While Congress discusses a new law on agrochemicals, Greenpeace warns that the project represents a setback in environmental and health protection.
The organization points out that the proposed regulation would consolidate the massive use of these substances instead of reducing it.
Furthermore, if approved, it would undermine the judicial precedents that established a 1000-meter safety distance.
The controversial agrochemical bill being analyzed by Congress and denounced by Greenpeace
The project currently being analyzed by Congress was developed by the Network of Good Agricultural Practices (RedBPA), which groups more than 80 institutions from the agricultural sector.
Titled “Minimum Budget Law for the Application of Phytosanitary Products”, it is supported by UCR and Civic Coalition deputies, with backing from the agricultural sector.
According to the project’s proponents, it seeks to “harmonize criteria” and create a uniform regulatory framework for the application of agrochemicals, which Argentina lacks.
Despite the “good press” maintained by the agricultural sector and legislators, Greenpeace particularly denounces articles 7 and 9 of the project.
These establish exclusion zones of just 10 meters for ground and drone applications of agrochemicals, and 45 meters for aerial applications.
These values starkly contrast with the 1000 meters set by provincial courts based on official expert reports.
Thus, it would facilitate the use of substances with a proven toxic effect on organisms and ecosystems.
Greenpeace also criticizes that the proposal “does not reduce the use of agrochemicals nor plan their substitution, but rather would consolidate their continuity and lower existing protection levels“.
Additionally, the legislative project deliberately avoids the term “agrochemicals” and replaces it with “phytosanitary products,” a change Greenpeace considers political.
According to the organization, this modification attenuates the perception of risk to facilitate social approval.
Agrochemicals in Argentina: the risks and judicial precedents
Greenpeace supports its denunciation with concrete data: studies detected glyphosate and atrazine in rain, air, and watercourses in Argentina.
Moreover, research using biomarkers demonstrated genetic damage and respiratory impairment in the exposed population.
In the judicial sphere, municipal ordinances like that of the Municipality of Campana in Buenos Aires and rulings in Sastre and Piamonte in Santa Fe also established 1000 meters as a precautionary threshold.
If the new regulation is approved, these precedents would be undermined and jurisdictions would lose the ability to apply the precautionary principle.
Greenpeace has maintained its criticism of the Argentine agricultural model and the use of agrochemicals since 2011.
Its report “Glyphosate: a toxic strategy” points out that the massive use of these products generates environmental pollution.
Additionally, it consolidates agriculture dependent on chemical inputs and transgenic seeds.
At the same time, the expansion of monoculture in recent decades also has other consequences:
- Loss of biodiversity;
- soil degradation;
- water pollution, and;
- displacement of rural communities.
A worrying context: more freedom for agrochemicals
The legislative context coincides with governmental decisions that concern the organization.
For example, the Government recently freed agrochemical imports.
It also reduced tariffs for their entry, lowering the cost of imported chemicals without introducing compensatory health or environmental criteria.
Greenpeace also questions the official discourse of “productivity” and “food security”.
According to the organization, Argentina does not use agrochemicals to produce food and supply its population, but to sustain the profits of exporting companies.
In this line, the NGO recalls that the legislative process occurs while Atanor —one of the main local manufacturers of glyphosate— accumulates complaints for illegal discharges and environmental non-compliance.
In 2024, the company even suffered an explosion at its San Nicolás plant, evidencing failures in the national regulatory system.
Greenpeace’s proposal against agrochemicals
The organization demands the initiation of a process of progressive reduction and phasing out of the massive use of agrochemicals.
It proposes moving towards agroecological systems that prioritize health, biodiversity, and food sovereignty.
“The challenge is not to strengthen the legal framework of the agrochemical business, but to ensure the protection of people, water, and the environment“, concludes the Greenpeace document.
And it closes by warning that approving such low distribution limits would mean institutionalizing risk and regressing in the right to health and a healthy environment.
