Laura Íñigo Álvarez is Assistant Professor at NOVA School of Law and Scientific Coordinator of the NOVA BHRE. Currently she is coordinating an Erasmus+ Project on Corporate Respect for Human Rights in Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (CAHRA).
Ana Luiza da Gama e Souza is Associate Researcher at the InterAgency Institute, Postdoctoral Fellow in Business and Human Rights at Universidade Federal Fluminense (PDS/CNPq). Phd in Philosophy. Phd in Sociology and Law. Coordinator of the Human Rights Observatory (ODIHH).
In July of last year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, released his report ‘Corporate Power and Human Rights in Food Systems’. The report underscores a stark reality: “Corporate power in food systems is so concentrated that a relatively small group of people shape what is grown, how it is grown, labour conditions, prices and food choices in a way that serves the ultimate goal of profit maximization and not the public good” (A/80/213, 21 July 2025).
This concentration of power is clearly visible in the pesticide sector, where just four firms control 61% of the global pesticide market. Many of these pesticides contain toxic chemicals that pose serious risks to a wide range of human rights, including the right to health, food, safe and healthy working conditions, a clean environment, and the land rights of indigenous peoples.
This blog post examines the harmful effects of pesticide use in Brazil and argues for stronger corporate accountability mechanisms that go beyond human rights due diligence requirements.
Pesticide use in Brazil
Brazil is one of the world’s largest consumers of pesticides. FAO data shows that in 2021 alone, the country applied 719.5 thousand tons of pesticides across its agricultural lands. Even more concerning is that around 30% of the pesticides used in Brazil are banned in the European Union due to their toxicity.
The consequences are severe. Toxic pesticides contaminate water sources, degrade soil, and threaten food safety. In Brazil’s Northeast, an authentic “chemical war” is unfolding, where pesticides are reportedly sprayed against peasants, indigenous peoples, and quilombola communities amid land and resource conflicts.
According to the 2025 report of the Pastoral Land Commission, pesticide-related contamination falls into three main categories:
- Peasant and Indigenous families involved in land or water conflicts where pesticides are used as chemical weapons.
- Rural workers subjected to slave‑like labour conditions, where exposure to pesticides forms part of the abusive environment.
- Individual victims poisoned in various everyday contexts.
These patterns point to a broader structural issue: pesticides are not only agricultural inputs but can also contribute to inequality, intensify local tensions, and place human rights at risk.
Corporate power and environmental harm
Global agribusiness corporations hold significant influence over Brazil’s agricultural sector. Their pesticide‑resistant seed operations are heavily concentrated in regions dominated by large‑scale farming interests. This concentration of economic and technological power amplifies the risk of human rights violations and environmental degradation, particularly in communities already facing structural vulnerabilities.
A recent case illustrates the scale of the problem. On 18 November 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a public civil action against several companies for environmental damage caused by soil and water contamination from pesticides. The pesticides involved contain atrazine, a substance banned in 44 countries—including the entire European Union—due to its harmful effects on human health.
In July 2024, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) filed a lawsuit against the Swiss corporation Syngenta, alleging that the company caused environmental damage by producing and selling pesticides containing concentrations of a carcinogenic substance far above legal limits. IBAMA’s investigation found that the insecticide Engeo Pleno was manufactured using levels of the chemical bronopol at nearly three times the amount authorized under Brazilian law.
Human rights due diligence is necessary but insufficient
While human rights due diligence is essential in the agricultural sector, it is not enough on its own. The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food stresses the need for a binding international treaty on business and human rights that goes beyond human rights due diligence frameworks. As he notes, “Due to the profit-driven nature of corporations, the proposed business and human rights treaty cannot rely only on due diligence. The legally binding instrument should enable international cooperation and enhance corporate legal liability across jurisdictions” (A/80/213, 21 July 2025).
This perspective is particularly relevant in light of the recently adopted EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Part II of its Annex already references chemicals listed in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention—substances banned or severely restricted for health or environmental reasons, including many pesticides. As a result, large companies falling under the CSDDD’s scope will be required to manage risks related to the production, use, and export of hazardous pesticides covered by this Convention.
Conclusions
The situation in Brazil illustrates how the concentrated power of agribusiness corporations, combined with weak regulatory oversight, creates conditions in which toxic pesticides continue to harm people and the environment. The widespread use of substances banned in other jurisdictions, the deployment of pesticides in contexts of land conflict, and the growing number of contamination cases all point to a systemic failure to protect human rights and the environment.
While human rights due diligence is an important step toward identifying and mitigating risks, it is not sufficient to address the structural drivers of abuse in global food systems. As the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food emphasizes, meaningful accountability requires binding international rules capable of curbing corporate power, ensuring legal liability across borders, and preventing companies from exporting harm to countries with weaker protections.
Suggested citation: L. Álvarez & A. Souza, ‘Corporate Power, Pesticides and Human Rights Impacts in Brazil’, NOVA BHRE Blog, 23 February 2026