Jump to content

Cassava farmers protest Paraquat ban


webfact

Recommended Posts

Cassava farmers protest Paraquat ban

By THE NATION

 

800_c8cd4454a0258a0.jpg?v=1571198768

 

The president of the cassava farmers group, Vashira Tanadaka and 60 farmers from Nakhon Ratchasima presented wreaths to Mananya Thaiset, the deputy minister who plans to ban Paraquat, Glyphosate and Chlorpyrifos at the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives yesterday, telling her that the banning of Paraquat is illogical although they agree with the bans on the other two chemicals.

 

Vashira asked the deputy minister to stop claiming that the chemical is dangerous to people and citing incorrect information from Non-Government Organisations (NGOs). He also stressed that the farmers need Paraquat because it doesn’t leak into the top soil and is safe for the roots of the cassava. 

 

The group noted that the ban and the dissemination of “incorrect” information would affect the prices of agricultural products and the standard of industrial manufacturing. Cassava processing meets the requirements of quality assurance systems including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP).

 

Meanwhile, the Office of Commodity Standards conducts regular checks of products and has not found traces of the chemical in cassava, indicating the processed product is uncontaminated and safe for human consumption. 

 

In addition, the ban on Paraquat would affect farming costs, along with the flour and chip industry and exports, Vashira said.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30377439

 

nation.jpg

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2019-10-16
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All three are highly toxic carcinogenic so get over it all of them need to be banned . These elder people don't understand what these chemicals can do the future generations .

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, keith101 said:

All three are highly toxic carcinogenic so get over it all of them need to be banned . These elder people don't understand what these chemicals can do the future generations .

"although they agree with the bans on the other two chemicals." 

 

They agree to ban what they don't use anyway! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, keith101 said:

All three are highly toxic carcinogenic so get over it all of them need to be banned . These elder people don't understand what these chemicals can do the future generations .

I guess you did not read the article......

.

He also stressed that the farmers need Paraquat because it doesn’t leak into the top soil and is safe for the roots of the cassava. ..

 

Maybe Paraquat is the best chemical to use on Cassava?

 

Supply a good replacement and the farmers will be happy...

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, keith101 said:

All three are highly toxic carcinogenic so get over it all of them need to be banned . These elder people don't understand what these chemicals can do the future generations .

Farming is complex and hard for a lot to understand.

Please do not generalize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say it doesn't get into roots, fine. Would there be problems with where this poison does go? Food chain, runoff, things like that? Anyone have info on what happens when it gets into environment in general?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Emdog said:

Let's say it doesn't get into roots, fine. Would there be problems with where this poison does go? Food chain, runoff, things like that? Anyone have info on what happens when it gets into environment in general?

plenty of  reports  available to  read main thing is easy to commit  suicide, didnt see any link to cancer and some slight  hint of parkinsons risk, debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat#Parkinson's_disease

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chazar said:

plenty of  reports  available to  read main thing is easy to commit  suicide, didnt see any link to cancer and some slight  hint of parkinsons risk, debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat#Parkinson's_disease

It attacks lung, kidney, potentially the skin and can be absorbed via the skin. Mostly dangerous to poorly protected farmer from what I understand. I never saw a Thai wearing protection. It is still debated whether it causes cancer or not (2 contradicting study). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Protest ok! Change, yeah, as long as they can produce facts that the substance is not dangerous.

This is just the ordinary general protest that has it´s fondation in: I´ve always used this, and I don´t have a clue how to do things if you forbid me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Protest ok! Change, yeah, as long as they can produce facts that the substance is not dangerous.

This is just the ordinary general protest that has it´s fondation in: I´ve always used this, and I don´t have a clue how to do things if you forbid me.

I don't think change is the problem itself.

It's deciding on who pays for the change.

Farmer,government or consumer.

Who do you think should pay for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, farmerjo said:

I don't think change is the problem itself.

It's deciding on who pays for the change.

Farmer,government or consumer.

Who do you think should pay for it?

Before I can answer that, you will have to tell me what any cost would be related to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Before I can answer that, you will have to tell me what any cost would be related to.

Well it would be all the associated costs of not using Paraquat in this particular case.

All different crops will have different associated costs depending on the chemical used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

I don't think change is the problem itself.

It's deciding on who pays for the change.

Farmer,government or consumer.

Who do you think should pay for it?

I already pay the highest price for the best quality products I can find. However, it seems that I am the exception. I'm pretty sure the farmers would gladly stop using chemicals if they were guarantee to sell their product at a premium. At the end, I think the consumer should pay the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, keith101 said:

All three are highly toxic carcinogenic so get over it all of them need to be banned . These elder people don't understand what these chemicals can do the future generations .

And just how did you determine that Glyphosate (Round Up) is highly toxic carcinogenic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, farmerjo said:

And how much cassava does the EU grow?

It's not only used to farm cassava.  There are other alternatives.  What on earth did they ever do before this chemical was invented?

5 minutes ago, Tayaout said:

I already pay the highest price for the best quality products I can find. However, it seems that I am the exception. I'm pretty sure the farmers would gladly stop using chemicals if they were guarantee to sell their product at a premium. At the end, I think the consumer should pay the bill.

Agree.  Don't use any chemicals (= save money).  

Then its organic (= sell at massive high prices to the vegan hippy people).

Maybe some of the plants die... but that does not matter as the surviving ones can be sold at a premium.. so will make the same profit anyway. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

It's not only used to farm cassava.  There are other alternatives.  What on earth did they ever do before this chemical was invented?

Agree.  Don't use any chemicals (= save money).  

Then its organic (= sell at massive high prices to the vegan hippy people).

Maybe some of the plants die... but that does not matter as the surviving ones can be sold at a premium.. so will make the same profit anyway. 

 

 

Sounds like a good business decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

I don't think change is the problem itself.

It's deciding on who pays for the change.

Farmer,government or consumer.

Who do you think should pay for it?

The market will decide who pays. I would say in the end it will be shared between consumer and farmer. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

Yes but i don't see the consumer paying upfront for the changes required.

That my friend is doing business.. farmers will have to pay before. Just remember its a business there are risks and this is one of them. Consumers will have to pay but farmers will have to shoulder burden first. 


Farmers are quite selfish, give me water for free for irrigation (government must provide farmers dont pay for it) and then when they pollute the environment they want to keep on doing it. Shame on the farmers for only thinking about their income not about the effects these chemicals have. I gladly pay extra for products not poisoned too much. Its here many times worse then in the EU so some change to a little less poison are good. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, webfact said:

The group noted that the ban and the dissemination of “incorrect” information would affect the prices of agricultural products and the standard of industrial manufacturing. Cassava processing meets the requirements of quality assurance systems including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP).

Is the head of the cassava farmers group by any chance making gazzillions of Baht flogging this stuff to the cassava farmers?

  I've sprayed a fair bit of molassas on cassava and I find that mostly it ends up blowing straight into my face which makes me acutely aware of what a dangerous occupation spraying any sort of poison.I also recently watched a video on the Punjab and the devastation these chemicals have caused by poisoning both the land and the ground water.

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

I've sprayed a fair bit of molassas on cassava and I find that mostly it ends up blowing straight into my face which makes me acutely aware of what a dangerous occupation spraying any sort of poison

You my friend should not go anywhere near a sprayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, keith101 said:

All three are highly toxic carcinogenic so get over it all of them need to be banned . These elder people don't understand what these chemicals can do the future generations .

As usual. Self, self, self, ignoring the known problems! Sh.t!! It's been banned in the UK and Europe etc for probably 40+ years !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, robblok said:

Consumers will have to pay but farmers will have to shoulder burden first. 

Why should they shoulder the burden,there not asking for change.

The only thing the farmer needs is subsidised disposable overalls,gloves and face masks to ensure good PPE.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

Why should they shoulder the burden,there not asking for change.

The only thing the farmer needs is subsidised disposable overalls,gloves and face masks to ensure good PPE.  

No they would prefer to go on poisoning the whole country. Farmers will only change if forced. You are a perfect example why I am not a big friend of farmers. They moan too much to stuck in their ways and rather kill poison the environment then change. 

 

I grew up among farmers I know them well, we even got sayings about farmers that all they ever do is complain. 

 

I said consumers will pay.. but that is not enough farmers need more.. not going half way.. no its their way or no way. Bad attitude. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chazar said:

plenty of  reports  available to  read main thing is easy to commit  suicide, didnt see any link to cancer and some slight  hint of parkinsons risk, debatable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat#Parkinson's_disease

To be fair to the member's comment, which you initially responded to , was an either /or cancer causing or toxic definition although I first had  same reaction when I read it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...