As long as the world is getting 3% (and growing) of its liquid transportation fuels from agriculture (which requires ~20% (and growing) of the world's food), then there will be more and more demand for agricultural lands... Whether those lands grow food or fuels is immaterial, since both agriculture and food are fungible commodities - therefore if one person grows food, another can sell his food to fuels refineries, or vice-versa.

As long as we continue to need more fuel than is provided through petrofuels, then the problem will worsen.

Until then, there is a strong financial incentive for the Brazillian government to look the other way, and a strong financial incentive for the people to burn down more forestland and plant more farmland... because food is still expensive, and will only become more so as more and more food is converted into fuel.

World Bank estimates that by 2050 the world demand for food will be twice what it is today...
Where will that food come from? One option is to increase the yields of the acres currently being planted: The other option is to plant twice as many acres.

I consider this a blatant challenge to those misguided environmentalists that are obsessed with "organic" foods. Your choice of food requires more land, which means more forests will get cut down, because with a fungible commodity that's how the world works. Of course, those who eat beef and pork instead of chicken and fish (I'm not cruel enough to suggest eating bugs, and I certainly wouldn't suggest eating tofu - ugh) also require more farmland, and most people have figured out that biofuels are VERY VERY bad for the planet... but most environmentalists know about these... yet many actively fight for something that also bad for the planet, in the name of environmentalism...

Something, I hope, for people to think about.