Story
Nov 13, 2026
Enem questions on agribusiness and MST fuel a dispute over exam neutrality
Agricultural representatives and lawmakers view the Enem items as an unfair portrayal of large-scale farming and of the MST’s role in rural areas. Inep counters that the questions were educational exercises, not political judgments on either sector or movement.
The dispute centers on questions 76 and 80 of the blue-version 2026 Enem exam. One described MST agroecology training centers and, according to unofficial answer keys, identified their contribution as the “transformation of the landholding reality.” Another linked the expansion of agricultural commodity production and exports with persistent hunger, with the indicated policy response being broader financial credit for family farming.1
Agricultural groups and allied lawmakers argue that this framing reduces a complex food-supply system to an ideological contrast. The Paraná Agriculture Federation said an exam taken by millions of students should explain farming’s role in employment, income and food supply, rather than, in its view, spread misleading claims. Its president called the questions a “disservice” that was “spreading lies.”1
Critics also say the commodity question overlooked the role of large, medium and small producers in the same supply chains. Agronomist Xico Graziano described the notion that strong agricultural production could itself cause hunger as “old and superseded by history.”1 Lawmakers and farm-sector organizations have sought annulment of the items and administrative reviews, while arguing that the exam could have highlighted agricultural schools, federal institutes, Embrapa, Senar and producer cooperatives alongside MST initiatives.2
The MST-related item drew separate objections from critics who said it did not address land conflicts associated with the movement. They also challenged an irrigation question, arguing that it gave too little attention to the productivity and water-efficiency benefits of drip irrigation.1
Inep, however, rejected accusations of political or partisan direction. The Education Ministry-linked institute said the items have a strictly educational purpose: assessing students’ ability to interpret texts and scientific data on Brazil’s social and environmental realities. It said addressing such challenges is not a value judgment about economic sectors or an attempt to discredit agribusiness.2