The great lie of Good Agricultural Practices

The great lie of Good Agricultural Practices

What are they talking about, when they talk about GAP? The GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) are the way that the agribusiness transnationals found to neutralize the growing resistance of the peoples to agribusiness in general and to pesticides in particular.

Through various devices of propaganda and hegemonic communication, both local and foreign, the GAPs are gaining ground, that is, they are establishing themselves socially.

In memory of the great teacher and above all things fellow militant,
Dr. Andrés Carrasco.

Institutions of important national importance such as INTA1, SENASA2, Ministries and some Universities, are increasingly promoting GAP, as if they were an extraordinary solution to continue supporting the agricultural production system of poison-dependent transgenic events. We must also remember, in order to understand this matter, that the INTA executives prohibited talking about pesticides. It is not at all minor to take that definition, which is clearly a political position.

The Chamber of Agricultural Health and Fertilizers (CASAFE) defines GAP as: “a set of principles, standards and technical recommendations applicable to the production, processing and transportation of food, aimed at ensuring the protection of hygiene, human health and the environment, using ecologically safe, hygienically acceptable and economically feasible methods ”.

CASAFE also says on its website3: “The responsible management of phytosanitary products aims to achieve the responsible handling and use of agrochemicals throughout their life cycle: from their discovery and development, commercial cycle and use in the field, to their elimination. for the use and final disposal of containers ”. Nice phrase, too bad a chemist has no life. The phrase disguises the chemical potential of the pesticide as life and cycles its production chain as if it were something natural.

At first glance, BPA presents it to us in a bed of roses, with pleasant and pompous words. They tell us that they are good practices, oriented towards food production, which guarantees safety and the preservation of human health and the environment. What better than that? And he ends by saying, as a strawberry for dessert, that on top of that they are economically feasible. How could we be against something supposedly so kind? They could accuse us of fools!

But yes, we oppose it uncompromisingly, and not precisely because we are stupid, but for the following reasons: because what the transnationals that promote the technological model of agricultural production of poison-dependent transgenic events, are trying with the GAP is the following:

- Reduce the rejection, resistance, mobilization and popular organization that has been growing against the fumigations. They intend to stop the popular initiatives that have been generated in many municipalities, in which various ordinances were created to prohibit or regulate the use of pesticides.

- They intend to avoid the seriousness of the effects caused on human health by pesticides, alluding that the problem is due to "good use" or "bad use" and not due to the impact of the chemical itself. The exponential growth of different diseases in rural, peri-urban and even urban areas, affected by fumigation, no longer gives rise to doubts about the causes. Several scientific studies, such as that of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the UNR, by Dr. Damián Verzeñassi4, directing health camps in different areas, towns and places in the province of Santa Fe, many of which are affected by frequent fumigations , give proof of this affirmation and give academic support to the political positions of the Stop Fumigating Movement. Studies show a profound growth of various diseases such as hypothyroidism, respiratory allergic diseases, congenital malformations, frightening abortions and of course cancer, which have been in an upward line from 1996 (the year in which this agricultural model was installed) to the present .

- They avoid responsibility for the generation of colossal environmental liabilities that are being generated day by day and that have an increasing negative socio-environmental impact, as a result of the deepening and of those supposed "improvements" in the technological package. They seek social consensus, alluding to the fact that from now on, with BPA, there will be a “rational use” of the “Phyto-Sanitary” agent that we call agro-toxic.

- They deny the environmental dynamics: A pesticide, be it insecticide, fungicide or herbicide, is not static, it is in motion, it has a starting point and a destination. In addition, it is subject to the set of unpredictable factors, and autonomous from the will of the human being, that nature provides: heat, humidity, winds, etc. Studies show that Atrazine5 was detected in Antarctica, a place where soybeans are not planted or herbicides are used for obvious reasons. It wouldn't make sense, but it happened nonetheless. An investigation carried out by scientists from the Center for Environmental Research (CIM), dependent on the National University of La Plata (UNLP), and the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), revealed that the rains presented recurrent concentrations of herbicides such as glyphosate and atrazine. Damián Marino6, Doctor in Exact Sciences and one of the scientists involved in the research, explains that the presence of herbicides in the raindrop occurs from the path that the water covers from the moment it is released from the cloud and until it reaches soil. In this way, the liquid is washing the particles that it encounters as part of the atmospheric phenomena.

As planet earth is a closed system, the effects of the continent where the productive activity is carried out, due to dynamic environmental phenomena on the one hand, plus the autonomous characteristics of the particles on the other, have repercussions in other parts of the planet. Therefore, said toxic particle that has become this way of agricultural production is liable to enter our homes no matter how far we are from the production areas.

Finally, the issue of linguistic appropriations is not minor, both for domination as well as for emancipation. It is clear that calling or talking about agrochemical from an academic point of view is fine because it is a chemical that is used for agriculture (it is not necessary to clarify that an organic or agro-ecological input is also a chemical substance). But calling the Agrochemical, Phytosanitary Agent or Agrotoxic is already taking an ideological political position. They speak of Phytosanitary Agent, we speak of Grotoxic agents. The same goes for BPAs. A good agricultural practice is one that does not use poison, that uses biodynamic, permacultural and / or agro-ecological techniques, whose production is aimed at guaranteeing Food Sovereignty.

Federico Andrés Lopardo

Professor of the Free Chair of Food Sovereignty of the UNLP

Former Agent of Technical Development of the Undersecretariat of Family Agriculture - Directorate of Productive Processes.

Militant of the Current Our Homeland


[1] National Institute of Agricultural Technology

[2] National Service of Health and Food Quality


[4] Doctor, University Professor, Professor of Socio-Environmental Health - Faculty of Cs. Doctors of the UNR-, he was Secretary of University Extension of the Faculty of Cs. Doctors from the National University of Rosario. Director of the UNR Health Camps. Current Dean of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the National University of Chaco Austral.

[5] It is an artificial herbicide widely used to "control the growth" of plant "weeds" in agribusiness, interfering with the transport of electrons during the photosynthesis process.

[6] Dr. Damián Marino from the Faculty of Exact Cs of the UNLP also rebelled that Glyphosate was found in cotton, gauze, swabs, feminine wipes and tampons, supposedly sterilized.

Video: GAP अचछ कष पदधत Good Agricultural Practice, GHP, GSP, GLP and GPP Class-12 Home Science (October 2020).