Germany swings EU vote in favour of weed-killer glyphosate

[webfact]

Germany swings EU vote in favour of weed-killer glyphosate

By Philip Blenkinsop

 

Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller atomizers are displayed for sale at a garden shop near Brussels, Belgium November 27, 2017. REUTERS/Yves Herman

 

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Germany defeated its key EU ally France in a very tight vote on Monday to clear the use of weed-killer glyphosate for the next five years after a heated debate over whether it causes cancer.

 

After months of indecisive votes among the 28 member states in Brussels, Germany, whose Chancellor Angela Merkel has yet to form a new coalition after a September election, came off the fence after abstaining in previous meetings. It said it backed a European Commission proposal against the wishes of France.

 

The Commission, the European Union's executive, said in a statement that 18 countries had backed its proposal to renew the chemical's licence. Nine countries were against and one abstained, giving a "positive opinion" by the narrowest possible margin under rules requiring more than a simple majority.

 

The extension was opposed by Germany's centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), with which Merkel is expected to launch exploratory talks this week on renewing their "grand coalition" after plans for an alliance with two other parties failed.

 

French President Emmanuel Macron, who was elected in May on a platform of pursuing deeper EU integration alongside Germany, had wanted a shorter extension and a rapid phasing out of glyphosate, which is a mainstay of farming across the continent.

 

After the vote, he said he would take all necessary measures to ban the product, originally developed by Monsanto <MON.N>, as soon as an alternative is available and at the latest within three years. Monsanto declined to comment.

 

Europe has been wrestling for the past two years over what to do with the chemical, a key ingredient in Monsanto's top-selling Roundup, whose licence was set to expire on Dec. 15.

 

The chemical has been used by farmers for more than 40 years, but its safety was cast into doubt when a World Health Organization agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), concluded in 2015 it probably causes cancer.

 

The European Union agreed to roll over the licence for 18 months pending the results of a study by the European Chemicals Agency, which said in March this year that there was no evidence linking glyphosate to cancer in humans.

 

Protest groups, however, seized on the IARC report, questioned the science in other studies and complained about the influence of big business.

 

"The people who are supposed to protect us from dangerous pesticides have failed to do their jobs and betrayed the trust Europeans place in them," Greenpeace said after Monday's vote.

 

In theory, the Commission could have pushed through a licence extension, but it said it wanted governments to make the call on an issue that has become so politically charged. After a series of indecisive votes, they finally produced a clear majority in favour of the Commission's proposal.

 

"Today's vote shows that when we all want to, we are able to share and accept our collective responsibility in decision making," said health and food safety commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis.

 

Farmers association Copa-Cogeca said it was glad a decision had been taken, but regretted the licence renewal had not been for 15 years given strong scientific evidence from EU agencies.

 

The key swing vote came from Germany, whose government is operating in an acting capacity following the indecisive election. Berlin abstained earlier, but threw its weight behind a decision opposed by France.

 

Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, all did likewise, leaving only Portugal still on the fence on Monday. Had any of the others continued to abstain, deadlock would have gone on. An extension required 16 states representing 65 percent of the EU population to vote in favour. The 18 supporters account for 65.7 percent.

 

The German vote exposed internal divisions in Berlin ahead of this week's coalition talks. Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks, an SPD lawmaker, accused the chancellor's centre-right group of reneging on a deal to continue abstaining.

 

French Agriculture Minister Stephane Travert told reporters that Paris would push to change farming practices that embraced alternatives to glyphosate, so that its use could be ended.

 

(Additional reporting by Peter Maushagen in Brussels, Sybille de La Hamaide in Paris and Thorsten Severin and Andreas Rinke in Berlin; Editing by Alastair Macdonald and Catherine Evans)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-28

[jenny2017]

Weed killer? Time to wake up and face the real problems !!

[anon537687643]

When it comes to the EU , Deutschland does whatever benefits Deutschland first! Just as it’s getting pissed over UK Leaving EU and a massive hole in the budget it will have to help fill!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

[attrayant]

34 minutes ago, jenny2017 said:

Weed killer? Time to wake up and face the real problems !!

 

This could have been a huge problem.  Glyphosate is one of the safest and most benign pesticides ever made.  It's less acutely toxic than caffeine. Banning it would force farmers to return to the days of using toxic chemicals and other sludge on their crops.

 

As for the IARC fiasco, those interested should read Greed, Lies and Glyphosate: The Portieaper Papers.  In a nutshell:  A scientist, Christopher Portier, worked as a special advisor for the IARC on its Glyphosate monograph.  Later, he confessed in a court deposition that he had never worked on, nor had any experience with glyphosate.  If that weren't bad enough, during the same week that IARC had published its opinion on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, Portier signed a lucrative contract to be a litigation consultant for two law firms preparing to sue a Glyphosate manufacturer on behalf of victims who claim to have suffered from Glyphosate-induced cancer.  This contract a contained a confidentiality clause restricting Portier from declaring his employment.  Portier also declared no conflicts of interest in the IARC monograph, going so far as to say that he had not been paid a cent for work he’s done on glyphosate.  In other words, the contract required him to lie.

 

IARC Director Chris Wild has since resigned.

[Topdoc]

Dr. Mercola: Glyphosate in Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Is Toxic

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/03/22/monsanto-glyphosate.aspx

 

 

[attrayant]

Mercola is a frequent feature of tabloid journals and is a late-night infomercial supplement huckster. He's an anti-vaccination nut and medical conspiracy theorist.  From his webshop: "Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government".  The claims made on his webshop are vague and largely uncited, or cite organizations like Moms Across America, that have done their own private studies and refuse to release their data.

 

90% of that page isn't devoted to toxicity.  It's just scare-mongering about how Glyphosate is "everywhere".  Some of the specific claims he makes have since been debunked, such as the systemic toxicity claim.  If that's not enough, every major scientific body in the world has come to the opposite conclusion.

 

If we're really going to do this, cite some actual scientific research (or at least quote a source that cites actual scientific research).

[GanDoonToonPet]

The AIRC is one of the most pointless UN organisations & is also dangerous as it feeds the media with ammunition for health-scare stories. They don't account for dosage or exposure so almost everything can cause cancer in high enough doses. Of the over 1000 substances they studied, only one was found to be 'probably not carcinogenic'.

 

Let's have a look at their classification system:

 

Group 1: Carcinogenic to Humans

 

Arsenic

Asbestos

Benzine

Ethanol (in alcoholic beverages)

Formaldehyde

Hepatitis B & C

HIV Type 1

Mustard Gas

Neutron Radiation

Plutonium

Radium

Talc

 

Ionizing Radiation

UV Radiation

X-rays

Gamma Rays

 

Paints

Processed Meats

Salted Fish (Chinese)

Soot

Wood Dust

 

Tobacco Smoke

Tanning Beds

 

Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans

 

Anabolic Steroids

Glyphosate

Malaria

 

Bitumen

Creosote

High Temperature Frying (emissions)

Red Meat

Hot Beverages (tea, coffee)

 

Hairdresser (occupational exposure)

Shift Work (circadian disruption)

 

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/List_of_Classifications.pdf

 

So if you're worried about trace amounts of Glyphosate, you should be very scared of eating hot dogs or baked beans especially when washed down with a cup of tea...

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by GanDoonToonPet

[marke985]

Full disclosure - I believe round up is one of the greatest inventions in the last 200 years.  It has made a major dent in global hunger.

 

What I find humerus is all the previous talks with Europeans over GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides over the years and how they are so convinced they will all kill you.

 

But now, Bayer, a German company acquires/buys Monsanto earlier this year and it looks like the tone is already starting to change. 

 

 

[attrayant]

The IARC does hazard assessments, not risk assessments.  But people don't understand the difference and hear only "BACON CAUSES CANCER!" on the nightly news.  The media shares a lot of the blame for terrible science reporting too.

 

What's the difference between hazard and risk?

[retarius]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

The IARC does hazard assessments, not risk assessments.  But people don't understand the difference and hear only "BACON CAUSES CANCER!" on the nightly news.  The media shares a lot of the blame for terrible science reporting too.

 

What's the difference between hazard and risk?

I don't disagree with this but some of your posts sound like you work maybe for Monsanto or maybe own their stock.

[attrayant]

I'm not, but even if I were, why would that matter?  If a pilot tells you how safe air travel is, would you eye him suspiciously and suggest in an offhanded way that it sounds like he works for an airline, or maybe owns some airline stock?  I hope you can see how silly that sounds.

 

You're toying with the shill gambit, which is the idea that a person can't have a contrary opinion about something unless they're paid to have such an opinion.  The shill gambit is also a form of personal attack, so it's an unbecoming tactic for an honest debater to use.  I know you didn't use it that way, but I wanted to drop a caution flag here as these discussions often go in that direction sooner or later.

 

For the record, I'm an electrical engineer by education and trade, and have always been heavily into IT and science.  I've also been a teacher on and off for twenty-five years or so, usually in physics or chemistry.  Perhaps that's why you're sensing some unexpected passion in my posts. Activist science and scare-mongering raise my hackles.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by attrayant
typo

[Krataiboy]

Just another reason for Britain to leave the corporate/political oligarchy called the European Union.

[attrayant]

57 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Just another reason for Britain to leave the corporate/political oligarchy called the European Union.

 

Not sure I follow your reasoning.  British farmers are very much in favor of politicians leaving them alone and letting them do their jobs.  This decision maintains the status quo, leaving glyphosate in the farmer's toolbox and letting them make their own decisions.  Why do you see this as a reason to leave?

 

Weedkiller decision* adds to Brexit momentum for UK farmers

 

 

*Here, "decision" is a reference to the possible ban on Glyphosate, which people thought was likely at the time.

[EcigAmateur]

People selling this poison should be shot dead.

 

 

[johnnysunshine]

For you Glysophate lovers, please favor all of us by adding a heaping tablespoon, for your self and family, to your favorite food and report back to us on how harmless it is and how good it tastes.   If we never hear from you again, OMG, we will understand.    If it's that good, let's eat it raw!

[attrayant]

1 minute ago, johnnysunshine said:

For you Glysophate lovers, please favor all of us by adding a heaping tablespoon, for your self and family, to your favorite food and report back to us on how harmless it is and how good it tastes.   If we never hear from you again, OMG, we will understand.    If it's that good, let's eat it raw!

 

And here's some all-natural, organic fertilizer.  If it's that good to use in farming, I invite you to have a heaping plateful.

 

[dick dasterdly]

On 11/28/2017 at 2:17 PM, marke985 said:

Full disclosure - I believe round up is one of the greatest inventions in the last 200 years.  It has made a major dent in global hunger.

 

What I find humerus is all the previous talks with Europeans over GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides over the years and how they are so convinced they will all kill you.

 

But now, Bayer, a German company acquires/buys Monsanto earlier this year and it looks like the tone is already starting to change. 

 

 

"But now, Bayer, a German company acquires/buys Monsanto earlier this year and it looks like the tone is already starting to change."

 

If true, that is even more worrying!

[Krataiboy]

On 11/28/2017 at 6:48 PM, attrayant said:

 

Not sure I follow your reasoning.  British farmers are very much in favor of politicians leaving them alone and letting them do their jobs.  This decision maintains the status quo, leaving glyphosate in the farmer's toolbox and letting them make their own decisions.  Why do you see this as a reason to leave?

 

Weedkiller decision* adds to Brexit momentum for UK farmers

 

 

*Here, "decision" is a reference to the possible ban on Glyphosate, which people thought was likely at the time.

Because I don't trust any commercial enterprise to put the health and welfare of the public before profit. Nor should the EU, which is a one reason to give them the elbow. Then we must ensure the UK government gives domestic consumers the protection they deserve.

[attrayant]

To which commercial enterprise are you referring?

Edited November 29, 2017 by attrayant

[Krataiboy]

Just now, attrayant said:

To which commercial enterprise are you referring?

 

Just now, attrayant said:

To which commercial enterprise are you referring?

Farmers, unless you think they farm for fun.

[EcigAmateur]

15 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"But now, Bayer, a German company acquires/buys Monsanto earlier this year and it looks like the tone is already starting to change."

 

If true, that is even more worrying!

 

Yes, they bring you cancer and then sell you medicine to treat it...