The future is unhealthy: selling environmental protection

13:22:55

Well the US has banned glyphosate but EU still allows it. We will make our own decisions.

[thumbs up emoji]

Are you sure the EU still allows it? It has been removed from all shops in France since January to comply with EU regulations.

I have just found this headline Greens save glyphosate from EU ban. www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/greens-save-glyphosate-from-eu-ban-calls-as-epp-deal-triumphs/

Why did they do this? all part of playing political games with other parties in the EU parliament. I thought the Greens thought themselves too noble and pure to messing about with political infighting, especially where environmental issues were in hand. Oh, well another illusion shattered the Greens are no better than any other mainstream party, grovelling in the mud if it is to their political advantage.

With all due respect, of course some on here have grandchildren who support the ER movement, but then we were all somewhat foolish and misguided in our youth, weren't we?

It's just the latest 'thing' for the young to latch onto, that's all.

But not this stupid.

Please be factual with your posts

The US has not banned Glyphosate the current court cases are about wether the safety instructions were adequate

Farmers did not die from cancer due to sheep dip, organophosphorous dips did cause nerve damage to users who had gross contamination

DDT allowed many parts of the world to be malaria free and benefited crop yields to be improved greatly, reducing malnutrition

Having done their job many are now being phased out but they all benefited mankind far more than any damage done.

Have a look in your kitchen cupboard and see how many harmful chemicals you have - start with “Salt”, you have many that if misused could harm or kill you right under your nose.

* JenniferEccles *, further to your slightly pompous and slightly unpleasant post, can you please explain how people being concerned about the future welfare of our one and only planet, is being "foolish and misguided"?

Thank you.

Jennifereccles what a warped sense you have of caring young people and the future of this planet. Yes we did protest in our younger days and we stopped things ie nuclear proliferation.

Hicaz46 Did you? I wasn't aware of any reduction in nuclear profusion. You didn't stop Iran, Israel, North Korea, India or Pakistan developing nuclear research programs. I believe other countries started on them as well, but gave up because they couldn't afford it.

I remain totally unconvinced that protests achieve anything, unless those in charge have already decided for other reasons that they should follow whatever policy the protesters just happen to be protesting about.

The biggest rally, yet, in the UK was. I think that against the Iraq war, did it work? No.

What do you suggest then Monica? Should we sit back and let the powers that be/big business have it all their own way.

ER have already got governments talking and making plans.

Greenham Common did a lot to call the world's attention to the horrors of nuclear.

People can only try. And God help us if they ever stop trying.

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201906/medium-964432-screen-shot-2019-05-24-at-18-29-29.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201906/medium-180149-screen-shot-2019-05-24-at-18-29-01.png

Apropos of the suggestion this is "fake" news:
The Guardian reported the news.
Dr Emily Lydgate is not a Student at the University these are her credentials:
Post:Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law (Law
Research expertise:
agriculture and conservation, biodiversity and climate change regulation, Economic integration, Environmental policy, Renewable Energy, Trade liberalization

The Guardian simply reports:
" analysis by the University of Sussex’s UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) has uncovered significant departures from EU regulations, including the removal of a blanket ban on hormone-disrupting chemicals, which are known to cause adverse health effects such as cancer, birth defects and immune disorders."

This is enough to alert me to the need for vigilance concerning the Brexit regulations and Agriculture. The idea that it is fake news is not correct, I think and we should all be careful about so easily brushing aside items of news that are significant. These changes to EU rules concerns those prohibiting pesticides containing Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), which the World Health Organisation has linked to altered reproductive function and neurodevelopmental delays in children, among other effects.

When people voted to leave they had no idea about the vast number of laws protecting us that we would have to either write again or re-adopt as our own once no longer under the protection of the EU. The danger is of some of these laws being altered without the public realising so that without knowing it, differences could affect our daily lives, with deleterious effects that previously under EU law we had been safeguarded against.

The OP has done us a service in drawing our attention to this important news. With the election of new leader of the Conservative Party in the news today, this news will be brushed aside by the BBC.

OHHHH! Bring on my eye operation! I tried to give you the picture of the Guardian!! Sorry! Anyway I hope it gave you a laugh!

As I couldn't see the Guardian picture on my screen to send you I'm sending a condensed bit of the report here for those who'd like to read it:

"UK accused of ‘silently eroding’ EU pesticide rules in Brexit laws – The Guardian
adminJune 12, 2019
The UK has been accused of “silently eroding” key environmental and human health protections in the Brexit-inspired rush to convert thousands of pages of European Union pesticide policy into British law.

Despite government claims the process would be little more than a technical exercise, analysis by the University of Sussex’s UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO) has uncovered significant departures from EU regulations, including the removal of a blanket ban on hormone-disrupting chemicals, which are known to cause adverse health effects such as cancer, birth defects and immune disorders.

The UK legislation removes the EU system of checks and balances to give a handful of ministers the power to create, amend and revoke pesticide legislation. It also appears to weaken the existing “precautionary principle” approach, which requires scientific evidence from an independent body that a pesticide is safe to use. Instead, UK ministers are given the option to obtain and consider such evidence at their own discretion.

The changes could lead to the widespread use in the UK of harmful and carcinogenic pesticides, the researchers warn. But because the laws are being drawn up so quickly and at such a high volume, there has been little scrutiny of the process, said Emily Lydgate, a UKTPO fellow and senior lecturer at the university.

“The creation of over 10,000 pages of new legislation, which effectively convert EU law into UK rulebooks, is one of the most intensive and significant efforts that the government has made to prepare for Brexit,” she said.

“You’d normally think this would be so significant that it would justify primary legislation but because it’s a conversion, it’s undergone a very minimal parliamentary process.”

The EU provides up to 80% of the UK’s environmental laws, which include regulations on pesticides, landfills, recycling and climate heating. Under the new regulations, however, power to make, amend and revoke pesticide legislation will be devolved to each of the national territories and consolidated to a secretary of state in England, relevant ministers in Scotland and Wales, and the competent authority in Northern Ireland.

Ffion Thomas, a master’s student from the sustainability charity the Centre for Alternative Technology who was involved in the analysis, said the devolution of power could spell disaster for trade within the UK.

“Each territory could set their own regulations on pesticides, so after exit day you could find that chemicals are approved [in one territory but not others] that have been proven harmful to human and animal health and the environment,” said Thomas.

Hormone-disrupting chemicals are permitted for use in Canada and the US, and both countries have criticised the EU ban. Whether the UK government’s decision to remove the ban was an invitation to open trade talks with North America was as yet unclear, said Lydgate. “But the US and Canada have complained about [the ban] for a long time and it would certainly be on the table in a trade deal,” she added.

Josie Cohen, the head of policy and campaigns at the Pesticide Action Network UK charity, warned the overall legislative changes could give ministers the power to open the door to further pesticide deregulation and potentially make them vulnerable to lobbying.

“Despite the government commitment to uphold UK standards, these legal instruments threaten to eliminate crucial checks and balances and leave us woefully under-resourced to protect human health and environment from pesticides,” she said.

“Before EU exit, the government must invest in creating a UK standalone regime which is fit for purpose. Otherwise we will end up with larger quantities of increasingly harmful chemicals being allowed in our food and farms.”

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We will maintain the robust regulation of pesticides as we leave the EU, prioritising the protection of people and the environment. As always, we will continue to make all decisions on pesticides based on the best scientific evidence, following advice from the independent expert committee on pesticides.”

UK accused of ‘silently eroding’ EU pesticide rules in Brexit laws – The Guardian

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201906/medium-866543-screen-shot-2019-06-12-at-19-47-00.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201906/medium-61429-screen-shot-2019-06-12-at-19-47-26.png

I have so many bits of me crossed that my arthritis is either being cured or has burst!
I'm trying to put pictures here again!!! Brave? Stupid

I believe the cladding on Grenfell Towers met EU regulations. I rest my case.

JenniferEccles
Maybe you could give us some reasons why, the people you call the
"idiotic Extinction Rebellion shower" are not worth listening to on any matter, even if it be something they have spent years studying or are well qualified and knowledgable in?

MOnica I am with you in not thinking marches, protests etc do not seem to have any effect. I would say though that people need to know they can go out and make themselves heard/seen if there be a problem so great they can't sit still and write about it any more. I am glad we can march and protest here in the UK. I don't go because, I suppose, I am a bit scared of crowds. Being disabled in a wheelchair doesn't help. But I do write letters and emails. I do think, for example, the feelings of the Greenham Common women were made clear and many people were moved by their strength of feeling. I would hate to see people stop trying to make their views and feelings known in a peaceful way. Even if I disagree with their purpose, I still respect that they are trying to make people think.

No one is suggesting anyone sit back and do nothing. But I think actively working with organisations seeking change, working within the political structure. The reason that political parties are so divorced from the electorate is because they have so few members, because people do not join parties - or form new ones.

The other thing people can do is live what they state they want. The major change in attitudes to single use plastics has been personal responses to a programme seen on tv. Not people demonstrating but people saying 'I will not use plastics, I will find ways of avoiding using them, of challenging supermarkets.

The problem with Extinction Rebellion is that they made ridiculous demands - Emission free by 2025 with no clear plans about how this could be achieved. If you are going to make demands of that kind, you need to have very carefully thought through plans about how this can be fulfilled. These plans must be realistic and not depend on ideas like: No private car ownership, everyone must use public transport, 80 per cent of the population should cycle or walk to work because that is unlikely to ever be feasible, let alone in 6 years.

There may be some in ER who do really understand the problems and have carefully well thought plans, but if they exist they are keeping very quiet.

quizqueen. That is so ridiculous! It was a horrific matter that such dangerous cladding was considered passable by any standards. Does it mean that every other safety decision or rule is now null and void because such a terrible thing was "passed" and there was a dreadful tragedy? How small-minded! To throw out every safety measure, any precaution because of one horrific failure is so utterly stupid, I really don't feel like explaining it!
The rules here would not even be tested or recommended by the same scientists.
I suppose you know better than the World Health Organisation which linked pesticides containing Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs), to altered reproductive function and neurodevelopmental delays in children, among other effects? A vast number of Doctors and Scientists looked at the research into this, would you disregard their advice and allow these chemicals to be used now, because the EU were wrong about the cladding?

M0nica Aww Monica! I know you can explain the Extinction Rebellion people's problems!! I wanted to get JenniferEccles to do so! She just dashes off extreme remarks against people - the people in the research in this case - without any explanation. You are the opposite! I agree with you as it happens - I cannot see Ext. Reb. getting anywhere and they have made themselves rather too eccentric! It was Jen.Ecc"s rationale for not listening to the people who were partly behind the research that is the subject of the OP that I wanted to hear!
I hope I didn't give the impression I thought you were saying there is no point in going out and marching etc. You just gave me a nudge into thinking about it and the fact that although I haven't been on a march, I have written a lot of letters and I do think about things a lot!

Jen.Ecc"sonale??? What was that? It was ^meant to say:
"Jen. Eccles' rationale for not listening..."

Hasn't there been a legal case in the USA very recently whereby a garden chemical was judged to be the cause of cancer in two people, think ut was Roundup. Same chemical here, no talk in the EU of it being cancinogenic. Perhaps the EU isn't all knowing.

Had no WiFi all day - obviously the wrong kind of rain. quizqueen, it is not correct to say that the cladding in Grenfell met EU regulations. First, according to testimonial at the inquiry, combustible materials were added to the cladding that weren’t in the design: “styrofoam core panels were installed between the new windows and around kitchen vents; ethylene propylene diene terpolymer was used around the new window frames; and polyurethane expanding foam was used to fill joints in the insulation and in gaps between new windows and walls – all combustible materials.” And second, fire safety rules and building material standards are a matter for national regulators and not the EU. The EU's only role is to make sure that materials which meet those national standards are not excluded from national markets in a discriminatory way just because they are made elsewhere in Europe. That is, so that people who make materials in France, say, or Germany, have access to markets elsewhere in Europe, just as people who make those materials in the Britain can’t be prevented from exporting materials that meet German or French national standards can’t be prevented from selling in those countries. So your case rests on misinformation, I’m afraid. It’s up to Britain to make sure that buildings in Britain meet the standards set by the British.