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.
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.
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.
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.
A bit depressing knowing that i can barely do anything to stop such thing
You can always vote them out.
Oh, wait...
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
"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.
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.
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, 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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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 ... there must be some EU side payola. EU Greens, you are slacking off.
lol :-)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.