Paraquat ban could cost Bt570 billion, warn academics

By The Nation

 

 

Millions of sugarcane farmers and some academics have voiced opposition to the ban on farm chemicals paraquat and glyphosate, saying the discontinuation of these substances can cost the sugar industry as much as Bt570 billion.

 

 

Thongkam Cheongklad, chairman of the Sugarcane Farmers Association, said if paraquat – a chemical used to control weeds – is prohibited, it will have a significant impact on the cost of production for farmers. It has also been reported that the substitution for paraquat is quite expensive and may not be as effective. 

 

He said some 1.2 million people involved in the sugar industry in the Central, North, East and Northeast regions are opposed to the ban on the two chemicals. 

 

Kitti Choonhawong, president of the Thailand Society of Sugarcane Technologists said sugarcane plantations cover about 11 million rai nationwide and generate as much as Bt300 billion annually. He added that the ban of the two chemicals may lower the production of sugar, which will have an impact on sugar factories and export, accounting for losses of as much as Bt570 billion. 

 

He also said that the export market may lose as much as Bt94.6 billion, as Thailand is second only to Brazil as the world’s leading sugar exporter. 

 

Viroj Na Ranong, research director at Thailand Development Research Institute, warned that if Thai sugar farmers are no longer allowed to use chemical pesticides and chemical fertilisers, the country will not be able to produce enough food for consumption. 

 

However, he said, if chemical pesticides are banned but chemical fertilisers still allowed, then there may be enough food for domestic consumption, though the cost of production will rise as more labour will be required and the cost of labour is very high. 

 

“The government has to implement measures based on research, not on social trends and politics,” he noted.

 

The National Hazardous Substances Committee is scheduled to meet on October 27 to decide on whether the use of three toxic farming chemicals -- paraquat, glyphosate and chlorpyrifos – should be banned.

 

The panel set up by the government had proposed to end the use of the three chemicals from December 1, as they are considered to be harmful to people’s health and cause soil contamination.

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/business/30377543

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2019-10-19

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

Keep using them and further risk the environment ?

Not to mention the ill health caused by misuse and over use.

 

Why are these jerks only worried about money that they might lose? Why are they so unconcerned with the lives that will be ended by continuing the use of this known poison? How can people be so totally retarded? ????

Edited October 19, 20196 yr by GalaxyMan

4 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

Why are these jerks only worried about money that they might lose? Why are they so unconcerned with the lives that will be ended by continuing the use of this known poison? How can people be so totally retarded? ????

Because they are Thai with no regard to anyone but themselves.

1 minute ago, fishtank said:

Because they are Thai with no regard to anyone but themselves.

This attitude is not unique to Thailand. There was the same noise in the USSA when they banned it there.

18 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

more labour will be required and the cost of labour is very high. 

Compared to what? Is that why there is 80% household debt?

Australia doesn't use it and the sugar industry is fine

 

28 minutes ago, rooster59 said:

He added that the ban of the two chemicals may lower the production of sugar, which will have an impact on sugar factories and export,

The government plans to introduce a tax on sugar used in the beverage industry so it is likely less sugar will need to be grown anyway.

The high baht will automatically kill sugar exports. So the sugar industry is not looking good regardless of whether they use toxic chemicals or not.

The less sugar planted/grown means less smoke and haze which must be a health plus. 

What I read, they did not ban it ?, only that you had to

get a license to be able to use it,a cop out ,really.

regards worgeordie

5 hours ago, Thechook said:

Australia doesn't use it and the sugar industry is fine

 

Let's all start buying that then...

As sugarcane farmers burn their crops before harvesting, damaging the environment and health of millions of people, banning these chemicals will save society trillions of bahts in health care. 

29 minutes ago, GalaxyMan said:

This attitude is not unique to Thailand. There was the same noise in the USSA when they banned it there.

Same noises made in many countries due to the extraordinary influence of the powerful chemical lobbies

Sugar industry in Thailand including the land used to grow cane is mostly Chinese owned and operated. China will do what ever it can to keep using the cheapest options no matter what the cost to health and environment. 

 

So, that´s interesting! With the right promotion and raising the price 50 satang per kilo. They will surely be expected to regain their losses in only a few years, as well as beeing recognized as have evironmental and health friendy production in the eyes of the rest of the world.

In the end, I actually think they win and save lifes at the same time. Not a bad idea! Let´s say "Sugar & Cassava - Food for thoughts"

Why don't they try sugar beets in the north parts of Thailand, with some adjustments ( plant and shades) it would be possible and we also the burning problem would be less

Seems there are some people with vested interests that just don't want to earn less money

- disregarding how many innocent people will die or will suffer from spoiled health.

 

unscrupulous and disgusting

4 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

This attitude is not unique to Thailand. There was the same noise in the USSA when they banned it there.

Paraquat is not banned in the US. You do need a licence to use it though.

6 hours ago, SoilSpoil said:

As sugarcane farmers burn their crops before harvesting, damaging the environment and health of millions of people, banning these chemicals will save society trillions of bahts in health care. 

But, but  a few guys are making a lot of money selling the $#!t, can't let them down, now can we?

This attitude is not unique to Thailand. There was the same noise in the USSA when they banned it there.

As far as I know it can still be used in USA under license.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

43 minutes ago, luk AJ said:

As far as I know it can still be used in USA under license.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I just said that, two posts ago.

5 hours ago, PatOngo said:

But, but  a few guys are making a lot of money selling the $#!t, can't let them down, now can we?

Corporate greed indeed. 

Do these pose the same risks as Monsanto's Round Up is said too?

If so, get them the ^%$% out of here.

It's not corporate greed.

There are a lot of SHEEPLES on TV.

You want to go from toxic to corrosive.

And in 30 years time you will have another messiah to follow.

Edited October 19, 20196 yr by farmerjo

On 10/19/2019 at 7:12 AM, rooster59 said:

Millions of sugarcane farmers and some academics have voiced opposition to the ban on farm chemicals paraquat and glyphosate, saying the discontinuation of these substances can cost the sugar industry as much as Bt570 billion.

because they are experts in the dangers of these chemicals

or profits before health of the consumers?

On 10/19/2019 at 7:12 AM, rooster59 said:

Kitti Choonhawong, president of the Thailand Society of Sugarcane Technologists said sugarcane plantations cover about 11 million rai nationwide and generate as much as Bt300 billion annually. He added that the ban of the two chemicals may lower the production of sugar, which will have an impact on sugar factories and export, accounting for losses of as much as Bt570 billion. 

Why do figures in these reports never seem to add up?

If the industry generates 300 billion, how can potential losses be nearly double that?