The soy moratorium agreement bars signatories from buying soybeans grown on Amazonian farms deforested after July 2008.

In an announcement on Monday, Mato Grosso Governor Mauro Mendes said lobby group Abiove informed the state government officially that the association and major traders were leaving the pact. A tax law change on January 1 is a key factor.

Abiove, which includes ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Cofco and Louis Dreyfus among members, confirmed in a subsequent statement it had “initiated talks” to exit the pact, which is backed by the federal government and conservation groups.

The group and about two-thirds of the companies that formerly participated no longer appeared on Monday on the moratorium agreement’s website.

Conservation groups condemn the move

WWF said in a statement that the decision was an environmental setback.

Departure of the firms from the pact “weakens one of the most effective instruments for combating deforestation in the country,” and it exposes farmers to increasing climate risks, WWF said.

Greenpeace also criticized the move, saying it would violate promises made to investors and international markets.

The moratorium is credited with slowing the destruction of the world’s largest rainforest. However, as Reuters reported last week, some of the world’s largest soybean traders were preparing to withdraw from the deal to preserve tax benefits in Mato Grosso, where a new law eliminating the benefits for moratorium participants took force at the start of 2026.

Aprosoja-MT, an association representing farmers in Mato Grosso that had pressured companies for years to end the pact, welcomed the Abiove announcement.

The farmer group called the decision a victory, claiming the moratorium agreement is illegal and unfair to those who comply with the Brazilian Forest Code.

Abiove said companies will be individually responsible for fulfilling their own conservation commitments. “The legacy of monitoring and the expertise acquired over nearly 20 years will not be lost,” it said.

The post Major Brazilian grain traders quit Amazon conservation pact appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The firms exiting the so-called Amazon Soy Moratorium, which has saved millions of acres of tropical forest over nearly two decades, are looking to shield themselves from a new state law in Mato Grosso, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

Starting in January, the state will strip tax incentives from companies taking part in the conservation program. Mato Grosso grew some 51 million metric tons of soybeans in 2025, more than Argentina.

A preliminary report from state auditors in April found that grains traders had benefited from tax incentives worth about 4.7 billion reais (C$1.15 billion) between 2019 and 2024.

ADM and Bunge were the top beneficiaries of tax incentives, receiving about 1.5 billion reais (C$368.6 million) each, said Sergio Ricardo, head of the Mato Grosso state audit court.

U.S.-based ADM, Bunge and Cargill, as well as China’s Cofco and Brazil’s Amaggi, are signatories of the pact with facilities in Mato Grosso that have benefited from state tax incentives. It was not clear which of the firms would break immediately from the moratorium.

Cargill referred questions to industry group Abiove, which did not respond to requests for comment. ADM, Bunge, Cofco, Amaggi and grain exporter group Anec did not respond to questions.

“Most companies will choose not to lose the tax incentives and will withdraw from the agreement,” said one of the sources, adding that the departures would effectively end a pact signed in 2006 with the federal government and conservation groups.

‘Dangerous precedent’

The moratorium is considered one of the most important forces slowing deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon over the past two decades as it bars signatories from buying soybeans from farmers who plant on land deforested after July 2008.

Researchers estimate that an area of the rainforest the size of Ireland would have been lost to soy farms in Brazil without the moratorium and related conservation efforts, compared to the pace of expansion in neighboring countries such as Bolivia.

The Mato Grosso law, which lawmakers passed in 2023, is the latest example of a global retreat from pacts and policies to curb climate change, even as temperatures break records, driven by rising fossil fuel use and deforestation.

Critics of the soy moratorium say that the pact restricts the market and hurts farmers. Farming groups in Mato Grosso say the protocol reduces the income and economic development of the state.

“Companies could choose to keep their zero-deforestation commitments,” said Cristiane Mazzetti, who oversees the moratorium for Greenpeace. “It’s a dangerous precedent, and it’s not what we need in a moment of climate emergency,” she added.

Brazil’s federal government has argued in court against the new Mato Grosso law stripping tax breaks from traders due to their environmental commitments.

“If the Mato Grosso government really removes those incentives, we have heard that some, or many, companies will in fact abandon the moratorium for economic reasons,” said Andre Lima, a senior Environment Ministry official tasked with combating deforestation. He added that firms had not officially informed the ministry of their plans.

Far-reaching consequences

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has vowed an “ecological transformation” of the Brazilian economy, capped off with the United Nations climate summit hosted in the Amazon last month.

But in domestic politics, his leftist government is often fighting a rearguard battle to protect the world’s largest rainforest from a farm lobby with the upper hand in Congress.

The unraveling of the Amazon Soy Moratorium is likely to embolden those rural powerbrokers and their allies. This year the farm lobby has successfully gutted environmental permitting laws and stripped some protections from Indigenous lands.

The trend has caught the attention of farmer groups in Europe arguing to block a free trade agreement between the European Union and South America’s Mercosur due to the impact of Brazilian agribusiness on vital ecosystems.

Brazil’s Supreme Court has barred some but not all of the farm lobby’s agenda in Congress, based on constitutional protections for the environment and Indigenous peoples.

Environmentalists warn that the end of the soy moratorium could pave the way to dismantle other environmental protections in the world’s largest soybean producer, including part of Brazil’s forestry code restricting farmers from felling trees on 80 per cent of their properties in the Amazon.

Lawsuits

In recent years, soybean farmers pushed state lawmakers in Mato Grosso, Rondonia and Maranhao to strip tax benefits from companies taking part in environmental pacts more restrictive than Brazilian law.

It remains unclear which environmental commitments outside the soy moratorium will trigger those new state laws, which could threaten a range of other companies, including cellulose producers and meatpackers.

Brazilian antitrust agency CADE has separately opened an investigation of the soy moratorium for a potential breach of competition rules. For nearly two decades, trading firms have shared the cost of monitoring soy farms in the Amazon to avoid buying from those planting on newly deforested land.

Starting in January, CADE has ordered traders “to refrain from collecting, storing, sharing, or disseminating commercial information related to the sale, production, or acquisition of soybeans.”

Soy farmers in Mato Grosso have also sued grain traders for roughly $180 million over their role in the pact.

In temporary rulings, Supreme Court Justice Flavio Dino stopped the antitrust investigation, but let the Mato Grosso law take effect. Environmental groups are still trying to block the state law ahead of a final court ruling on the issue.

The post Soy trading firms to abandon Amazon protection pact in Brazil appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Agricultural plastics producers, service boards, commodity groups, producers, municipalities and waste management and recycling organizations can complete an online survey, with its deadline extended to Oct. 3, to share input on using a regulatory approach for managing agricultural plastics waste.

Agricultural plastics, such as baler twine, grain bags, bale wrap and silage plastic, can cause waste challenges for producers and businesses while leaving lasting environmental impacts.

Currently, recycling options for agricultural plastics are limited to certain materials and rely on voluntary approaches or pilot programs.

It’s hoped shifting to a regulatory approach will provide long-term certainty for material management, a level playing field for agricultural plastics producers and economies of scale to better support processing facilities. It would also encourage agricultural plastic producers to develop innovative waste management solutions.

In Alberta, there are currently two regulatory approaches for the end-of-life management of waste materials that can be recycled. The approaches are referred to as extended producer responsibility (EPR) and stewardship. Either of these approaches could be considered to manage agricultural plastics waste, or another regulatory approach could be developed.

Under EPR, material producers are responsible for operating and funding a system to collect, process and recycle the materials they supply into Alberta. The Extended Producer Responsibility Regulation, which came into force in November 2022, provides the framework for EPR systems.

Single-use products, packaging and paper, as well as hazardous and special products, are included in the regulation.

Alberta also regulates end-of-life management of waste materials through regulated stewardship programs.

There are four regulated stewardship programs managed by the Alberta Recycling Management Authority for electronics, paint and paint containers, tires and used oil materials, and one managed by the Beverage Container Management Board for beverage containers.

Under a stewardship program, material producers are responsible for funding, but not managing, a system to collect, process and recycle the materials they supply.

The survey will provide input into:

• Types of agricultural plastics to include.

• Clarifying the description of the obligated plastic producer.

• Material recovery rate targets, service standards for material collection and cost implications.

Input will be considered as part of policy and decision-making on managing agricultural plastics waste through a regulatory approach to provide a long-term solution for agricultural plastics waste.

The survey can be found online. More information can also be requested by e-mail.

The post Alberta looks for ag plastic management input appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

While some say Justin Trudeau’s government had a much more hands-on approach to environmental issues, appearing to favour deterrents over incentives, the Carney government’s strategy may be more restrained and integrated with its economic agenda.

No mandate for agriculture, environment?

On May 21, the Prime Minister’s office released a mandate letter, which listed seven priorities for the new government. The priorities focused mainly on building Canada’s economy and protecting sovereignty. It contained no mention of agriculture or environmental issues.

Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) said this lack of eco messaging doesn’t necessarily mean the government is ignoring the environmental file.

“To say that environment’s not that high of a priority because it’s not there, or that agriculture’s not that high of a priority because it’s not there, is, I think, to misread the approach that Prime Minister Carney and the government are taking.”

“Carney’s mandate letter is much more straightforward than the Trudeau mandate letters that could be quite flowery,” McCann said, “but it still has aspirational language, like the need to build a Canada worthy of our children and grandchildren.”

The speech from the throne, written by the Carney government delivered by King Charles, referred to nature as “core to Canada’s identity,” signalling the government is still attentive to environmental issues.

Poor communication

Some of the Trudeau Liberals’ ambitious environmental policy garnered controversy among farmers.

One of the Trudeau government’s main pitfalls on green policy was its communication, said Tristan Skolrud, associate professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of Saskatchewan.

It was easy for farmers to see pieces of greenhouse gas policy and “expand that into something that wasn’t really the point of the policy,” he added.

“But the Trudeau Government wasn’t strong enough to come out and say, ‘Okay, no, this isn’t quite the right interpretation.’”

Despite polarization in the sector, many farmers have an appetite for the types of climate solutions the Trudeau government invested in, like the On-Farm Climate Action Fund (OFCAF), said Geneviève Grossenbacher, a Quebec vegetable farmer and director of policy for Farmers for Climate Solutions.

She said polls her organization carried out indicated issues like climate change and soil health were key issues to most farmers.

“It’s not that farmers don’t care about those issues,” Grossenbacher said. “It’s quite the contrary.”

However, the government needs to have the right approach, tone and tools, and should treat farmers like partners.

“Farmers often felt like they were more part of the problem than part of the solution,” Grossenbacher said. “They were investing, but farmers felt still that … It felt a bit more like a stick than a carrot.”

Measures like carbon pricing are supposed to be a deterrent for less sustainable practices. McCann said he hopes and expects to see fewer sticks and more carrots under the new government’s approach.

Informed by corporate world

Carney’s government, informed by the PM’s own experience in the corporate world, could take what Skolrud called a “dramatically different approach” to Trudeau’s.

“If we think back to the last 20 years of Carney’s career, it’s been about leading enormous economies through struggle,” he said. “He led Canada through the Great Recession in 2008 and then went over to the Bank of England just in time for Brexit.”

McCann said he envisions an approach more focused around an environmental, social and governance (ESG) and corporate responsibility model.

“If you look at Mark Carney’s history, there is a large focus on that,” he said. “If you look at the Liberal Party platform, there (were) certain pieces of that.”

With a focus on spending less on government operations, Carney’s administration could take a more focused approach that empowers companies to do more, McCann said.

Skolrud said while he doesn’t expect Carney to actively roll back environmental protections, he also doesn’t foresee much focus on green policy. He predicted the government may apply a macroeconomic lens to many issues. For instance, using that lense to choose priorities for the agriculture sector

“I don’t think that the environment is going to get into the top ten,” Skolrud said.

He said he anticipates a more “market-based” approach that would look to improve farmer income through sequestering carbon, mitigating emissions and establishing extra carbon markets.

This could signal an integration between climate and trade. Skolrud pointed to Carney’s previous suggestions that Canada could try to trade with countries who recognize our reductions in emissions.

Sustainability as an economic incentive

Grossenbacher said she hoped to see on-farm resilience and sustainability become an economic incentive.

“What we’ve seen on the ground is that … when programs support farmers in investing their farm resilience, it actually really pays off.”

In the light of current trade uncertainty, Farmers for Climate Solutions thinks sustainability could be a competative advantage, she added.

She said she hopes to see these partnerships between farmers and government grow. Early signs have suggested this could become a reality.

“There (were) hints in the speech from the throne that … this government will really seize the opportunity to work in partnership with the sector and see the farming sector as really key to a strong Canadian economy.”

Integration between economic files, agriculture and environment could be a part of the new government’s approach, signalled by the inclusion of new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Heath MacDonald on several cabinet committees, including the Build Canada committee, which is meant to tackle issues of economic growth.

‘Hit the reset button’

McCann said he expects Carney to “hit the reset button … not just on fertilizer targets or the environmental agenda, (but) on everything the government does.”

“We’re going to see a reset on the ag trade agenda,” he said. “The language that he’s using is really quite ambitious when it comes to change.”

Yves Millette, CEO of Farm Business Consultants (FBC), says he expects a new green agenda to be implemented in a more practical, measured way.

“As much as we’d all love to have everyone on an electric vehicle, we don’t have the charging stations, we don’t have the transmission capacity, we just don’t have enough to really make that happen overnight,” he said.

“If we … exploit our natural resources and at the same time invest in green energy, we have the opportunity to be the leader, frankly, when it comes to that.”

With new efforts and a different approach, the government could work to win back producers’ trust on eco policy.

Skolrud says he doesn’t expect the Carney government to make the same missteps as its predecessor.

“As far as gaining back gaining back trust, I think that’s going to be a long road,” he said. “But honestly, I looked at some of the things that he’s done, and I really, really don’t see a high likelihood that he’s going to impose any environmental changes.”

“He might provide subsidies for best management practices or some sort of incentive to encourage the adoption of things that might improve the environment,” Skolrud added.

“For years and years, the environmental was pitted against the economic argument,” said Grossenbacher. “It was, ‘you can have the environment or the economy.”

“I actually think the Carney government really does understand that actually, they really are not … magnets that work repel each other. They actually work really strongly together.”

The post Carney’s new green agenda appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The case, which argues that the authorities’ inaction in Europe’s largest pork producing country breached national and European law, was filed with the High Court of Justice of the northwestern region – home to about a third of Spain’s pig farms.

ClientEarth, which is supporting the case alongside Friends of the Earth Spain, said in a statement it was the first time a court in Europe will hear a case on the impact of intensive livestock operations on water sources and, consequently, on residents’ human rights.

There are about nine plaintiffs involved, including residents and associations.

People in northwestern Galicia’s A Limia area say life has become “unfeasible” due to hundreds of intensive pig and poultry farms, which they say are putting the health of their community at risk.

The stench, which prevents residents from opening the windows at home, is only part of the problem, they say.

Chemicals such as nitrates are also widely used in industrial farming and often end up in groundwater and water reservoirs.

About 20,000 people live in the affected area.

The case says an “extremely high level of nitrates”, which pose the risk of a number of cancers and other diseases, has been recorded at the local reservoir, where studies have also found antibiotic-resistant bacteria and an extremely toxic substance known as hepatotoxin.

“We are so concerned about the pollution that even the idea of walking near the reservoir has become unfeasible,” Pablo Alvarez Veloso, president of the local neighbourhood association, was quoted as saying in the statement.

The local authority did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The claimants, including Spain’s consumer organization CECU, decided to bring the case to court after officials continued to rubber-stamp new farms despite residents’ repeated attempts to get them to address the agricultural pollution.

“Both the Spanish constitution and European law could not be clearer: public authorities have a legal obligation to protect people from harm – and even from exposure to harmful pollution,” ClientEarth lawyer Nieves Noval said.

— Reporting by Emma Pinedo

The post Raising a stink: Spaniards sue state over pig farm pollution appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In a letter shared with media and addressed to Greg Orencsak, deputy minister of Health Canada (the agency that oversees the PMRA), CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle called the initiatives “rushed through” and said the agency had “little regard for the negative impact they will have on the competitiveness of the agriculture sector.”

The letter, dated Jan. 29, called for an immediate pause to a number of initiatives; including changes to fees, oversight policies and various other regulatory changes.

“An immediate pause is necessary to assess the detailed impact of these measures on the agriculture industry at a time when it is already facing extreme uncertainty,” Petelle wrote.

In an email to Glacier FarmMedia, Erin O’Hara, CropLife Canada’s vice-president of communications and member services, noted the urgency of the request and likened the call to capital gains tax changes, which have also raised considerable consternation in the agriculture sector.

“While trying to mitigate the risks from this threat, political and business leaders alike agree that Canada must put a greater emphasis on the things within its control to boost productivity and competitiveness at home,” she wrote.

Changes at the PMRA

The federal agency’s review was announced in August 2021, and the federal government said the goal was to improve the agency around four pillars:

• improved transparency,

• increased use of real-world data and independent advice,

• strengthened human health and environmental protection through modernized pesticide business processes and

• a targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act.

The government said they aimed to make it easier for the public to get involved in decision making and increase transparency in their operations.

One step was the creation of the Science Advisory Committee on Pest Control Products in Canada in early 2022, to which CropLife Canada objected.

Speaking to the Manitoba Co-operator at the time, CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle worried that politics could override science, as he claimed it had already in the European Union.

“Their [EU] system is completely driven by politics and the science is routinely ignored,” Petelle said. “Again, I am not saying we’re there, but this is a very troubling development.”

The post CropLife Canada calls for halt to Pest Management Regulatory Agency changes, cites tariffs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Soybean farmer lobby Aprosoja-MT based in western Mato Grosso state said on Wednesday that the agreement fostered “a purchasing cartel” while harming farmers who strictly comply with the South American nation’s forest code.

The group said in a statement that it formally asked antitrust watchdog CADE to end the deal.

Brazil is the world’s largest soybean grower and exporter, with Mato Grosso the country’s top-producing state.

Global commodity giants including ADM and Bunge voluntarily signed up for the “Amazon soy moratorium” in the mid-2000s, pledging to stop buying soy from farms in the rainforest that were deforested from 2008.

Under forestry rules, Amazon landowners can clear up to 20 per cent of their property. But an early 2000s deforestation surge sparked calls for action by companies that feared a wider ban.

Scientists and conservationists have praised the moratorium for slowing deforestation in the Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest and a bulwark against climate change since its trees absorb vast amounts of climate-warming greenhouse gases.

Aprosoja-MT noted it filed a complaint to CADE after years of failed negotiation attempts, adding that the moratorium generated 20 billion reais (C$4.75 billion) in losses for the state.

CADE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this year, Mato Grosso state lawmakers passed a law stripping tax breaks from firms adhering to the moratorium.

“Our commitment is with the families who have been harmed for almost 20 years,” Aprosoja said in a separate statement.

Last week, environmentalists accused grain traders of seeking to weaken the moratorium.

Trader lobby Abiove has said it was holding discussions on the moratorium, but without going into further detail.

Asked for comment on Wednesday, Abiove said it had no update.

The post Brazil farmer lobby asks to lift soybean ban from deforested Amazon rainforest appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Soy traders including ADM, Cargill, Cofco and Bunge signed up for the “Amazon soy moratorium” in the mid-2000s, pledging to stop buying soy from farms in the Brazilian rainforest that were deforested from 2008 onward.

Scientists and conservationists have praised the voluntary moratorium for slowing deforestation in the Amazon, the world’s largest rainforest and a bulwark against climate change because its trees absorb vast amounts of climate-warming greenhouse gas.

The moratorium is enforced by a working group including representatives of trading companies, environmental advocacy groups and the government.

In recent meetings of that group, grains traders have proposed changing the moratorium rules, Carolina Pasquali, executive director of Greenpeace Brasil, said in an interview.

The current agreement bars soy purchases from a whole farm if it includes areas deforested since 2008. But traders now propose a distinction between individual soy fields, letting growers export from one part of a farm while planting soy on newly deforested areas nearby, Pasquali said.

“It makes the moratorium lose its meaning,” she said. “Farmers failing to comply (with the end to deforestation) would still be able sell their soy.”

Abiove, which represents those trading firms and all major soy purchasers in Brazil, said it was holding discussions on the moratorium, but did not confirm details of any proposal.

Abiove members ADM, Cargill, Cofco, Bunge and Louis Dreyfus referred questions to the association.

The Guardian newspaper reported earlier that Abiove members planned to vote next week on whether to push for the proposed moratorium changes.

Even if Abiove members were to back such a move, environmentalist groups and government signatories to the agreement would need to agree to the change, Pasquali said.

Other nonprofits also told Reuters they oppose the change.

Under Brazil’s forestry code, landowners in the Amazon can legally clear up to 20 per cent of their property. However, a surge in deforestation in the early 2000s sparked calls for action by the private sector, which feared a wider boycott of soy exports.

Brazil is the world’s largest producer and exporter of soy. Environmentalists argue weakening the moratorium could open up a huge amount of the Amazon region to soy planting.

“It is very much an enormous amount of land that was deforested after 2008 in the Amazon,” said Jean-François Timmers, an anti-deforestation campaigner with the World Wide Fund for Nature. “We’re talking about millions of hectares.”

In its statement to Reuters, Abiove noted that Brazilian state lawmakers are pushing legislation “that significantly harm the signatories of the Soy Moratorium.”

The state of Mato Grosso passed a law stripping tax breaks from firms that adhere to the moratorium.

Abiove said it defends the soy moratorium while “striving to balance the demands of both farmers and consumers, including updates to the current model to ensure its effectiveness.”

— Reporting by Ana Mano, Roberto Samora and Jake Spring

The post Soy traders push to weaken ban on buying from deforested Amazon appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Danone’s finance chief told Reuters last week that the company was instead buying soybeans from countries in Asia, ahead of a European Union rule requiring companies to prove they are not sourcing from deforested land.

Aprosoja Brasil, a group representing farmers in the world’s largest soybean producer and exporter, said in a statement that Danone’s move showed “lack of knowledge” of Brazil’s production process and was “discrimination against the country.”

“There is no doubt that Brazilian producers, tired of being unfairly singled out as villains, will start to have more than enough reasons to put Danone and other global brands on the list of companies to be boycotted in Brazil,” the group said.

Brazil’s agriculture ministry in a separate statement listed the country’s environmental efforts and called the EU legislation “arbitrary, unilateral and punitive,” while also criticizing companies.

“Brazil is ready to cooperate, but demands to be treated with the fairness and balance that guide international trade,” the statement said. “Untimely and unreasonable stances as announced by European companies with a strong presence in the Brazilian market must be rejected.”

Danone’s Brazilian unit said in a statement that it continues to buy Brazilian soybeans that meet local and international regulations. The firm’s headquarters did not immediately return a request for comment.

The EU Deforestation Regulation, covering imports of commodities like cocoa, coffee and soy, is scheduled to come into effect on Dec. 30, though the EU Commission this month proposed a 12-month delay.

Companies such as Nestle and Unilever have been gearing up to meet the new regulation before they face potential fines of up to 20 per cent of turnover.

Brazilian law states that farmers must preserve between 20 per cent and 80 per cent of legal reserves, depending on the biome where they are planting. But rainforest destruction rates in the country remain high despite a drop under President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

While major traders have vowed to stop sourcing soybeans from newly cleared land in the Amazon rainforest, soy farming continues to be a major driver of deforestation in the nearby Cerrado savanna.

Aprosoja said that “although there is deforestation, there is also a lot of natural regeneration.”

The group suggested that Brazil’s government could file complaints before the World Trade Organization and look for “compensation measures” from the EU as Brazilian farmers are now facing losses due to the European legislation.

— Reporting by Roberto Samora; Additional reporting by Richa Naidu

The post Brazil farmers, government slam Danone for cutting out Brazilian soy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

IBAMA said on it had identified 69 properties that had sold 18,000 head of cattle raised on deforested land, and 23 meat packing companies that bought the cattle in the states of Para and Amazonas.

The enforcement operation was aimed at curbing deforestation in the Amazon by monitoring the chain that produces or sells cattle from illegally deforested areas, IBAMA said.

JBS denied buying cattle from the properties named by IBAMA.

“None of the JBS purchases indicated by IBAMA were made from embargoed areas,” the company said.

JBS added in a statement that its geospatial monitoring system ensures the company does not acquire animals from farms involved in illegal deforestation, the invasion of indigenous lands or environmental conservation areas.

Extensive cattle ranching along with clearing land to sell timber or grow soy are driving deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.

A number of meat packers signed commitments with prosecutors in 2013, agreeing not to buy cattle from ranches that were cleared illegally or have been blacklisted for environmental crimes.

JBS and more than a dozen other major agriculture firms have also pledged to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains by 2025, including destruction linked to indirect suppliers that sell to middlemen who then sell to meat packers.

— Reporting by Anthony Boadle

The post Brazil fines meat packers $64 million for buying cattle from deforested Amazon land appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.