopper load can be worth between R$10,000 and R$20,000, depending on the product.
In addition to precautions in the application itself, legislation also requires care with the environment and packaging disposal. The agricultural technician trained as an aerial application executor prepares the spray mix and performs the triple wash—mandatory by law—delivering clean, residue-free containers to the responsible party.
Containers must be delivered to collection points in each region, indicated at the time of purchase by the product distributor. Doto laments that the activity is still misunderstood by society. “Many automatically associate agricultural aircraft with the application of toxic products, ignoring that a large portion of operations involve fertilizers or biological agents,” he assures. He also emphasizes that the care and precision in pesticide applications are underestimated, despite the strict safety protocols in place.
