LOBOS, ARGENTINA — Néstor Ramos had never felt anything like it. On an October night in 2024, waves of vomiting left the 47-year-old completely drained. The illness persisted into the next day.
“It was so unlike him,” his wife, Dr. Viviana Ferreyra, an internal medicine doctor, recalls. “He had no strength to move — and this is a man who’s never still.”
The Ramos family had chosen their home carefully — a quiet spot on the edge of Lobos, a peaceful town of 40,000 in a rural part of Buenos Aires province. They’d lived there for 10 years. But that day in 2024, Ramos, who was alone at home, had seen a drone spraying weed killer in a field close by. He thought nothing of it at the time, but the consequences, which he says are because of that drone, soon became clear.
The couples’ newly planted acacia trees withered, and the usual cast of wildlife — the hares and foxes that regularly roamed their land — vanished. Ferreyra, who has some toxicology knowledge from studying legal medicine, felt sure Ramos’ symptoms were due to herbicide poisoning. They consulted another doctor, who agreed that Ramos’ illness, though it doesn’t appear to have caused long-term problems, was likely triggered by the chemicals his neighbor sprayed, according to court filings.
Local biologist Nicolás Olalla, who was already investigating pesticide drift in Lobos and is a plaintiff in a court case seeking to establish an exclusion zone for pesticide spraying in the town, confirmed that the vegetation damage matched herbicide exposure.
When Ramos brought this up with his neighbor, the neighbor offered to pay for the dead trees, but Ramos declined. He was upset that the neighbor hadn’t had the courtesy to warn him, even though they had greeted each other on the day he’d sprayed on his land. Ramos decided to go to court. He’d heard complaints about agrochemical use in the area before, and he was frustrated that they didn’t rise above local gossip. Legal action, he hoped, would raise awareness and resolve the issue.
The neighbor did not respond to Global Press Journal’s requests for an interview.
The incident, which resulted in a temporary ban on drone fumigation on the land next to the Ramos house, beginning in November 2024, comes amid Argentina’s deregulation of agricultural drones used by farmers in rural areas — an effort to remove red tape for people who want to operate them. The Lobos case is the first judicial decision that limited drone fumigation. People who advocate for restrictions on agrochemical use hope it will set a precedent that other judges will follow. Though the ban is temporary, the court didn’t assign an end date.
But even before the drones, the situation in Lobos and other towns was dire.
When residents tested water, soil and plants between 2021 and early 2022, sending samples to the National Institute of Agricultural Technology, in Balcarce, and a private lab, the results were troubling.
“Pesticides were found in groundwater, streams, mud, the city’s trees, everywhere,” Olalla says.
The community was breathing, eating and drinking agrochemicals — prolonged exposure to which can trigger a range of serious health issues, including neurological damage and immune system disorders.
Several tests conducted on behalf of residents showed widespread pesticide contamination in Lobos, with chemicals present in groundwater, streams, mud and city trees between 2021 and early 2022.
And as the problem worsens, locals say, policymakers are creating laws that promote the use of agrochemical drones. Just weeks after Lobos enacted the temporary ban, a neighboring province, Entre Ríos, passed a law allowing drone spraying 10 meters (33 feet) from homes, despite protests from environmental groups that the buffer zones were insufficient to ensure safety. They warned that the law would put the province’s health at risk.
“I think it’s a disaster. It’s totally incoherent to fumigate 10 meters from the houses,” Ramos says. “They are fumigating above your head.”
Drones for the application of agrochemicals is relatively new in Argentina. In July 2023, they were being tested for feasibility and quality, but within a year their use to apply phytosanitary products became a growing trend among farmers, including in agricultural areas that abut homes, such as in Lobos. Even though there is no official data tracking drone use for agriculture, estimates from the National Institute of Agricultural Technology show that a total of around 350 drones were operating in all of Argentina by the end of 2024. The number will likely increase to 500 this year.
While some farmers, like Roberto Alejandro Cameron, have turned to precision herbicide technology, reducing chemical use by up to 70% by targeting only detected weeds, the high cost of that equipment limits widespread adoption.
Drones are more accessible. They fly at a height of between 3 meters (10 feet) and 10 meters, with a working width of 5 to 11 meters (16 to 36 feet). The closer to the ground, the smaller the working width and the longer it takes to apply — and there’s less of a chance of drift, Cameron says.
Facundo Herrero started using a fumigator drone in September last year. Unlike traditional ground spraying, drone propellers create turbulence that help pesticides reach lower plant parts and can spray mature crops without damage, he says.
Plus, they’re far cheaper — 40,000 United States dollars rather than 200,000 dollars for ground equipment, he says. He believes he can only trust the pesticide companies and the government regarding agrochemical safety.
Argentina is an agricultural powerhouse. It’s a major exporter of cereals and the world’s largest exporter of soybean oil. The use of drones promises even more growth.
Over the last 35 years, the country’s planted area has doubled, and grain production increased by 3.5 times. That growth is primarily driven by direct seeding, genetically modified seeds and, like in many parts of the world, rising agrochemical use. Pesticide use rose from 77,691 tons in 1997 to 262,506 tons in 2022 — more than tripling in 25 years. The country is now the third largest pesticide user in the world, measured in kilograms per year, after only China and the US.
The surge mirrors broader trends in South America, with Brazil and Bolivia seeing sevenfold increases in the same period, but countries including China and the US showed minimal change in recent decades, according to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization, a United Nations agency. (While the data on Argentina is based on official statistics, that of other countries is based on estimates.)
Despite the soaring use of agrochemicals, there’s no national law to regulate fumigation. Each province has the power to regulate its natural resources. In the Province of Buenos Aires, where Lobos is located, the law stipulates that aerial spraying must be performed at no less than 2 kilometers (6,500 feet) away from urban centers, but there are no provincial regulations for ground spraying distances, or drone spraying. This leaves each municipality responsible for establishing its own exclusion zones.
Efforts to establish those zones bump up against serious pressure by the Argentine Rural Society and agrobusinesses, says Fernando Cabaleiro, an environmental lawyer representing the Lobos residents in the lawsuit for exclusion zones.
The Argentine Rural Society, which represents the interests of the agricultural sector, declined to comment.
Among those pesticides used in Argentina are chemicals — such as glyphosate, atrazine and glufosinate ammonium — that are banned in some parts of the world because they’ve been shown to harm people and the environment.
By allowing the use of these chemicals, Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (National Service for Safety and Quality of Food and Agriculture), the agency responsible for ensuring animal and plant health and food safety, is “failing to protect” its people by “prioritizing agricultural interests over public health,” says Dr. Damián Verzeñassi, director of the Institute of Socio-Environmental Health of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Rosario.
SENASA defended its position in writing to Global Press Journal, stating that their approval follows current regulations. They said that unlike the European Union, many major agricultural nations — including the US, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, Australia, Japan and China — permit glufosinate ammonium use.
Leonardo Favre, the scientific affairs coordinator at the Chamber of Agricultural Health and Fertilizers, says the regulation establishes safety doses of agrochemicals at least 100 times lower than those that would cause an “observable effect on human health.” The Chamber also offers a training program on applicators and another for the certification of facilities for the safe storage of phytosanitary products.
The Chamber represents the interests of companies including Bayer, the parent company of agrochemical behemoth Monsanto, which sells fertilizers in Argentina. While Bayer dominates the global pesticide and seed market, Monsanto has been the target of widespread criticism regarding the negative health effects of their glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup. The company continues to maintain that glyphosate is safe.
While agriculture in the Lobos area has increased, the local population has grown slowly — from about 33,000 in 2001 to just over 40,000 in 2022. Known for its parks, countryside and lagoon, Lobos attracts transplants like Florencia Polimeni, who moved there from Buenos Aires City in 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, in search of a peaceful rural life. But the widespread use of agrochemicals there shook her plans of living pollution-free.
Shortly after moving to Lobos, Polimeni experienced her first encounter with pesticide spraying when an unbearable stench from a neighbor’s farm invaded a house where she was having lunch with friends. Water tests revealed agrochemicals in her home’s drinking water.
That same year, the Lobos Association of Agricultural Engineers proposed a 50-meter (164-foot) exclusion zone, with a 100-meter (328-foot) buffer zone between residential areas and terrestrial pesticide applications, citing agriculture as a key economic pillar. Local residents, including Polimeni, who is the president of Democracia en Red, which promotes citizen participation, argued that that distance did not ensure safety. As they saw it, the zone gave farmers permission to spray them in the face. They countered with a proposal for a 1,095-meter (3,592-foot) exclusion zone, backed by scientific studies on genetic damage risks.
But the debate stalled in the municipality, and no regulations were approved. The residents decided to take legal action.
Florencia Polimeni, who moved to Lobos from Buenos Aires City in search of a peaceful rural life, was shocked after witnessing the widespread use of agrochemicals.
This was a time when the issue of agrochemicals was receiving attention in the local media due to a similar court case in Pergamino, another town in the Province of Buenos Aires. There, the courts had established a general ban on ground-sprayed fumigation within 1,095 meters (3,592 feet) of urban areas and 3,000 meters (9,842 feet) for aerial spraying. While the court does not establish which technology is used in each case, the minimum zone of 3,592 feet is assured by law.
In 2024, Democracia en Red, Polimeni’s organization, tested residents from pesticide-sprayed towns, including Lobos, for genetic damage. Many samples, including those from children, showed genetic alterations potentially linked to agrochemical exposure, according to results Polimeni shared with Global Press Journal.
Polimeni lives in Lobos most of the time, occasionally commuting for work in Buenos Aires. Her 18-year-old daughter, Catalina, who lived with her in Lobos from 2020 until 2022, was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s disease in 2024. Exposure to pesticides is a possible cause of the autoimmune disease. Polimeni says she never imagined that they would be exposed to pesticides.
Democracia en Red’s findings, yet to be published, follow its research, from 2023, that found glyphosate in 17.6% of 210 urine samples. Notably, Buenos Aires City, intended as a control group, showed the highest concentration of positives. In Lobos, 14% tested positive for glyphosate. The controversial agrochemical glyphosate has been classified as potentially linked to cancer and other diseases by the International Agency of Research on Cancer.
Polimeni is confident that things will only get worse as drones become more popular among farmers. It is almost like putting “a lethal weapon” in everyone’s hands, she says.
Herrero, who uses fumigator drones, says he knows there are dangers. “These chemicals are harmful, but they’re permitted with proper protocols,” he says, adding that safe application knowledge is crucial for all handlers.
And there’s little chance that drone use will subside.
“When a drone takes flight, everything stops,” Herrero says. “People gather, they stare, they ask questions. The technology is new, and it amazes them.”
Andrea Deydén contributed to this article.
Clarification: This story has been updated to most clearly reflect the opinion of Florencia Polimeni.
