Slashdot Mirror
EU Drops Plans For Safer Pesticides After Pressure From US
An anonymous reader writes: The European Union recently published plans to ban 31 pesticides containing chemicals linked to testicular cancer and male infertility. Those potential regulations have now been dropped after a U.S. business delegation said they would adversely affect trade negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. "Just weeks before the regulations were dropped there had been a barrage of lobbying from big European firms such as Dupont, Bayer and BASF over EDCs. The chemical industry association Cefic warned that the endocrines issue 'could become an issue that impairs the forthcoming EU-US trade negotiations.'"
Seriously. If I wanted to know about other people's political beliefs, I would be on Facebook.
it's not about politics but rather something that matters. if there is one thing that matters to everyone, it's the food supply.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The US is all about eficiency. Kill two birds with one stone!
Well, how this affects human biology *IS* tech related IMHO.
And more and more...politics is affecting anything tech related in most any scientific field. Just try to come up with some new tech, put it on the market and see how far you before you're awash in a sea of regulations, paperwork and potential legal liability.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
News like this makes me angry and sad at the same time. The problem is that it's all so complicated that one cannot really understand the matter without spending years of work and research on it, and even then a citizen only gets a subset of all information that was presented.
The chemical industry for sure had arguments and data that supported their case, in same way that the opponents of the pesticides have their arguments and data. It all comes down to spinning information and conveniently omitting some facts (for sure on either side). How anyone, who is not a subject matter expert, can make a decision in this is just beyond me.
Everything that is good for citizens is bad for TTIP and vice versa.
A bit depressing knowing that i can barely do anything to stop such thing and even if enough people get outraged they will still sign the deal.. business is business who cares if someone gets hurt along the way....
That, and how does the headline say "pressure from the US" while the story says "a barrage of lobbying from big European firms such as Dupont, Bayer and BASF?" I don't personally care what the Europeans do or which cabal of lizardmen runs their continent, but I do want Slashdot to have some editorial consistency when it chunders forth propaganda.
There is no other way to apply the pressure needed to get what you want. Oh well, lack of resistance can only mean implied consent. We are on our own.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sorry, but the US is not efficient. It's a big patchy system with no long term plan.
What is your issue here? EU companies (who have a large presence everywhere) pressured the US govt, who in turn pressured the EU.
Tech is not only Si-tech, it is Chem-tech and Bio-tech too.
PS If your nerdiness ends by your keyboard, it is your own issue.
Dear EU sponges,
Shouldn't that be a good reason FOR pushing for this leglisation?
So, lemme recap, we not only don't get any protection from dangerous pesticides but we also get it so we can still have a trade agreement that has no beneficial effect whatsoever for EU corporations?
Thanks. Who are you working for again, just so we know? We're kinda confused.
signed, the idiots paying for you useless asshats.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Just in case anyone wasn't paying attention, we are consumers, nothing else. Consume, or else.
No, apparently US business interests are far more important.
I think it's time the rest of the world told the US: we don't give a fuck about your business interests, we care about not putting toxic crap on our foods.
"Aggressive US lobbyists" should be told the STFU or simply shot.
Free trade with the US is "we will ignore any obligations, and we will cram our laws down your throat."
If diplomacy with the US is entirely about advancing US business interests to the detriment of local industry and environment ... the response should be a big giant "fo fuck yourself".
Because the US pushes for trade deals, and then still reuses to ignore them ... things like steel subsidies, massive corn subsidies, and country of origin labeling requirements are things they've repeatedly lost in WTO arbitration.
So why the hell do countries keep putting up with this shit?
Such horseshit. It's time the rest of the world stopped giving a shit about US business interests ... because they never actually coincide with domestic interests.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"The United States of America: keepin' it classy since 1776"
In the politics section. About how US business interests are over-ruling domestic environmental laws.
If you don't want to read it, don't read the politics section.
The rest of us don't care what you feel should be here or not.
And you convinced me. I was wrong.
Well, now it looks like US corporations are flexing their muscles in Europe, reducing democracy there after all but buying legislators here in the US.
Apparently we're not telling them. Whoever we voted for has turned against us, as usual.
Nice to see that DuPont is flexing it's muscles. After cutting the {gentialia} off of Peltz (Trian Fund Management) in a stock holder vote, it's nice to see that Ellen (CEO DuPont) is going to continue with promoting products that cause endocrine-related illnesses such as IQ loss, obesity and cryptorchidism – a condition affecting the genitals of baby boys. "Better Living Through Chemistry" or is that "More Profit Through Chemistry"?
Yes, aggressive lobbying form 'Merican companies like Bayer AG (oddly headquartered in Leverkusen, Germany) and the largest chemical producer in the world, BASF (again, oddly headquartered in Ludwigshafen, Germany).
It's really nice that the political class of the EU can rely on the old "blame the US" trick to convince Europeans to ignore their own indebtedness to European corporate interests. Always shocking to me to see propaganda work so well and so easily.
Bio-tech product considered banned due to research associating it with fertility problems, cancer, etc, are certainly tech related just as much as a CPU being banned due to harmful gasses emitted during operation or similar.
The male infertility is a red herring designed to make the pesticides look attractive to European men. This is really about the bees.
I respectfully disagree. This is an environmental issue. It is an important one but I do not feel it belongs an a tech news aggregator.
The TPP has serious technology implication in the means of enforcing IP provisions and other areas in addition to environmental issues. The main problem is though no one knows what is in it because the negotiations and text are being done in secret so, mainly, it's a structural issue of how law will be framed.
It's the deal to end all deals, where each country gets to sign away it's sovereignty. So, yeah, it's stuff that matters and completely appropriate to discuss.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I guess you win the turing test, everyone else is still wondering why you don't think an endocrine system is relevant to your existence.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The saying goes: You can have an as democratic election as you want as long as I can choose the candidates...
Force feed those involved in this, form both sides, specially those in the EU parliament, including those behind other different secret trans-pacific negotiations.
Make them suffer the consequences of their corrupt bought out decisions and force feed food treated exclusively with these pesticides. Make them suffer the rest of their lives in their poisoned morals and bodies.
Yes, this is a very slanted article. Most of the lobbying companies were European, not American, and I don't think the US government was involved in the lobbying at all. No pesticide is completely safe, so they should be banned based on relative risk considering many factors: effectiveness, spectrum width, persistence, health effect on humans, health effect on wildlife, etc. The proposed ban was not based on sound science, just scare tactics from European greenies.
How to make something grow or die, no, that really can't be tech. It can only be tech if I understand it.
The TPP has serious technology implication in the means of enforcing IP provisions and other areas in addition to environmental issues.
This has nothing to do with TPP. TPP is the "Trans Pacific Partnership". Get out your globe and look at the big blue thing between America and Europe. That is the Atlantic Ocean, not the Pacific. This is about TTIP, not TPP.
Won't that slow down population growth? Isn't that desirable?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
\begin{snark}
If we're unable to reproduce and dying off from testicular cancer, there will be less pressure on the food supply that will be dwindling as the pesticides kill off the bee population and the plant pollenation function they perform. The humans that are left can do that pollenation by hand when the bees are all gone.
See... it's all good!
\end{snark}
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Well, the European Union evolved from the European Community which was originally the European *Economic* Community. It's all about the economy. It's not strange or at all unusual that the first thing they wanted done was a common currency: it's all about money. They talk about having million of *consumers*, not *citizens*. Anybody still harbouring delusions that it was to be a common space for freedom and equality should, well, commit suicide.
Well, how this affects human biology *IS* tech related IMHO.
Sure, but so far there has been NO discussion here about the actual tech in these pesticides. TFA doesn't even name the pesticides affected. Instead, about half way through, it switches to an unrelated rant about Canadian tar sands.
Just in case anyone is actually interested in the technology, here are a few links:
Pesticides may block male hormones
Effect of Endocrine Disrupter Pesticides: A Review
#NUKETHEUSA
agreed, somehow the future off the species is less important than the future of fat cat bankrolls. Glyphosphate alone is poisoning human genetics permanently, as well as the soil microbiome. As far as this being tech, it's biotechnology. Cordyceps can be used for pest control and it's safe for consumption, but they can't patent a fungus.
Yes indeed. Whenever I read a story in the press that asks me to believe that a large group of people are utterly, totally evil and get their rocks off by being malicious psychopaths, I go looking for a reality check.
Digging through apparently endless links arrives us at this quote:
In other words, the EU doesn't actually know these chemicals are dangerous to humans. They have some initial findings from animal studies that should be followed up on, and the chemical industry agrees with that, but heck if every mouse study translated directly to humans we'd all live a thousand years and be totally disease free by now.
So this entire dispute boils down to non-expert bureaucrats wanting to ban some chemicals early without clear evidence that they harm people, based on an abundance of caution, and the chemical industry saying "you should really prove your case first". Not entirely unexpected - EU regulators won't be the people who actually have to find alternatives and then do all the work to transition to them. They'll just issue a regulation, then go home and tell the wife/husband the story of how they fought the Big Chem to save helpless babies. The cost will get passed on the consumer. Skilled manpower and resources will be diverted from other things.
If they're right and the effects reproduce in humans - great, we got a few fewer years in which the chemicals were interfering with fertility. If they're wrong, well, the cost of that would be huge.
I don't see any clearly right or wrong side on this, which probably means the government should stay out of it. Mandate labelling at most, so consumers themselves can decide, at least until the scientific evidence of harm is stronger.
I'd expect that large European chemical manufacturers would also be against restrictions on chemicals. But you are implying that they are the prime lobbyists. Where is the evidence that AmCham were not the primary lobbyists?
It's been almost 10 years since big Colony Collapse Disorder event. Bees are still dying every winter, but bee populations are up and prices for pollination have stabilized. The market has hacked around the problem of CCD and there will be no bee apocalypse, and the bee industry is strong and more ready to deal with the problem if it grows to a larger scale.
For pesticide use, I blame residential use of pesticides. While farmers know not to spray while blossoms are out, and especially not when they've paid good money to a bee keeper to pollinate their crops. Most residential users don't know any better, and are out there spraying their roses down to keep the aphids off, which is unfortunate because workers can take those pesticides back with them and spread it to the rest of the hive.
I really think there should be an public service announcement in every neighborhood in the US, EU and CA so people can begin to educate themselves on pesticide use. And possibly some much stricter labeling requirements for pesticides. A lot of home gardeners use stuff that is relatively harmless to humans, but pretty toxic to aphids as well as bees. And there are the folks that spray nicotine on their roses, which is quite effective, it is rather dangerous.
It's all about those bees, about those bees.
If EU companies were strong enough to pressure the US, and the US strong enough to pressure the EU, then why would EU companies take such a circuitous path instead of directly pressuring the EU, like every other industry does?
The proposed ban was not based on sound science, just scare tactics from European greenies.
The proposed ban was largely the result of research showing that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have incredible costs to human health. We're not talking some vague feel-good argument about the birds and the bees -- we are talking about lost IQ points and health costs that run into the hundreds of billions:
The new series of reports by 18 of the world’s foremost experts on endocrine science pegs the health costs of exposure to them at between €157bn-€270bn (£113bn-£195bn), or at least 1.23% of the continent’s GDP.
As Ars points out, if even a fraction of the economic loss attributed to these chemicals could be reduced, the net result could easily be far more valuable than even the most wildly optimisitic projections for the value of the TTIP agreement.
Hey mate, spare a sig?
You know it is good for business, so just bend over now, and squeeeeeeel.
signed: The U.S.A
"Aggressive US lobbyists" should be told the STFU or simply shot.
I'd also like to see the EU develop a pair of balls to do the above; as an EU citizen, I find this behavior totally unacceptable.
The proposed ban was largely the result of research showing that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have incredible costs to human health.
No. The proposed ban was suspended because researchers have, so far, been unable to find ANY actual causality. Yes, these pesticides are harmful if you mix them into a mouse's drinking water. But that doesn't mean they are significantly harmful in the way they are actually employed in agriculture. Even if they are harmful (and it is likely they are to some degree) that needs to be compared against the harm from the alternative chemicals that would be used instead.
Environmental regulations should be based on a deliberative scientific process, not on which interest group can shout the loudest.
I could be coming home from a whittling contest and holding my knife out to see if it's been damaged.
I could LOOK like I have a pressure cooker bomb in my car but you don't KNOW it's a bomb.
Yet you don't know doesn't stop you taking the safer route.
Why?
Because your money isn't at risk. Your investments may be impacted if these chemicals are banned or limited until they can prove they're safe.
Yes, aggressive lobbying form 'Merican companies like Bayer AG (oddly headquartered in Leverkusen, Germany) and the largest chemical producer in the world, BASF (again, oddly headquartered in Ludwigshafen, Germany).
Perhaps we should stop thinking of these companies as either American or European or Chinese, etc. They're global companies that are playing governments off against each other. And they're succeeding, looking at this bit of news and the fact that the agreement texts are secret.
Maybe the EU is more easily pressured by the US government than by EU companies. The EU is not as corporocratic as the US, but it clearly fears the US.
As an EU citizen-consumer, you should know you're expected to shut up and obey the European Commission. The EU cannot work if its populace cannot understand they have to work together for the common good, as dictated by our leaders in Brussels who know what is best for the greatness and prosperity of Europe. Why do you express dissent? Are you a malcontent? Do you engage in seditious activities, like criticizing the EU Commission's decisions? EuroPol might want a word with you.
It's a corporate world. There are no countries or citizenship anymore, except if you work for a corporation; else you're little people. AC
CEOs' and their family can direct their cooks/assistants/restaurants to purchase/use only Non-GMO pesticide free foods... So with them running everything the common person is screwed and will be the ones who get more of the cancers...
So why should then not get a say? Why should their opinion be silenced, just because you don't agree with them?
If you hate free speech so much, go to China. But don't demand greenies not ask (never mind GET) anything they want.
Ha. Ahahaha. You think you can vote for those people?
That is how they get ya. They make you think you even have power with regards to those decisions, or who makes them.
Unelectable government is the worst government and it needs to be killed off already.
Any country with it is not a true democracy. (includes US and UK)
EVERY head position should be electable. Period.
What those heads do is up to them.
If these chemicals were linked to breast cancer and female infertility, this never would've happened.
Environmental regulations should be based on a deliberative scientific process, not on which interest group can shout the loudest.
Uhm, if that was the case, nobody would complain. There is a reason why most of TTIP is being drafted behind closed doors.
Also, ISDSes are unacceptable.
BASF is German. They rose to prominence by inventing the Haber process, which allowed Germany to start wars without naval supremacy. It also ushered in the development of industrial chemical processes, such as gun powder manufacture. These days BASF is multinational.
As far as safety, the burden should be on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe. We should not be beta-testers for multinationals, nor should the third world for that matter.
From The Fine Article's Summary (FTFAS): "Just weeks before the regulations were dropped there had been a barrage of lobbying from big European firms such as Dupont, Bayer and BASF over EDCs. The chemical industry association Cefic warned that the endocrines issue 'could become an issue that impairs the forthcoming EU-US trade negotiations.'"
So it was the European chemical corporations that lit the fuse to blow up the new regulations.
They said it was about EU-US trade relations but they may have had their own reasons for this too you know. After all, who do you think produces the crap that was about to get banned?
Grow up, gstard...
This is an example how TTIP already affect current laws in the EU. Keeping TTIP secret because there are "only" negotiations does not fly any more.
The good thing is we already have practical consequences before signing it, so we can still get out.
Up to now I have not heard any advantages for the EU, certainly none that would offset the huge disadvantages.
.
As a citizen from one of the very few countries that was allowed to vote on the new EU constitution, my country voted against. Subsequently there where some minor changes to _ONLY_ the Dutch translation of the constitution, and then my government signed the unchanged constitution without a vote. Other EU members didn't need to sign the new constitution, because only the Dutch translation was changed, which wasn't binding anyway.
.
Try hard enough to force this TTIP upon us, and the whole EU could fall apart, which would do the US more harm than the European countries.
Did you even read the _summary_?
"Just weeks before the regulations were dropped there had been a barrage of lobbying from big European firms such as Dupont, Bayer and BASF over EDCs. The chemical industry association Cefic warned that the endocrines issue 'could become an issue that impairs the forthcoming EU-US trade negotiations.'"
Exactly, and well said, AC.
It's shocking to me how people can buy--hook, line, and sinker--any rotten story that politicians tell, particularly if the story is "blame someone else!"
Nuthead crackpots like you are the laughing stock of the internet. Keep on the good work!
No. The proposed ban was suspended because researchers have, so far, been unable to find ANY actual causality.
Can you cite a source for this?
I used to write for an environmental magazine. I quickly found out that whenever you have a controversy over safety, the ultimate question is, "Who has the burden of proof?"
If you have the burden of proof to prove that a chemical is safe, you'll never prove it. Your opponents can simply raise the standard of evidence until you don't meet it.
If you have the burden of proof to prove that a chemical is dangerous, you'll (almost) never prove it. Your opponents can simply raise the standard of evidence until you don't meet it.
So you wind up having to make a judgment call on inadequate evidence. It's not as if there's a scientific argument on one side and ignorant anti-science people on the other.
But I think the Europeans should be able to make their own judgment calls. They're not luddites.
The proposed ban was suspended because researchers have, so far, been unable to find ANY actual causality. Yes, these pesticides are harmful if you mix them into a mouse's drinking water.
If you find that a chemical is harmful if you mix it in a mouse's drinking water, you've found causality -- in mice. That's not definitive evidence that it's harmful in humans, but it is evidence.
But that doesn't mean they are significantly harmful in the way they are actually employed in agriculture.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they're safe either. I think it's reasonable for Europeans to say that they don't want companies to go pouring a chemical in their environment until they've convinced people it's safe.
Even if they are harmful (and it is likely they are to some degree) that needs to be compared against the harm from the alternative chemicals that would be used instead.
Well, which is it? Are they significantly harmful? Or just a little harmful? Or not harmful at all?
What is the economic cost of the chemicals -- in dollars? What is the economic benefit -- in dollars? That's what you need to compare.
The truth is that you don't know. You're just making arbitrary assumptions.
Environmental regulations should be based on a deliberative scientific process, not on which interest group can shout the loudest.
Yes, that's what I say. There is some evidence that chemicals like phthalates can disrupt sexual development in human embryos. They've gone through a deliberate scientific process. They've concluded, "There's no conclusive evidence one way or the other." Then what?
It's perfectly reasonable for environmentalists to say, "We want convincing evidence of safety, the manufacturers haven't prove it, we can live without phthalates, so we don't want it in our environment."
If you think environmentalists are irrational and anti-science, you ought to see some of the industry's economists. I used to read Sam Peltzman's articles. He said that if a drug is successful on the market, it must be effective. You don't need scientific evidence. If a drug sells for $100, it must be worth $100, otherwise consumers wouldn't buy it.
Conservative economists (when they testify for the chemical industry) believe that the free market is perfectly efficient, so if they can make money doing something, it must be good.
Looks like the pesticides have already started taking a toll on your IQ. Trade deals and treaties are negotiations that require a minimum of 2 parties. If your side gets the shaft I suggest you get better negotiators. Over the past 10 years I have learned to not give a shit about what happens to anyone outside the US. Any US citizen worried about others outside the US can join the Peace core to express their concerns.The endless whining from people blaming all their short comings on the US has finally taken it's toll. Blaming the US for all the worlds ills is a tried and true means of gaining political legitimacy all across the world and in the not so distant future there will be some rather unpleasant consequences. US politicians spew some crazy shit to sway votes but they usually blame their opponents or predecessors and not the rest of the world for domestic problems. There are no US friendly countries or real allies so it's time to take that into account during any future international negotiations and let the chips fall where they may. Of course that will also include ending military support to all the countries who have taken it for granted over the past 70 years. If by chance a country needs some military assistance they should be prepared to receive an invoice with at least 50% due up front. If you fail to pay the remaining amount the US will annex any fought over territory and make them another US state. The US is notorious for returning land in which US soldiers died to defend and it is time for a new approach. The US could have kept France, Kuwait, Iraq, and half of Germany over the last century with such a policy. At least the complaints from any of those countries about US malfeasance would be more relevant. If the US pulled out of NATO the Russians would be at the Normandy coast in a few months. And once Russia over extends themselves China will grab the Russian territory they already think is theirs. While all this is happening the US can sit back and wait for the fighting to end and then re-negotiate trade deals with the winners.
Yes, I did read the summary. Then I also read the stories referenced there. You're implying that there was no lobbying by the US, while the articles clearly states that there was lobbying both from the US industry association and the US government, as well as from some European businesses. There is also mention of pressure from Canada and Brazil, but funnily enough it lists the US first.
So you are advocating allowing untested chemicals in our food, and only ban it once people are dying?
Well. Fuck you!
Well. Good luck with running a test feeding suspected toxics to human test subjects. While the scientific way it is not how we do medical research since Mengele.
Hello, US trade..I mean business delegation (see, nothing to do with the official US position) and the marketing departments of EU chemical giants! My wheelbarrowed testes are approaching into your general direction right about now. Perhaps I could find another way of moving with them, with some kind of bouncing action..
Um, yes.
How exactly do you intend to prove that something is safe? There have been cases in the past where chemicals were thought to be safe, and then found that they cause a higher risk of common disease but only after many decades (smoking is one obvious example of that).
How do you even discover that without large scale usage by humans? How would anything ever get approved? What if the drugs are believed to save lives, but it can't be proved that they're always side effect free? What then?
IMO, this shouldn't be up to governments. They should act as a source of trusted advice, at best. The idea that the FDA might have killed more people than it's saved (by delaying the use of medicines that were later found to be safe and effective) is an interesting one, though I can't remember if it's ever actually been proven or is just some libertarian meme.
There's little a Joe can do to change any of this. It's just because the government I live under has been purchased and is owned by corporations (long before I was born). I buy the most organic produce & neither fund nor profit from any of these actions (and that's the way many people I know are going). But that road's a long one.
I want the EU or someone who hasn't been as bought to start standing-up to these corporations. They bring no profit to your nation, they drain resources, and they poison everything. You don't want to trade with them. If they're so hooked-in to the US that they block other goods, then let them. Maybe then it could be the American Citizens vs the corporations. But bending to their will hurts us all.
Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
You could always try it over there in the States first. All we need to look out for is evidence of endocrine-related illnesses such as IQ loss and obesity among the citizens of the USA, and if we don't see such evidence, we'll know it is safe!
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
So you are advocating allowing untested chemicals in our food, and only ban it once people are dying?
Of course not. These chemicals have been extensively tested. There is no question that they cause some harm, but it is not clear how much harm, or if they cause more harm than alternative chemicals, or the economic costs of using no chemicals. Many factors should be considered, in a deliberative scientific process, rather than just caving in to some green pressure group out of political convenience.
"Aggressive US lobbyists" should be told the STFU or simply shot.
That's a horrible thing to write! Those lobbyists are just hard working people like the rest of us. You need to get to the root of the problem: the politicians and the .1% are the ones who should be lined up against a wall. The world needs a hard reset.
Aggressive US lobbyists ... there must be some EU side payola. EU Greens, you are slacking off.
... Says a representative from the Ilaria Corporation. How's Narvik-A progressing?
Since when did the name of a law or treaty actually mean something? If anything, you should go with it's opposite meaning.
800 bases worldwide, the first and the boots reach is long indeed!
lol :-)
It's not a US thing, it's a UN/democrat thing. They want population control - not implementing population control means unfavorable trade relations.
IMO, this shouldn't be up to governments. They should act as a source of trusted advice, at best. The idea that the FDA might have killed more people than it's saved (by delaying the use of medicines that were later found to be safe and effective) is an interesting one, though I can't remember if it's ever actually been proven or is just some libertarian meme.
In other words, you are completely insane!
Saying it shouldn't be up to the goverment is saying anything should be allowed, so let in the lead paint. Surely the free market would never feed our children poison. It is not like they haven't done in numerous times before and continues to do so in counties with less regulation.
The EU was Europe's attempt to try and remain relevant in a world that was passing them by. Individual countries had relatively low influence or power so banding together as a larger group was intended to help raise their level of influence in the world. Leave it to the Europeans to add a whole new layer of government bureaucracy to control their daily lives.
this is the same argument that the tobacco industry used for years "we don't know that smoking causes cancer, there's no proof".
corporations lie to protect their profits, their power, their influence, their control.
corporations lie.
worse, they're a malevolent artificial life form (hostile to humanity, at times parasitic on us, or even predatary on humanity) running on the substrate of laws, altering those laws to make their environment better for themselves and worse for us.
Kidding, right? Read up on the Aspartame approval process (hint: 4 days of testing on non-humans was all the FDA required) and tell me how you concluded that toxic chemical testing isn't being done on 'Murricans in public view and no hint or remorse.
The TPP has serious technology implication in the means of enforcing IP provisions and other areas in addition to environmental issues.
This has nothing to do with TPP. TPP is the "Trans Pacific Partnership". Get out your globe and look at the big blue thing between America and Europe. That is the Atlantic Ocean, not the Pacific. This is about TTIP, not TPP.
From the *second sentence* in the wiki for the TTIP: The American government considers the TTIP a companion agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership..
Seriously is there any reason to be so fucking narky when you haven't even researched the sources of information available from a 30 second google search.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
In other words, the EU doesn't actually know these chemicals are dangerous to humans.
Isn't that the same argument against GMO? That "we didn't know"? And thus should be "proven safe" first?
Why should chemicals get a free pass now?
More like, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild (yeah, I know it's improperly misattributed to him, but whatever... there's truth to the statement.
Jefferson knew that central banks (even private ones) were a bad idea.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -Thomas Jefferson
No sig for you! Come back one year!
What a bunch of weak-minded sellouts. I lost a lot of respect for the EU lawmaking process...
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Yes, this is called "corporate welfare", in the united states, the artificial entity is more valuable than human lives. US government pushes for these deals after being pushed around by the local lobbyists working day and night for corporate welfare. When the deal finally comes through, the lobbyist don't follow the deal, they lobby for subsidies against the deals, in the end the U.S. taxpayer pays both the corporate welfare through subsidies and their fines for not following through their own agreement that "forced" this corporate welfare and anti-competitive actions by them.
US public is a bunch of fools, to hard at work cutting their own universal health that every other developed nation has, to finance corporate universal health and corporate welfare. I once felt sorry for US public, but after seeing statements, toothless people being green of envy that their fellow man and themselves(!) might get health services (! a frigging human rights issue today !) and even worse all these greedy bastards (politicians and the "elite") living off the tax payers and receiving the universal health and welfare and yet deny hard working people the same universal rights...US public, you are a prime example of darwinism at play. US public continue to fight among yourself for the crumbs while the "elite" and corporations come and steal the cake and whatever is left the of crumbs. Plain darwinism at play....
TTIP is american...those like I said in a previous comment, companies create situations where they are forced to receive "corporate welfare", "bail outs" and "exemptions from law" all on the tax payers dime. They do not see borders, just short sighted profit.
WELL you don't fucking test it on humans first, do you? Your american mentality doesn't work in Europe, they corporation has to prove it's SAFE not we the public prove it's UNSAFE.
If you want to actually discuss the scientific approach to prove something somewhere in the chain of human consumption is safe, go take a class at your local university, oh that's right, it'll cost you an arm and a leg in USA. So if you can't start advocating for all the tax you are paying to actually go to you citizens not corporate welfare and corporate "health care". You got to ask yourself, why it works in all other developed western countries "like" the USA, maybe you are being feed a bunch of doomsday lies from people who actually has to start make the economy work, not just hoard massive amount of resources as if it was a Sim City or monopoly game.
There is a reason mice and rats are used, they are a great model, when they need to change animals. You don't expect us to test it on humans right? EDCs are known to affect humans, that is proven, and they've also proven that estimated proportional intake in trials affect subjects, what hasn't been proven is in the field, that will take DECADES with chemicals floating freely everywhere.
No, if companies want to use new chemicals that especially are known to have side effects and probably will have, they have the burden to prove it's safe, and they should foot the bill, not us, not the tax payers.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/health-costs-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-150bn-a-year-europe-says-study
Try reading the damn article! TTIP+US companies+EU companies, this is US site so US perspective about US companies lobbying EU to allow dangerous chemicals. On EU sites, EU companies are the focus..
I think it's time the rest of the world told the US: we don't give a fuck about your business interests, we care about not putting toxic crap on our foods
Not to rain on your parade, son
Through their latest action the Europeans have proved to the world that they would rather kiss Uncle Sam's behind, no matter how smelly it is, than to stand up to that big. bad. fucking. bully.
The United States is itself already pretty much fucked up, but in this caset, Europe, thanks to the "European Parliament", has become even more fucked up than the US
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
"Aggressive US lobbyists" should be told the STFU or simply shot.
Free trade with the US is "we will ignore any obligations, and we will cram our laws down your throat."
We would, but we are busy turning in all our guns and restricting free speech -- so we could be more "enlightened" like the UK, Australia, etc.
How about YOU do that.
You could always try it over there in the States first. All we need to look out for is evidence of endocrine-related illnesses such as IQ loss and obesity among the citizens of the USA, and if we don't see such evidence, we'll know it is safe!
Correlation != causation
We in the US are obese; have more people in prison; suffer from large amounts of rare allergies... etc.
But there is no *proof*
Let's see...the two articles are Ars Technica (US-owned, UK edition) and The Guardian (UK-owned, US edition). I think that's a fair span of opinions!
This isn't news. Money and power drive our govt. You need only look at the current administration, senate and house of representatives.
You don't think the infamous Clinton cash scandal is an isolated and rare organized criminal incident, do you?!?
lolz
Conservative economists (when they testify for the chemical industry) believe that the free market is perfectly efficient, so if they can make money doing something, it must be good.
It's hard to believe that this is true, but it appears in so many industries in many variations. e.g. if (name some pop music artist) music is popular, it must be good.
Well ,there is no proof, but we have faith! All you need is faith! And a low IQ. It's actually very hard to prove anything, because americans are poisoning themselves in so many different ways.
In response to the prediction that EU consumer and environmental protection would suffer because of TTIP, officials promised this would not happen. Of course without any argumentation or backing, and now we see the result. TTIP is already having an effect and it will get much worse when the agreement is enforced.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Smile! You're on politics.slashdot.org!
gotta do something to keep idle trade negotiators off the streets.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Don't let us keep you here then. Off you go.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
So don't drink it already. Just because it was used on a crop doesn't mean it on the crop at harvest time. Oh and what is replacing it? One of those "organic" pesticides? Cus i will tell you for free they are *not* less toxic in any way. Oh that is right you probably believe you can have crops without herbicide or pesticide.... Go farm 10 arces and get back to me on how well that went.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
As a US citizen residing in the US, I agree. It's time other countries told the US to fuck off.
Our government is way out of control, and has been for some time.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I don't think that's the point. The EU should be free to ban particular pesticides if they see it as not worth the risk without the heavy-handedness of the US changing their minds.
[quote]after a U.S. business delegation said they would adversely affect trade negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.[/quote]
Good. The citizens of the EU don't want that piece of shit anyway.
Same goes with the citizens of the Pacific nations and the TPP.
If you're a lobbyist/delegate/person who writes these bills that are only in favour of US interests/etc: kill yourself. Immediately. Preferably with a gun - after all, you love that second amendment.
Damn the trade negotiations, they favour big U.S. Big business in that they will be able to sue the EU governments every time they don't like any decision the we in Europe decide. Hence I am very against it as it will give US corporations to sue and then EU taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. As for not banning these pesticides, shame on the Eurocrats!
A Brit, who is sick of the 'special relationship'
Oh. You mean like the U.S. government and the Thirteen Colonies!
the TTP is something we as citizens of the US are looking at closely, aparently the TPP is going to be
infringing on our constitutional rights and we are aware that the TPP cannot succeed period!
Its the NWO in disguise and should not be tolerated by any country!!!! Whoever supports
the TPP should be given the finger!!! Expect to fight it in any way possible!!
The NWO can go take a flying leap off a tall building!!!!
Here we go again.
The bullies are back, they are not guilty again or will ever be.
You have to buy this medicine, it only kills 30% of your population.
You do know this is just a show & pony act.
This production is just for news, they say we had no choice.
They left us no choice it will cost the economy billions in trade.
So we have to poison the soil and the food just to please the US trade.
Are you really going to say or do nothing, more them likely your governments will not.
So to the farmers and consumers just say no, I am organic.
I will live longer this way, you can drink your poison.
THIS IS REALLY GOING TO GO WELL at the next elections with the already infuriated masses of Europeans that have seen their livelihood quality of life COLLAPSE since the demented, pork barrel laced and CORRUPT EUROPEAN "ONION" has consumed quality of life every where - not to speak about that metastasis of Euro....
They were absolutely free to ignore the US's requests, but it would have harmed trade. Apparently the EU wants the trade more than they want to ban those specific pesticides. As someone in biomedical research, damn near anything can be linked to cancer if you do shitty experiments, which a lot of the pesticide studies are. At this point, we don't really know whether the EU was right in trying to ban them or not. We don't know if it's "toxic crap" or whether it will be detrimental to the local industry and environment.
Moreover, the US isn't the only country that does this. Every country tries to look out for its interests, especially when negotiating trade agreements. And I think it'd be very interesting to tell the country with the world's largest economy (yeah, the EU as a whole is larger, but it's a lot more countries and it doesn't really make sense to treat it as a single economy) to "go fuck itself".