Pacto Histórico describes the fumigations as a "politics of death"
The opposition party led by former President Gustavo Petro has rejected the government's decision to repeal the ban on glyphosate use, which opens the door for aerial spraying of illicit crop fields. The move, though still under review by the Constitutional Court, could lead to renewed use of glyphosate, a chemical linked to potential carcinogenic effects. The Pacto Histórico argues that aerial spraying is ineffective, risky, and unjust, harming health, ecosystems, and rural communities while failing to address root causes of drug trafficking. They advocate for productive substitution programs, land reform, and sustainable development. The group highlights concerns over environmental contamination, lack of community participation beyond ethnic consultations, and the 'balloon effect' that shifts cultivation to other regions. They propose maintaining the approach used during Petro’s presidency, which prioritized voluntary substitution and limited forced eradication. However, data shows an increase in coca cultivation in 2024. The government plans to resume spraying once environmental management plans and approvals are in place.
The Colombian government’s decision to lift the ban on aerial spraying of glyphosate, a move that has sparked sharp criticism from opposition lawmakers, has ignited a new round of political and environmental debate. The announcement by President Abelardo De La Espriella’s administration signals a potential return to forced eradication tactics against illicit drug crops, a policy long opposed by progressive factions within Congress and civil society groups. According to reports, the government has removed a key legal restriction that had previously prevented the use of glyphosate-based herbicides in large-scale aerial operations. This change opens the door for future use, though several constitutional and regulatory hurdles remain before such actions can legally take place. Congressman Jairo León Vargas of the Pacto Histórico party voiced his concerns over the move, calling the government’s stance “not dependent on its will.” In a statement, he emphasized that the Constitutional Court had set clear conditions for the use of glyphosate, including the protection of health and the environment, and the guarantee of prior consultation with affected communities. He argued that unless these conditions are met, aerial spraying should not proceed. Vargas aligned himself with his party’s broader position, which includes a pending legislative proposal aimed at banning glyphosate and its derivatives entirely for the eradication of illegal crops. The bill, backed by Senator Esmeralda Hernández, seeks to establish a legal framework that prioritizes environmental and public health protections. The Pacto Histórico, led by former president Gustavo Petro, has condemned the government’s decision as a dangerous reversal of progress. In a formal statement, the party called the proposed resumption of glyphosate spraying a “policy of death,” arguing that it would reintroduce harmful chemicals into the environment and endanger local populations. They warned that such measures have historically failed to address the root causes of drug cultivation, instead displacing farmers and exacerbating social inequality. The group pointed to rising statistics showing a 13.5 percent increase in illicit crop areas between 2022 and 2024, particularly in regions like Nariño, Putumayo, and Norte de Santander. Despite this growth, they argue that the state’s capacity to combat the issue has remained weak. The opposition also highlighted the risks associated with glyphosate, citing international health organizations like the World Health Organization, which classify it as potentially carcinogenic. They further criticized the government for failing to ensure meaningful participation from rural communities, arguing that limiting consultations to indigenous groups ignores the rights of thousands of non-indigenous farmers who live in affected areas. The Pacto Histórico advocates for a more sustainable approach, one that emphasizes voluntary substitution programs and land reform rather than chemical warfare against illicit agriculture. Legal experts and human rights organizations have raised additional concerns about the feasibility of resuming glyphosate spraying under current regulations. According to Sergio Pérez, an investigator with Dejusticia, the government still faces multiple legal constraints imposed by the Constitutional Court. These include requirements for independent environmental risk assessments, continuous monitoring, and community consent. Even after the recent repeal of a 2015 resolution that had suspended glyphosate use, the country remains bound by these legal barriers. Pérez noted that the government’s attempt to replace glyphosate with alternatives like ammonium glufosinate does not bypass these rules, as each new substance would require a separate environmental management plan. There are also growing concerns about procedural shortcuts taken by the government. Reports suggest that the Council for Narcotics Control (CNE) approved the removal of glyphosate restrictions in less than 20 days after the new administration took office, raising questions about the thoroughness of the process. Critics argue that this rapid approval undermines due diligence and could lead to rushed decisions that fail to meet constitutional standards. Meanwhile, some media outlets have reported that the police may soon request certifications from the Office of Prior Consultation to determine which areas are eligible for spraying, a practice that has been widely criticized for lacking transparency and accuracy. As the situation unfolds, the path forward remains unclear. While the government has opened the door to glyphosate use, it has not yet taken steps to fulfill the legal prerequisites required for such action. Environmental and health advocacy groups continue to push for stronger safeguards, while the opposition remains steadfast in its demand for alternative strategies that prioritize both human rights and ecological sustainability. For now, the debate continues, with the fate of aerial spraying hanging in the balance until the necessary legal and ethical frameworks are fully established.
Go to the primary sources (6)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
The Colombian government under President Abelardo De La Espriella has lifted a suspension on aerial spraying with glyphosate to combat illegal coca cultivation, prompting criticism from congressman Jairo León Vargas of the Pacto Histórico coalition. Vargas argued that restarting glyphosate spraying does not depend on the government’s will but rather on legal and environmental conditions set by the Constitutional Court. The court had mandated protections for health and the environment, along with prior consultation with affected communities, which he claims have not been met. The administration’s decision comes amid rising coca production, with areas cultivated increasing by approximately 13.5% between 2022 and 2024, largely concentrated in regions like Nariño, Putumayo, and Norte de Santander. The Pacto Histórico is pushing legislation to ban glyphosate entirely for eradicating illicit crops due to environmental and health concerns.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the government’s decision to resume glyphosate spraying as controversial and highlights opposition from the left-wing Pacto Histórico coalition. It emphasizes the environmental and health risks of glyphosate, aligns with legislative efforts to ban it, and critiques the government’
Why factuality (75): The article reports on criticism from a congress member regarding government policy on aerial spraying with glyphosate. It accurately reflects the political stance of the Pacto Histórico party and mentions ongoing legislative efforts. However, it lacks direct quotes from official sources and present
Why objectivity (68): The tone leans toward supporting the opposition view, using phrases like 'crítica' and emphasizing the congress member’s alignment with his party. While not overtly biased, it frames the issue through a specific political lens, potentially influencing reader perception.
La Silla VacíaIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 559/1/2026
Colombia remains unable to resume aerial fumigation with glyphosate despite the recent repeal of Resolution 6 of 2015 by the National Council on Narcotics (CNE). The Constitutional Court imposed seven conditions in Sentence T-236 of 2017 for any future glyphosate spraying, including independent health and environmental risk assessments, community participation guarantees, and objective evidence of no harm. The government has considered switching to glufosinate ammonium but this would require new environmental management procedures. Concerns remain over police plans to request polygon-by-polygon certifications for spraying areas, which may not reflect reality.
Bias read (Center): The article presents legal requirements and procedural hurdles set by the Constitutional Court without overtly favoring any political side. It discusses both the government’s position and concerns raised by civil society, maintaining a balanced tone.
Why factuality (75): This article provides more detailed information about the legal conditions required before glyphosate-based aerial spraying can resume, referencing the Corte Constitucional’s requirements and the recent repeal of Resolution 6 of 2015. It accurately reflects the legal framework discussed in the prima
Why objectivity (55): While the article remains somewhat critical of the government’s ability to proceed with aerial spraying, it maintains a more neutral tone by discussing legal constraints and procedural requirements. It avoids overtly emotional language and focuses on the legal and regulatory challenges, though it st
La Silla VacíaIndependentProgressiveFactual 65Objective 459/1/2026
The opposition party led by former President Gustavo Petro has rejected the government's decision to repeal the ban on glyphosate use, which opens the door for aerial spraying of illicit crop fields. The move, though still under review by the Constitutional Court, could lead to renewed use of glyphosate, a chemical linked to potential carcinogenic effects. The Pacto Histórico argues that aerial spraying is ineffective, risky, and unjust, harming health, ecosystems, and rural communities while failing to address root causes of drug trafficking. They advocate for productive substitution programs, land reform, and sustainable development. The group highlights concerns over environmental contamination, lack of community participation beyond ethnic consultations, and the 'balloon effect' that shifts cultivation to other regions. They propose maintaining the approach used during Petro’s presidency, which prioritized voluntary substitution and limited forced eradication. However, data shows an increase in coca cultivation in 2024. The government plans to resume spraying once environmental management plans and approvals are in place.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the issue through the lens of the opposition party (Pacto Histórico), which aligns with leftist values. It emphasizes the negative impacts of glyphosate, calls for community involvement, and criticizes government policies as harmful and ineffective. The language suggests concern,
Why factuality (65): The article references the Pacto Histórico’s opposition to the government’s decision to allow glyphosate-based aerial spraying, citing health risks and environmental concerns. It mentions the Corte Constitucional restrictions but does not provide direct quotes from the primary source document. The a
Why objectivity (45): The tone is clearly critical of the government’s policy, using emotionally charged language like 'política de la muerte' and emphasizing the negative impacts on health and communities. The article presents the opposition’s position without balancing it with government arguments or scientific data, s
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
CO
