Brazil is the world’s largest consumer of pesticides. However, the health effects of the widespread use of these chemicals are often underreported. Journalists Sílvia Lisboa and Carla Ruas tackled this issue in their investigative story, which examined how pesticides disproportionately impact children in rural agricultural areas. Supported by an International Women’s Media Foundation (IWMF) grant, their work combined data analysis and on-the-ground reporting and won the Brazilian Human Rights Journalism Award.
Their investigation focused on cases like Maria, a child from Vacaria, Rio Grande do Sul, who was born with hydrocephalus — a condition linked by doctors to pesticide exposure. Research indicates a strong association between proximity to agricultural areas and increased risks of congenital anomalies and fetal deaths. Despite Brazil being the world’s largest consumer of pesticides, with over 800,000 tonnes applied in 2022, there is a pressing need to reassess their extensive use due to the profound health implications for rural communities.
While the scale of pesticide consumption may differ, the U.S. also grapples with similar debates surrounding chemical exposure, health risks in rural farming communities, and the regulation of agricultural practices. The Brazilian case serves as a cautionary tale, underscoring the importance of prioritizing public health in agricultural policy and offering a lens to examine how environmental justice and food production intersect in America’s farmlands. It raises essential questions about the responsibility of nations to protect their most vulnerable populations — especially children — from preventable harm.
Lisboa and Ruas’s investigation demonstrates how journalists and scientists can collaborate to tackle complex health issues. By combining data-driven analysis with intimate human storytelling, they not only shed light on the impact of pesticides in Brazil but also set a global example for investigative reporting. Here, they discuss their collaboration with scientists, the challenges of uncovering human stories, and lessons for health journalists.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
How did this project come about?
Sílvia Lisboa: I started this work during an online journalism course that paired me with a scientist to develop a project. We decided to investigate pesticide use in Brazil since the country is the world’s largest pesticide consumer, yet the data on its health effects remains sparse. That initial collaboration resulted in numbers showing a connection between pesticide use and children’s health issues. Later, Carla and I decided to deepen the investigation by focusing on families in rural areas.
Carla Ruas: Securing funding was the first challenge. As freelance journalists, we couldn’t dedicate time to such an ambitious project without financial support. The IWMF grant gave us six months to dive into the data, conduct fieldwork, and travel to rural Brazil. We also brought back the scientist, Dr. Tatiana Moraes, as a collaborator, which made this project unique.
What lessons did you learn from working with a scientist to collect and analyze data?
Carla Ruas: Typically, journalists interview scientists as sources. This time, we truly collaborated. We had weekly meetings with Dr. Moraes to define research questions, analyze data and cross-reference findings. We went beyond our roles as journalists and engaged deeply with the data analysis process.
Sílvia Lisboa: It required flexibility on both sides. Journalists and scientists approach research differently. Scientists are rigorous and take years to analyze data, while journalists need quicker results. Balancing these timelines was a challenge. But working together allowed us to fill gaps in public databases and uncover new patterns related to children’s health.
How did you find the human stories behind the data?
Sílvia Lisboa: It was the hardest part. I made over 100 calls to find families willing to talk. Eventually, I connected with a farmer’s association in Rio Grande do Sul, where a local leader introduced me to workers impacted by pesticide use.
One of the most striking stories was about a woman who told me her niece — whom we called Maria in the story — was born with severe congenital anomalies linked to pesticide exposure. Her case was backed by a medical report confirming pesticides in her system. However, most families hesitated to speak. Many farmers view pesticides as a necessary evil, and there’s a stigma around associating health issues with pesticide exposure.
What lessons can other journalists learn from your approach?
Carla Ruas: First, collaboration is key. Don’t see scientists solely as sources — treat them as partners. They can help you access and interpret data you wouldn’t otherwise understand. In return, journalists bring storytelling skills that make scientific findings more relatable to the public.
Sílvia Lisboa: Persistence is another lesson. It takes time to gain people’s trust and uncover human stories. Patience is crucial, especially when dealing with sensitive topics like health and environmental justice.
How did you convince funders to support your work?
Carla Ruas: We built on Sílvia’s earlier reporting, which focused on Mato Grosso, Brazil’s largest soybean-producing state. For the IWMF pitch, we proposed expanding the investigation nationwide and exploring how pesticide exposure affects children in other agricultural areas. Emphasizing Brazil’s global significance as the largest pesticide consumer also helped. We framed it as a story with international implications — pesticide use in Brazil affects not just local populations but also global food exports.
What can U.S.-based journalists learn from your story?
Carla Ruas: The U.S. is a major farming nation, just like Brazil, and pesticides are widely used here too. One of our main focuses was on investigating the harm from glyphosate, which is one of the most popular pesticides in Brazil and is also widely used in the U.S. too. Journalists should investigate similar issues: What data exists about pesticide exposure and health effects? Are there untapped public databases or researchers studying these topics? Collaborating with scientists can help uncover new [story] angles.
Sílvia Lisboa: American consumers are also connected to this issue. Brazil exports much of its pesticide-laden crops to the U.S., so this is a story of global relevance. Investigating the supply chain and its health implications could resonate with U.S. audiences.
Are you working on follow-up investigations?
Carla Ruas: Yes, one of our follow-ups involved analyzing the Monsanto Papers, a collection of internal documents released during U.S. lawsuits against the pesticide manufacturer. While the papers were widely covered in the U.S. and Europe, no one had examined them from a Brazilian perspective. We discovered evidence of Brazilian scientists being paid to promote pesticides locally. This added another layer to our reporting.
What advice would you give journalists tackling similar stories?
Sílvia Lisboa: Be prepared for challenges, from finding funding to navigating cultural barriers. Building trust with sources takes time, especially when discussing sensitive health issues.
Carla Ruas: Start with the data, but don’t stop there. Find the human faces behind the numbers. Combining rigorous data analysis with personal stories creates powerful narratives that resonate with readers.
