Colombia Controversy Over Paloma Valencia’s Vinegar Plan for Illicit Crops

Written on 05/14/2026
Josep Freixes
Presidential candidate Paloma Valencia’s proposal to spray illicit coca crops with vinegar has sparked controversy and memes in Colombia. Credit: @PalomaValenciaL / X.com.

Presidential candidate Paloma Valencia’s proposal to spray illicit crops with vinegar unleashed a wave of mockery, memes, and criticism in Colombia, where the issue of how to combat illegal coca cultivation divides society over the use of pesticides that affect the environment.

The remark, made during a televised debate on local broadcaster Caracol Radio and quickly amplified on social media, turned Democratic Center senator Paloma Valencia into a nationwide trending topic and opened a new chapter in the already sensitive debate over coca eradication in the country.

“You can spray with vinegar,” Valencia replied when journalist Vanessa de la Torre asked what alternative she would propose in light of judicial restrictions on the use of glyphosate. The statement, made during a discussion on drug trafficking and security, was met with disbelief by many social media users, who began joking about a supposed “white or apple cider vinegar spraying” campaign to combat illicit crops.

Controversy in Colombia over Paloma Valencia’s vinegar plan for illicit crops

Valencia’s remarks came during the program “Dos Puntos,” where the candidate defended the need to continue fumigation in areas dominated by large coca plantations. According to her, manual eradication is not viable in regions controlled by illegal armed groups because “they kill the eradication workers,” so she insisted that the state must preserve aerial spraying tools.

However, the moment that defined the interview came when she spoke about chemicals alternative to glyphosate. Valencia claimed that there are “many herbicides” other than Roundup and cited vinegar as an example. She also mentioned the use of drones to carry out more targeted spraying and avoid the massive aerial fumigation campaigns that sparked controversy in Colombia for years.

The reaction was immediate. On X, Instagram, and TikTok, users posted edited images of crop-dusting planes spraying vinegar over coca fields, memes featuring industrial-sized kitchen product bottles, and jokes about “anti-drug salads.” Others compared the proposal to home remedies and questioned the technical seriousness of a presidential candidate when addressing one of the country’s historic problems.

Although some supporters defended the idea by arguing that acetic acid does have herbicidal properties in certain agricultural contexts, the public debate quickly turned into a phenomenon of political satire. Videos of the interview circulated thousands of times, and opinion programs devoted entire segments to debating whether the statement had any scientific basis or whether it was simply an unfortunate improvisation.

The reality is that household vinegar only reaches concentrations of between 5% and 10%, levels insufficient to destroy resilient plants such as coca. To achieve a stronger effect, acetic acid in much higher concentrations is required, which carries risks for those handling it because of its corrosive properties.

The background of glyphosate in Colombia

Behind the controversy lies a much deeper debate that Colombia has been grappling with for decades: how to combat illicit crops without repeating the social, environmental, and health-related costs associated with glyphosate.

For years, the Colombian government used aerial spraying with this herbicide as part of the anti-drug strategy backed by the United States under Plan Colombia. Aircraft flew over coca-growing regions and sprayed large areas with glyphosate to destroy illegal plantations.

But the fumigation campaigns sparked strong criticism. Peasant and Indigenous communities reported damage to legal crops, environmental harm, and possible impacts on human health. Over time, the criticism grew until it became a judicial and constitutional issue.

In 2015, the government suspended aerial spraying after the World Health Organization classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic.” Later, Colombia’s Constitutional Court imposed strict conditions for any possible reactivation of the program, especially regarding prior consultation processes and the protection of vulnerable communities.

A 2021 ruling ultimately consolidated the legal barriers. The high court struck down the resolution that allowed aerial spraying and ordered new prior consultation processes in the affected regions. Since then, any attempt to resume massive fumigation campaigns has faced enormous legal and political obstacles.

Given those restrictions, governments have tried to find alternatives. One of them has been manual eradication, which consists of destroying the crops directly on the ground with specialized public security forces.

However, this method has also been highly controversial. Eradication teams often enter areas controlled by guerrillas, dissident groups, or drug trafficking gangs, frequently becoming targets of landmines and armed attacks.

That was precisely one of the arguments used by Valencia to justify the need for fumigation in certain regions. The candidate argued that where there are “industrial-scale” coca plantations, the government should use spraying methods, while in areas where coca is mixed with subsistence crops, eradication should be carried out manually.

She also defended the use of drones, a technology that Colombian and U.S. authorities have begun exploring in recent years to carry out more precise interventions and reduce the impact on civilian populations.

Between memes and the election campaign

The controversy comes in the middle of the presidential race and reflects the increasingly polarized tone of the campaign in Colombia. Valencia, one of the most visible figures of Uribismo, has built much of her discourse around security, the fight against drug trafficking, and criticism of President Gustavo Petro’s anti-drug policies.

But this time, the public conversation shifted away from her core proposals and became trapped by a phrase that many interpreted as extravagant or improvised. What was intended as a defense of alternative methods to glyphosate ended up becoming humorous material for social media and political entertainment programs.

Chemical experts say that vinegar in high concentrations acts as a contact herbicide, meaning it burns leaves and external surfaces but does not reach the root. That means many plants can regrow shortly after application. This is where one of the differences with glyphosate appears, since its systemic effect allows the substance to travel through the plant’s internal structure and destroy it from the root.

In a country where the debate over illicit crops combines violence, international pressure, environmental problems, and rural crises, the idea of spraying coca with vinegar ended up symbolizing, for many Colombians, the difficulty of finding simple solutions to a historically complex problem.