{"id":274618,"date":"2019-02-25T17:18:03","date_gmt":"2019-02-25T20:18:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/?p=274618"},"modified":"2019-03-18T16:14:08","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T19:14:08","slug":"pesticides-in-the-balance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/pesticides-in-the-balance\/","title":{"rendered":"Pesticides in the balance"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Brazil, one of the world&#8217;s agricultural commodity powerhouses, is also a voracious consumer of pesticides\u2014chemical or biological substances used to protect crops against the introduction and spread of pests such as insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, mites, nematodes (parasites that attack the roots of plants), and weeds. The pesticide market in Brazil is worth US$10 billion per year, or 20% of a global market estimated to be worth US$50 billion. In 2017 Brazilian farmers used 540,000 metric tons of active ingredients, about 50% more than in 2010, according to data from the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), an agency linked to the Ministry of the Environment. An active ingredient is the active compound in a pesticide product.<\/p>\n<p>The pesticide debate has intensified in recent months since a House committee approved Draft Bill 6299\/02 last June. Introduced in 2002 by the current Minister of Agriculture, Blairo Maggi, the bill proposes new rules on the approval and use of new pesticides. To come into force, the bill will need to pass the Brazilian House and Senate and be signed into law by the president.<\/p>\n<p>The large-scale use of pesticides\u2014also referred to in Brazil as \u201cagrotoxins\u201d (<em>agrot\u00f3xicos<\/em>), agrochemicals, or phytosanitary products\u2014stems from several factors. As a tropical country, Brazil lacks the pronounced winter season that temperate climates have to disrupt pest life cycles. Pesticide use has grown in tandem with agricultural production\u2014the grain harvest leaped from 149 million tons in 2010 to 238 million in 2017\u2014and the expansion of monoculture, a farming system that upsets ecosystem balance and affects biodiversity, creating conditions for the spread of pests and disease.<\/p>\n<\/div><a name=\"#agro1_en\"><\/a><iframe id=\"agro1_en\" style=\"overflow: hidden; width: 100%; height: calc(100vh - 200px)\" data-ratio_760=\"1.05\" data-ratio_1190=\"1.05\" class=\"resizable\" data-ratio=\"1.6\" src=\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/revista_embeds\/agro1_en\/index.html?381018463\"  scrolling=\"no\" noborders><\/iframe><div class=\"post-content sequence\">\n<p>While pesticides have helped to increase yields, making Brazil the top producer of important commodity crops, their use has also raised concerns over the harm they can cause to the environment\u2014they contaminate the soil and groundwater, and are health hazards to the workers handling these substances and to rural communities near plantations.<\/p>\n<p>A report released last year by United Nations (UN) experts estimated that around 200,000 people worldwide die each year from acute pesticide poisoning\u2014mostly rural workers and communities. In Brazil, 84,200 people were poisoned from exposure to pesticides between 2007 and 2015, or an average of 25 people per day, according to data from the Ministry of Health\u2019s 2018 National Health Surveillance Report on Populations Exposed to Pesticides. Research suggests that farm worker exposure to agricultural pesticides increases the risk for various forms of cancer, as well as hormonal disorders and birth defects. But studies linking foods containing pesticide residue to an increased risk for cancer and other diseases have been less conclusive.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In Brazil, 84,000 people were poisoned from exposure to pesticides between 2007 and 2015<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Crop scientist and pesticide expert Edivaldo Domingues Velini, a professor in the School of Crop Science at S\u00e3o Paulo State University (FCA-UNESP), says the problem is not the pesticides themselves, but the amounts and the application methods. \u201cAdequate and knowledge-based application is effective in reducing risks associated with pesticide use,\u201d he says. \u201cPesticide consumption in Brazil is comparable to that of other countries regarded as benchmarks for development and food safety.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Advocates for the new legislation, including pesticide manufacturers, agribusiness associations, and the Ministry of Agriculture, argue that Brazil\u2019s legacy pesticide legislation, Act 7,802, needs to be modernized. Introduced in 1989, the current rules, they say, prevent more advanced and safe products from reaching the market and farmers quickly.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cGetting approval for new pesticide molecules in Brazil is a very slow process, to the point that some technologies can never be put to use. By the time they\u2019ve been approved, they either have already been made obsolete by a more efficient technology or the pest is no longer as much of a threat,\u201d says crop scientist Mario von Zuben, executive director at the Brazilian Crop Protection Association (ANDEF), a pesticide industry association. The Brazilian Agriculture Confederation (CNA) has also expressed support for the bill. \u201cSince 2005 we have been advocating a reformulation of the current approval system and have supported the changes approved by the House panel,\u201d says CNA Technology Coordinator Reginaldo Minar\u00e9.<\/p>\n<p>On the other side of the trench, health-related organizations such as Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ) and the Brazilian Association of Collective Health (ABRASCO), agencies such as the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), the Ministry of Health, and IBAMA, and environmental advocacy organizations such as Greenpeace have fiercely opposed what they have dubbed the \u201cPoison Bill\u201d. They allege it will make the country&#8217;s already overly permissive pesticide market even more flexible, allowing products onto the market that could increase health risks and exacerbate environmental contamination.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe are all out against the bill. It will set us back by 30 years. Progress, to us, would mean taking better care of people\u2019s health and the environment, but the bill would instead increase risks and expedite approvals without high-quality due diligence, allowing more dangerous pesticides to reach the Brazilian market,\u201d says biologist Fernando Carneiro, a researcher at FIOCRUZ Cear\u00e1 and a member of ABRASCO. ANVISA has also stood in opposition to the legislative changes, arguing that they will neither provide safer foods or new technologies for farmers, nor strengthen the regulatory framework for pesticides.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_274635\" style=\"max-width: 2290px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-2280px-2.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-274635 size-full\" src=\"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-2280px-2.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2280\" height=\"1578\" srcset=\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-2280px-2.jpg 2280w, https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-2280px-2-250x173.jpg 250w, https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-2280px-2-700x484.jpg 700w, https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-2280px-2-120x83.jpg 120w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 2280px) 100vw, 2280px\" \/><p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><span class=\"media-credits-inline\">Renato Costa\/Framephoto\/Folhapress<\/span><\/a> Advocates and critics of Brazil\u2019s pesticide bill during a special House committee session this year<span class=\"media-credits\">Renato Costa\/Framephoto\/Folhapress<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<p><strong>Points of disagreement<\/strong><br \/>\nSupporters and critics of the bill disagree essentially over four topics. To begin with, industry representatives disagree with the very term\u2014<em>agrot\u00f3xicos<\/em>\u2014given to pesticides in Brazil. \u201cThe term pesticide, as proposed by committee chairman Luiz Nishimori, is the term most widely used internationally and would seem more fitting,\u201d says von Zuben of ANDEF.<\/p>\n<p>Currently, Brazilian legislation refers to substances used against agricultural pests as <em>agrot\u00f3xicos<\/em>, a term coined in 1977 by professor Adilson Paschoal of the Luiz de Queiroz School of Agriculture of the University of S\u00e3o Paulo (ESALQ-USP), in Piracicaba. The term was adopted in place of the multiple names that had been used previously, including <em>praguicida<\/em> (pesticide), <em>rem\u00e9dio<\/em> (medicine), <em>veneno<\/em> (poison), and <em>defensivo agr\u00edcola<\/em> (crop protection chemical). Critics of the current name-change proposal say that it is designed to dissociate pesticides from their toxicity and their health and environmental risks.<\/p>\n<p>Another area of disagreement is over which agencies can approve new pesticides. Under current law, approval authority is shared by the Ministry of Agriculture, which is responsible for assessing a product\u2019s agronomic efficiency; ANVISA, which is responsible for assessing a product\u2019s toxicity and human-health risks; and IBAMA, which assesses products for environmental risks. A veto from any of the three is enough to bar the approval of a new pesticide.<\/p>\n<p>The new bill, according to critics, gives the Ministry of Agriculture the final word on whether or not to approve a substance, confining ANVISA and IBAMA to a minor role of ratifying assessments of product applications\u2014they can make recommendations, but not necessarily veto a product if they disagree. \u201cThe text in the bill says ANVISA and IBAMA can assess and, where applicable, ratify approval decisions, but omits wording such as \u201capprove\u201d or &#8220;authorize\u201d. It fails to clearly state that they can veto a product,\u201d says agricultural engineer Marina Lac\u00f4rte, a farming and food expert with Greenpeace. The agribusiness caucus disagrees and says nothing has changed in the approval process. Instead, it argues that centralizing the process under the Ministry of Agriculture, but without reducing the decision-making authority of other stakeholders, will help to fast-track the approval process.<\/p>\n<\/div><a name=\"#agro2_en\"><\/a><iframe id=\"agro2_en\" style=\"overflow: hidden; width: 100%; height: calc(100vh - 200px)\" data-ratio_760=\"0.293\" data-ratio_1190=\"0.293\" class=\"resizable\" data-ratio=\"2.065\" src=\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/revista_embeds\/agro2_en\/index.html?378546511\"  scrolling=\"no\" noborders><\/iframe><div class=\"post-content sequence\">\n<p>The third point of contention concerns the assessment criteria used for new products. Under current legislation, pesticides that are potentially carcinogenic (able to cause cancer), mutagenic (capable of altering DNA) or teratogenic (able to cause birth defects) cannot be approved. Products that cause hormonal disorders are also forbidden. This is known as a hazard-based approach. The bill now before Congress would replace hazard-based with risk-based assessments, which take account of not only the potential toxicity of a product but also the methods of application, climate conditions during application, the amount of exposure to the pesticide, among others factors.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cAssessing products based on actual exposure to risk is a less dogmatic and a more science-based approach,\u201d says Minar\u00e9 of the CNA. Edivaldo Velini, of UNESP, concurs. \u201cShifting from hazard-based to risk-based assessments will align Brazil\u2019s legislation with international technical, scientific, and regulatory standards,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n<p>Not everyone agrees, however. \u201cIf the regulatory changes are implemented, what little is left of the precautionary principle will be gone,\u201d says geographer Larissa Mies Bombardi, a professor at the School of Philosophy, Languages and Literature, and Human Sciences (FFLCH) at USP. \u201cIt is unacceptable that substances posing these hazards [carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity] should be marketed in Brazil. If the bill passes Congress, those most adversely affected will be, by order of impact: farm workers, communities surrounding farms where pesticides are used intensively, and the general public.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Bombardi argues that if the aim of the bill is to modernize Brazil\u2019s legislation, then it would be important for product safety to be periodically reevaluated. \u201cIn the US, pesticides are reevaluated after 15 years and in the European Union after 10 years. But in Brazil, products are registered indefinitely,\u201d says Bombardi, author of an atlas titled <em>Geografia do uso de agrot\u00f3xicos no Brasil e conex\u00f5es com a Uni\u00e3o Europeia<\/em> (Geography of pesticide use in Brazil and links to the European Union), published in 2017.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Automatic registration<\/strong><br \/>\nLastly, there is also disagreement over the time allowed for the approval of pesticide products. Under the draft bill, products will be granted automatic temporary registration if the approval process has taken over 24 months without a final recommendation being made and the product has been approved in at least three countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of the 37 most developed nations in the world. \u201cThe conclusions from environmental risk assessments conducted in these countries are not necessarily transferable to environmental and product usage conditions in Brazil,\u201d says Marisa Zerbetto, head of the Chemical Evaluation and Control Department at IBAMA.<\/p>\n<p>A new product takes, on average, eight years to be approved and registered in Brazil. \u201cIn other countries where agriculture has a large weight in the economy, such as Australia, Argentina, and the US, new product approvals take about two years,\u201d notes Silvia Fagnani, executive director of the National Union of Crop Protection Products (SINDIVEG), who supports automatic registration.<\/p>\n<\/div><a name=\"#agro3_en\"><\/a><iframe id=\"agro3_en\" style=\"overflow: hidden; width: 100%; height: calc(100vh - 200px)\" data-ratio_760=\"1.151\" data-ratio_1190=\"1.151\" class=\"resizable\" data-ratio=\"2.167\" src=\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/revista_embeds\/agro3_en\/index.html?1524229949\"  scrolling=\"no\" noborders><\/iframe><div class=\"post-content sequence\">\n<p>Marina Lac\u00f4rte of Greenpeace says temporary registration is wholly inadmissible: \u201cWith the limited resources they have today, government agencies will be unable to evaluate new molecules in such a short space of time.\u201d According to Lac\u00f4rte, policymakers fail to appreciate that the effects pesticides have are irreversible. \u201cAnd if a substance approved on that basis is later disapproved, what will happen to the people who have already been exposed to it?\u201d she asks.<\/p>\n<p>Marisa Zerbetto, of IBAMA, adds: \u201cWhat is slowing products on their way to the market is limited staffing at IBAMA, ANVISA, and the Ministry of Agriculture to review applications. Altogether there are fewer than 50. In contrast, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 600 staff dedicated to new product applications in Washington alone.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The House committee\u2019s approval of the bill has drawn international attention. UN special rapporteurs on issues such as human rights, hazardous substances, and the right to food sent a statement to the government expressing concern about the legislative changes. If approved, they warn, the changes will violate rights of rural workers, local communities, and people consuming foods produced using pesticides.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe amendments would significantly weaken the criteria for approving the experimental and commercial use of pesticides, posing threats to a number of human rights,\u201d said the UN rapporteurs. They also note that an alternative bill\u2014PL No. 6670\/16\u2014establishing a National Policy for Pesticide Reduction (PNaRA), proposed two years previously by ABRASCO, received a lower level of priority by Congress (<em><a href=\"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/2019\/02\/26\/options-on-the-table\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">see the article about alternatives to pesticides<\/a><\/em>).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Fact or myth?<\/strong><br \/>\nBut do Brazilian farmers really use pesticides excessively? Is Brazil truly a paradise for pesticide manufacturers? \u201cWe are the largest global market for phytosanitary products because we are one of the countries with the most arable land in the world,\u201d explains Jos\u00e9 Otavio Menten, a crop scientist and engineer at ESALQ-USP. \u201cBut consumption in Brazil is much lower than in France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and other countries as a ratio of pesticide volume to crop area or crop production.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>A study by FCA-UNESP professors Edivaldo Velini and Caio Carbonari shows that Brazil ranks seventh for pesticide use per area of cropland and thirteenth for pesticide consumption per unit of crop production. Based on 2013 data from market research firm Phillips McDougall and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the paper compared Brazil with the world\u2019s 20 top pesticide consumers.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_274619\" style=\"max-width: 1810px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><a href=\"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-1800px-3.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-274619 size-full\" src=\"http:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-1800px-3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1800\" height=\"1216\" srcset=\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-1800px-3.jpg 1800w, https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-1800px-3-250x169.jpg 250w, https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-1800px-3-700x473.jpg 700w, https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/018-023_CAPA_Agrot\u00f3xicos_271-1800px-3-120x81.jpg 120w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1800px) 100vw, 1800px\" \/><p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><span class=\"media-credits-inline\">Ricardo Azoury\/Olhar Imagem<\/span><\/a> Workers spraying pesticides on a sugarcane plantation in rural Rio de Janeiro<span class=\"media-credits\">Ricardo Azoury\/Olhar Imagem<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n<p>Critics of the intensive use of pesticides argue that, however you look at it, Brazil is still among the leading consumers of pesticides and, to make matters worse, many pesticides sold in Brazil are banned in developed countries. \u201cAbout 30% of the pesticides applied on crops in Brazil are banned in the European Union, including the insecticides atrazine and acephate, two of the most-used pesticides in Brazil,\u201d says Larissa Bombardi of USP.<\/p>\n<p>The use of pesticides that are banned elsewhere on Brazilian crops means that foods consumed in Brazil could be contaminated. Trade associations representing agribusiness and the pesticide industry deny this is happening. \u201cThe food we eat in Brazil is safe and high-quality,\u201d says Reginaldo Minar\u00e9 of CNA. \u201cPesticides protect crops and ensure that food gets to the market in sufficient quantity and in healthy condition,\u201d adds Silvia Fagnani of SINDIVEG.<\/p>\n<p>Last year, fruits and vegetables sold at distribution centers in S\u00e3o Paulo and Bras\u00edlia tested positive for residual pesticides. The tests were commissioned by Greenpeace from the Pesticide Residue Laboratory at the S\u00e3o Paulo Biological Institute. Of the 50 samples tested, 13 had pesticides not allowed for that crop and 15 had more than one type of pesticide. \u201cNobody knows what effect different molecules combined will have on the human body,\u201d says biologist Amir Bertoni Gebara, head of the laboratory where the testing was done.<\/p>\n<p>Environmentalists also criticize the highly permissive maximum residue limit (MRL) for pesticides in food and drinking water under Brazilian regulations. As its name suggests, MRL is the amount of residual pesticides allowed in food and water. \u201cThe lower the limit, the more stringent the regulations in a given country. And Brazil&#8217;s are not stringent at all,\u201d says Bombardi. The bill before Congress is silent on this issue. According to the researcher, the MRL for glyphosate on soy in Brazil is 200 times higher than in the European Union, and even higher\u20145 thousand times\u2014for drinking water:<\/p>\n<p>Glyphosate is a herbicide used as a chemical defoliant on transgenic soybean crops, and is the most widely used pesticide in Brazil\u00a0and globally. But the substance has seen increased scrutiny from authorities. In early August, a federal court in Brazil\u2019s Federal District issued an injunction suspending product approval in Brazil pending completion of ANVISA\u2019s toxicological reassessment, which has been dragging on since 2008. At the beginning of September, however, the injunction was reversed. In France and California, pressures are mounting to ban the product. The World Health Organization (WHO) classified glyphosate as \u201cprobably carcinogenic to humans\u201d in 2015, but retracted this classification the following year.<\/p>\n<p>Recently, Monsanto\u2014one of the world&#8217;s biggest pesticide corporations and owner of glyphosate-based herbicide brand Roundup\u2014was sued in a US court over the link between cancer and its glyphosate product. The jury found that Dewayne Johnson, a groundskeeper and pest-control manager at a Northern California school district, had contracted cancer directly in connection with his use of the herbicide. The company was ordered to pay US$289 million in damages.<\/p>\n<p>This was the first lawsuit to allege a link between glyphosate and cancer\u2014another 5,000 similar suits are now pending before US courts. Monsanto in a statement said, \u201ctoday\u2019s decision does not change the fact that more than 800 scientific studies and reviews indicate that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and did not cause Mr. Johnson\u2019s cancer.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"bibliografia separador-bibliografia\"><strong>Project<\/strong><br \/>\nGlobalized agriculture and the dialectics of pesticide use in Brazil and in the European Union: differences, constraints and impacts of Brazilian commodities on the European market (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.bv.fapesp.br\/pt\/bolsas\/165373\/brasil-e-uniao-europeia-a-agricultura-mundializada-e-a-dialetica-do-uso-de-agrotoxicos-diferencas\/?q=16\/05506-8\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">no. 16\/05506-8<\/a>); <strong>Grant Mechanism<\/strong> Research Grant; <strong>Principal Investigator<\/strong> Larissa Mies Bombardi; <strong>Investment<\/strong> R$109,197.50.<\/p>\n<p class=\"bibliografia\"><strong>Book<br \/>\n<\/strong>Bombardi, L. M. <strong>Geografia do uso de agrot\u00f3xicos no Brasil e conex\u00f5es com a Uni\u00e3o Europeia<\/strong>. S\u00e3o Paulo: Laborat\u00f3rio de Geografia Agr\u00e1ria \u2013 FFLCH-USP, 2017.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Debate stirs over proposed regulations on pesticides\u2014the mainstay of large-scale farming but a hazard to the environment and the health of rural communities","protected":false},"author":23,"featured_media":274631,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[156],"tags":[259,225,247,251],"coauthors":[116],"class_list":["post-274618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-cover","tag-chemistry","tag-economy","tag-medicine","tag-nutrition"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274618","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/23"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=274618"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274618\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":279390,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/274618\/revisions\/279390"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/274631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=274618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=274618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=274618"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=274618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}