No ban on controversial toxic agriculture chemicals

[webfact]

No ban on controversial toxic agriculture chemicals

By PRATCH RUJIVANAROM 
THE NATION

 

 

Committee allows use of paraquat, two others, but plans tighter regulations
 

THE USE OF CONTROVERSIAL agricultural chemicals like paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed, but with tighter regulations and controls.

 

Industry Ministry deputy permanent secretary Somboon Yindeeyoungyuen, as chairman of the Hazardous Substance Committee that made the decision yesterday, said the three main agro-chemicals will not be banned despite demands from various quarters, but the Agriculture Department will have to come up with control regulations within two months.

 

Somboon said 18 out of the committee’s 24 members approved the continued use of herbicides paraquat and glyphosate, and pesticide chlorpyrifos, but with more restrictions and safety regulations.

 

The committee members decided not to ban the three farm chemicals, as their impacts on health were still debatable and the arguments were not strong enough to warrant a ban. He also said the alternatives to these three chemicals were not effective.

 

“The Agriculture Department will have to draft measures to control the use of paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos and place it before the Hazardous Substance Committee within the next two months,” he said.

 

“After the committee approves these control measures, they will be announced and enforced nationwide. The Agriculture Department will be the regulatory agency and have the responsibility of controlling the import, distribution and management of these chemicals.”

 

He revealed that the criteria for the restrictions would be on where these chemicals could be used, the amount of import and distribution, the amount of use and management, and the qualifications of the users.

 

“The restrictions are intended to promote safe use of these chemicals, as it was clear that many people were harmed by these farm chemicals because of improper and careless use,” he said. Even though paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos have not been banned, Somboon pointed out that the committee had also ordered the Agriculture Department to gather evidence of their impact on people’s health. If the evidence shows these chemicals to be really harmful, the committee can decide to ban them in the future.

 

 

Jiraporn Limpananon, a committee member from a consumer protection agency, revealed that despite her reminder that according to the law, committee members with conflict of interest on this issue have no right to vote, there was no reaction from the meeting and none of the committee members abstained.

 

“I presented scientific proof of the clear health threats from these chemicals to the meeting, which came from studies by 14 leading academic institutes of the country. I suggested that we ban these chemicals within two years, but as I am a minority in the committee I can only present one side of the information,” Jiraporn said.

 

Manas Puttirat, head of the Oil Palm Farmer Union, said he was pleased by the committee’s decision not to ban paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos, as the farmers were very dependent on these chemicals.

 

However, Manas expressed concern about the control measures, as the extent of the restrictions was not clear. “We are ready to comply with the new regulations on the use of chemicals, if the terms of these regulations are acceptable and do not cause too much burden to the farmers,” he said.

 

Meanwhile, 369 organisations released a statement denouncing the Hazardous Substance Committee’s decision and threatened to demonstrate in front of Government House and boycott companies linked to these agro-chemicals. The statement said that the public sector was disappointed by the decision, despite clear scientific evidence of health threats from these chemicals.

 

They highlighted that some of the committee members have connections with the chemical companies, so their vote could be seen as a conflict of interest and violating the law.

 

“This conclusion reflected the improper structure of the Hazardous Substance Committee, as the committee is used to protect the interests of the agro-chemicals companies instead of the general public,” Prokchon Usap, coordinator of Thailand Pesticide Alert Network, said. “We do not believe the Agriculture Department can really restrict the use of these harmful chemicals and we would like to urge the prime minister to order a review of this biased conclusion.”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30346142

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-24

[jaltsc]

"...the Agriculture Department will have to come up with control regulations within two months."

And everything will remain as it is now. "Please don't do it" is not enough..  As with just about every other regulation in Thailand, no entity will be created to enforce those regulations. Nothing changes if nothing changes.

Edited May 23, 2018 by jaltsc

[ezzra]

So they will trust the farmers not to over use these poisons right? as if the farmers will care when it comes to choose between people health and his survival and the yield of his farm products... at the end Thailand will have to live with the consequences of this folly...

[mok199]

Thailand .. ''saving face in more important than saving lives''...

[Rally123]

Unbelievable. Hang on, this is Ting Tong land. Change what I said. It is 'believable'. 

[YetAnother]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

The committee members decided not to ban the three farm chemicals, as their impacts on health were still debatable and the arguments were not strong enough to warrant a ban. He also said the alternatives to these three chemicals were not effective.

sure poisons are effective; so is the atomic bomb; doesn't mean you Have to use them; in this case, thailand again demonstrates its backwardness; other , actually civilized countries, many, have banned these chemicals, particularly paraquat

[kannot]

10 minutes ago, YetAnother said:

sure poisons are effective; so is the atomic bomb; doesn't mean you Have to use them; in this case, thailand again demonstrates its backwardness; other , actually civilized countries, many, have banned these chemicals, particularly paraquat

From a perspective of someone who has to take care of 16 rai of  land I dont want paraquat banned. We used to weed  by hand for over 5 years no chemicals, staff were easy to find, but now staff are very hard to find and in general lazy, they do not  want to weed by hand, its leaves us  no alternative, no one will do the  work. Spraying is the only way staff will weed.

[Eligius]

Depend on the junta to protect human health and life -  NOT!

[Cadbury]

This decision was was always going to be. Large toxic chemical manufacturers with connections in the right places and having the support of paid doctors lying through their teeth were always going to win the day. It is all about money and nothing to do with health. 

The health situation with the dodgy cosmetic manufacturers is no different except they don't have the same big end of town money connections and the support of bent politicians and government officials. So screw them and those who promote their products.

[Dibbler]

"Manas Puttirat, head of the Oil Palm Farmer Union, said he was pleased by the committee’s decision not to ban paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos, as the farmers were very dependent on these chemicals"

 

The power of large multinational corporations in banana republics like Thailand.  Time to start selectively buying only non-Thai produce from the supermarket, no interest in public safety in this country.  

[ChrisY1]

I wonder if the chemical companies may have done a little "lobbying".

[Eligius]

Let's pour a nice healthy dose of paraquat and glyphosate on the junta's morning cornflakes (seeing as the junta are so keen on the stuff).

 

Serving up such a breakfast to our marvellous, caring leaders would 'return joy and happiness' to a great many people in this land!

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Eligius

[Lungstib]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

but with more restrictions and safety regulations

Am I now to believe that someone will be standing by in the hundreds of local shops selling these products and advising the buyer on how much to use and how often? Will then now add a minute label in very small print, the style of the one on alcoholic drinks, that suggests the user needs to act responsibly? 

55 minutes ago, kannot said:

they do not  want to weed by hand, its leaves us  no alternative, no one will do the  work. Spraying is the only way staff will weed.

And this I fully understand being in a similar position. Surely a safer, better alternative is the answer but if you walk into any local shop the 3 mentioned here are the common and popular brands and there are no other choices. It's easy to talk about "going organic" but if its hard to find and more expensive it wont happen. People sitting in the big city may not realize the reality of weed growth here but when a patch of garden takes only 5 weeks to go from hoed clear to 6 inch deep weeds its obvious that manual clearance is not financially possible. With agricultural products having such low prices growers are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

[Dibbler]

1 hour ago, kannot said:

From a perspective of someone who has to take care of 16 rai of  land I dont want paraquat banned. We used to weed  by hand for over 5 years no chemicals, staff were easy to find, but now staff are very hard to find and in general lazy, they do not  want to weed by hand, its leaves us  no alternative, no one will do the  work. Spraying is the only way staff will weed.

It's called organic farming and hey-hey there is a market for products produced with NO NOXIOUS CHEMICALS that have been banned in most civilized countries.  Thai farmers can join the movement to help make products grown without CANCER CAUSING AGENTS available to consumers.  You might even charge more for your produce so you can afford the extra labor costs to find staff who are not lazy and ensure your land is manually weeded and not poisoned by using the chemicals currently used (which are by the way are poisoning those lazy people in your employ).

[Borzandy]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

THE USE OF CONTROVERSIAL agricultural chemicals like paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed

How thick was the brown envelope?

[bluesofa]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

THE USE OF CONTROVERSIAL agricultural chemicals like paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed, but with tighter regulations and controls.

See the post below from a previous topic on this subject last month.

Knowing how the junta closely follow the law, I wonder what the plan will be to try and skirt this issue. Or maybe they haven't read these details yet?

 

On 4/27/2018 at 5:45 AM, Ron19 said:

Interesting reading  in here.

http://www.cnchemicals.com/Press/90113-Thailand’s proposed ban on paraquat and chlorpyrifos affects China .html

Thanks for posting the link. I notice it says:

"The currently existing licenses of the two pesticides will run out in 2019 and cannot be renewed again. As a result, from 2019 onwards, paraquat and chlorpyrifos will be prohibited to use in Thailand."

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by bluesofa
misprit

[robertthesculptor]

Thailand Chooses Genetic Death and Poisening

HiSos get Ritch along with corporate thugs.

Another normal day

 

[trainman34014]

Most other countries on the Planet banned all this crap years ago but so many criminals here in high positions will keep taking the money as long as possible as they are morally bankrupt.

[AhFarangJa]

1 hour ago, Borzandy said:

How thick was the brown envelope?

Probably several of these at a guess.................

[worgeordie]

So they are going to put an inspector on every farm,to

check when the farmer mixes the chemicals,then that

he uses it properly,nothing is going to change,and the

powers that be ,know this,Monsanto will be very grateful too.

regards worgeordie

[Muhendis]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

The committee members decided not to ban the three farm chemicals, as their impacts on health were still debatable and the arguments were not strong enough to warrant a ban.

Paraquat is used for many successful suicides. I would say that makes it impact on people's health.

 

5 hours ago, webfact said:

He also said the alternatives to these three chemicals were not effective.

Manually digging up weeds is very effective and if there is a staff shortage then there are machines available which are very effective and can be used by just one person.

[Krataiboy]

Any suggestion that this is a timely sop to the country's 13 million farmers in the run-up to the General Election is, of course, totally without foundation.

[hotchilli]

Surprise surprse!!!!

[colinneil]

What Somboon thought but didnt say was, why would we ban chemicals and bugger up our nice little earner.

[natway09]

Gotta maintain our rice production at ALL costs.

I thought Mr P may have taken a more sensible approach rather than ignoring the peoples health

Need more Burmese people to do the spraying

[ratcatcher]

6 hours ago, Dibbler said:

Time to start selectively buying only non-Thai produce from the supermarket, no interest in public safety in this country.  

Right, Chinese produce is so much cleaner and safer.

[Lupatria]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

No ban on controversial toxic agriculture chemicals

You got to check this out: Cancer-Linked Weedkiller Found in Every Food Tested Except Broccoli

 

http://theantimedia.com/weedkiller-every-food-tested-except-broccoli/?utm_source=The+Anti-Media+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f8531096ba-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_177e8c8195-f8531096ba-25222945

[Dibbler]

Right, Chinese produce is so much cleaner and safer.

Apparently the US is not much safer!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Dibbler]

You got to check this out: Cancer-Linked Weedkiller Found in Every Food Tested Except Broccoli
 
http://theantimedia.com/weedkiller-every-food-tested-except-broccoli/?utm_source=The+Anti-Media+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f8531096ba-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_177e8c8195-f8531096ba-25222945

The only difference appears to be that the Thai government acknowledges these chemicals are being used yet refutes the risk to public health and chooses NOT to ban them, whereas in the US the government refuses to acknowledge they are being used, so they aren't forced to ban them!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Nowisee]

Next best career in Thailand?  Oncologist.