Pesticides ban - Trump administration putting profits before people
Thailand wants to ban these three pesticides:chlorpyrifos, an insecticide made popular by Dow Chemical that is known to damage babies’ brains; Syngenta’s paraquat, a herbicide scientists say causes the nervous system disease known as Parkinson’s that has been banned in Europe since 2007;
and Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide, which is linked to cancer and other health problems.
The US government says no.
The Trump administration is putting profits before people by pressuring the country not to ban harmful chemicals
Dow, Syngenta and Monsanto have each merged their way to become bigger corporate behemoths in recent years, wielding their enhanced power in Washington to keep these and other money-making pesticides on the market. For example, before merging with DuPont earlier this year and spinning off the agrochemical business that made chlorpyrifos, Dow successfully defended continued use of chlorpyrifos despite scientific concerns. The agrochemical companies are not having as much luck keeping foreign leaders in line, however, amid growing global awareness of the risks many pesticides spell for human health.
Thailand joins dozens of countries that have already banned or are planning bans on paraquat, chlorpyrifos and/or glyphosate. Thailand’s national hazardous substances committee voted last month to ban all three due to the dangers established by scientific evidence.
Thailand’s leaders were motivated in part by research showing that use of these chemicals in agriculture not only puts farm workers at risk, but also endangers consumers because the bug and weed killers’ residues persist in fruits, vegetables, grains and other foods.
In the United States, pesticide residues are so common in domestic food supplies that a Food and Drug Administration report issued in September found more than 84% of domestic fruits, 53% of vegetables, and 42% of grains sold to consumers carried pesticide residues.
US regulators parrot industry talking points as they insist that dietary exposures to pesticides are nothing to worry about and say any risks to farm workers can be mitigated with proper training, protective clothing and other measures.
According to Thai news reports, US officials have also been warning that the ban will interfere with lucrative trade. The US is especially upset about a glyphosate ban, arguing that it could limit hundreds of millions of dollars in Thai imports of US grains, which are often laced with glyphosate residues.
It may be disgraceful, but it’s certainly not surprising that the Trump administration is working to protect glyphosate and other pesticides that bring profits to big corporations. The agrochemical industry players are devoted donors to the political machinery that runs Washington and they expect a return on their dollars.
Chlorpyrifos was scheduled to be banned two years ago from US agricultural use but when Trump came into office the EPA decided to delay any action until at least 2022. The agency is currently updating its risk assessment of paraquat, seeking public comments through 16 December; but it appears poised to allow continued use, albeit with restrictions. And earlier this year the EPA affirmed that it continues to find no health risk associated with glyphosate.
One example of the governmental fealty was laid out in an internal Monsanto consultant’s report made public through litigation against the company. The report quotes a White House policy adviser as saying: “We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have.”
It’s certainly not surprising that the Trump administration is working to protect glyphosate and other pesticides that bring profits to big corporations
abridged from:
Comments (16)
DuPont had to come up with an alternate market after Vietnam.
Sell It To Stupid MURKUNS!
Pets grow hideous tumors & kids get asthma (or worse)...
BUT NO DANDELIONS IN MY YARD, YOU BETCHA
It is more important to him than other's lives.
He has damaged the environment right here in the USA. and is now
trying to stranglehold environmental science.
Did you expect him to care about other people elsewhere ?
The oils and anti-freeze in our vehicles can give us all sorts of illnesses.
Controls are available. Information is available. People make their own choices.
With what I know, I can assure you that my yard is filled with dandelions every year. That is my choice to make and no one elses.
No matter what I know, learn, or view; It's not my place to make the same for every one.
Interesting.
Government does it too in different ways. The Flint water crisis wasn't that long ago in my state. Yes. Some officials were actually charged.
Controls in place. Information available. Laws help make companies a ton more accountable. Regulations help to keep them more with in set guidelines.
It spans across a multitude of things. People are aware and made aware. It's still their choice(to hopefully use wisely so as not to endanger others with them).
I think most do.
Organic farming is getting more efficient, but can't and won't feed the world at the moment. Looking at consumer behaviour, a lot of people simply want cheap food - there is a constant criticising of "factory farming" going on, but the majority of people do only that - criticise, but don't put their wallet where their mouth is and buy organic. I come from a farm and had to deal with pesticides but don't like to have any contact with it. We know now how dangerous some of this is, but there wasn't a big awareness 30 years ago.
I don't use pesticides in my garden. The really dangerous stuff is forbidden in Europe. Problem is food grown outside of Europe - even if I don't buy it in the supermarket, it can still be in processed food or when eating out (not eating a lot of either).
Giving people choices is one thing, but there are carcinogenics in our food chain which is not visible and sometimes not avoidable to eat. Everything proven to have negative effects should be banned asap everywhere.
Draegoneer
KNenagh
Thanks for your input highlighting the dangers of pesticides to human health.
Thanks for your comment which clearly demonstrates
that the Trump administration puts profits before people.
When it comes to banning harmful pesticides, the U.S. lags behind the European Union (E.U.), China and Brazil, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Health. Eighty-five pesticides currently in use across the country have been banned or are in the process of being phased out in the three nations, in large part due to their harmful impact on human health or the environment.
In all, that means that about one-in-ten American-used pesticides contain ingredients that are either banned, not approved or have an otherwise unknown status in the E.U., China and Brazil. Many of these pesticides have been linked to acute poisoning in the U.S., some of which are considered highly poisonous in high dosages and have been connected to lung damage, convulsions, respiratory failure, coma and even death.
One example of the governmental fealty was laid out in an internal Monsanto consultant’s report made public through litigation against the company. The report quotes a White House policy adviser as saying: “We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have.”
Thanks for your comment but with all due respect, I cannot see what this has to do with Hilary, etc.
This is about pesticides endangering the health and lives of people including Americans.
Your initial comment was:
"What a load of rubbish, pesticides are poisoning the food we eat."
I am glad to see that you moved away from that view to a more realistic position in your second comment:
"U.S. Annually Uses 388 Million Pounds of Potentially Fatal Pesticides Banned in the EU, China and Brazil..................
Many of these pesticides have been linked to acute poisoning in the U.S., some of which are considered highly poisonous in high dosages and have been connected to lung damage, convulsions, respiratory failure, coma and even death."
"According to Thai news reports, US officials have also been warning that the ban will interfere with lucrative trade. The US is especially upset about a glyphosate ban, arguing that it could limit hundreds of millions of dollars in Thai imports of US grains, which are often laced with glyphosate residues."
Why should the US issue a financial threat to a country which seeks to protect the health and lives of its citizens?