Roundup ban planned, US says NO

[notrub]

Thailand intends to ban 3 particularly harmful weed killers but 'our pal' Trump is pressuring them not to.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/10/thailand-pesticides-dow-monsanto-syngenta-trump

Among the 3 is Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide, otherwise known as 'Roundup'.  In the link above there is a link to an article addresses the Roundup product specifically.

 

I am writing about this because several months ago there was a 'friendly' but heated exchange in this forum on the subject of weed control and Roundup.

 

I am also writing because it is an example of what happens if a country 'cosies up' too much with the US and the Multinationals associated with them.  Not to say that Unilever and Nestles are US companies (?) but they are comfortable there.  They are not nice companies.  They are not your friend.  Enough about them for the moment.  (Different topic).

[DeaconJohn]

It takes balz to stand up to the global bully and the multinational corporations that put profits before everything else.

Stand your ground Thailand.

 

[rjwill01]

9 minutes ago, DeaconJohn said:

It takes balz to stand up to the global bully and the multinational corporations that put profits before everything else.

Stand your ground Thailand.

 

I am 72 and used Roundup on my weeds my whole life. It's the best. All these years and never heard of any chemical health problems until now. Today we live in world of whimps. Out of 100's of million users, one person gets sick. In Thailand we live everyday with infested rats and rabies dogs running around, and then us we can't use a proven product for killing weeds.

[FritsSikkink]

25 minutes ago, rjwill01 said:

I am 72 and used Roundup on my weeds my whole life. It's the best. All these years and never heard of any chemical health problems until now. Today we live in world of whimps. Out of 100's of million users, one person gets sick. In Thailand we live everyday with infested rats and rabies dogs running around, and then us we can't use a proven product for killing weeds.

So you don't have it, so it doesn't exist, very scientific.

Any proof for your numbers: "Out of 100's of million users, one person gets sick." 

[DeaconJohn]

35 minutes ago, rjwill01 said:

I am 72 and used Roundup on my weeds my whole life. It's the best. All these years and never heard of any chemical health problems until now. Today we live in world of whimps. Out of 100's of million users, one person gets sick. In Thailand we live everyday with infested rats and rabies dogs running around, and then us we can't use a proven product for killing weeds.

Your post makes a powerful case for the immediate banning of Roundup/glyphosate.

 

[farmerjo]

So we get rid of a weedkiller one day.

The next 2% loans to buy drones for in crop spraying.

[Tayaout]

50 minutes ago, rjwill01 said:

I am 72 and used Roundup on my weeds my whole life. It's the best. All these years and never heard of any chemical health problems until now. Today we live in world of whimps. Out of 100's of million users, one person gets sick. In Thailand we live everyday with infested rats and rabies dogs running around, and then us we can't use a proven product for killing weeds.

Meh. That's nothing try smoking instead. 

 

[Chazar]

26 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

So you don't have it, so it doesn't exist, very scientific.

Any proof for your numbers: "Out of 100's of million users, one person gets sick." 

the proof  is in the "probably" as  thats all they have "probably" carcinogenic

[FritsSikkink]

6 minutes ago, Chazar said:

the proof  is in the "probably" as  thats all they have "probably" carcinogenic

So if you still use it you aren't too bright, why would you take the risk.

[farmerjo]

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

So if you still use it you aren't too bright, why would you take the risk.

Haven't you heard of PPE.

[DeaconJohn]

3 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

Haven't you heard of PPE.

That's just self-protection.

What about the dangers to the environment as a whole?

[farmerjo]

2 minutes ago, DeaconJohn said:

That's just self-protection.

What about the dangers to the environment as a whole?

I read in another article the fumigants we use to store products are gases that get released into the atmosphere and come down to damage the environment,nothing is being done about that.Not sure where glyphosate comes on the list of bad things we do to the environment.

[IsaanAussie]

Honestly, another topic on this? Oh well, perhaps it is time to get those with "well read" opinions but no involvement to get some skin in the game?

Now, we are talking about use on a farm, several hectares, not just a few weeds in the driveway, got it?

My question is, how much extra would you pay per kilogram for rice or other crops, where a squadron of laborers each with a hoe chipped out the weeds instead?

Don't want to pay, well how about turning a blind eye to a few thousand weed seeds in the next bag of rice you buy?

We "users" of glysophate are concerned about this stuff as much as anybody. To me, there is little evidence that supports residuals when the product is used responsibly at minimum levels, and only once per year before planting. It never touches the crop or the seed unlike GMO modified crops where herbicides are used to "dry out" the crop prior to harvest.

 

[WalkingOrders]

I think its sad that a member can insult other members countries but if were to respond in kind my comment would no doubt be pulled. So much I could say to his characterization but I will leave it. Seems to be no refuge.

[Tayaout]

@IsaanAussie

 

Some GMO are designed to be resistant to glyphosate so you can kill weeds and not the crop. Most crop that use glyphosate as a dissecant are not necessarily GMO. I have no idea about Thailand use of glyphosate pre-harvest but that's very common in western country.

 

I understand your point and I already made my choice but I don't expect everyone to grow their own vegetable and buy grass fed beef. Most peoples prefer to buy the cheapest food possible and don't care about potential risk. For this reason I find odd the ban on glyphosate even if I agree with it. I can predict it will be reversed within 1-2 years. 

 

I just watched an interview from an insider in the agroindustry and it reinforced my opinion of not buying processed food. He also share my opinion and buy directly from organic farmer. He said the issue is too big and governement need to keep their eyes closed otherwise the poor couldn't afford food. Unfortunately the interview is in French so I won't post it here. 

[IsaanAussie]

Just now, Tayaout said:

use of glyphosate pre-harvest but that's very common in western country.

This is what the USA noise is about. Thailand intends to ban agricultural products that contain excessive chemical residues. 

Just now, Tayaout said:

buy directly from organic farmer

Great idea but do not be under the illusion that there are not risks here as well. There are "synthetics" that are allowed under organic certification that are as potentially dangerous simply because there is nothing better that occurs naturally. A good example is Ivemectin which is injected into pigs to control internal and external parasites. I never used it on my pigs but I do use it on our dogs. 1.5ml per dog every few months, no fleas, ticks, mites or worms, very effective chemical treatment, but I have no plans to eat the dogs. The instructions/rules are you must allow a month before slaughter when using on pigs.

The parallel with glysophate is I remember when it  was introduced in Australia many years ago. Monsanto advertising showed Professor Clipboard and his test tubes explaining the active ingredients decayed within 24 hours, first of many absolute lies.

In summary, whilst I am not convinced that roundup used in land preparation is dangerous, I will not use it again. My takeout on this is simply do not believe everything you read. There are more greedy bastards out there than you would think possible. 

 

 

[notrub]

Gee!  What a lot of thoughts.  Sorry to offend but...

 

This recent report has come out in spite of the producers of harmful chemicals efforts to suppress this sort of information.  

 

Aside from poisoning our waterways and produce a very big issue has to do with agricultural workers who have no protective equipment and no choice about what they use on a daily basis.  

 

If you think that multinationals have your interest in mind cast your thoughts back to the behaviour of big tobacco.  And, they are still doing it.

[farmerjo]

I'm not sure why everybody is against big companies.

Is it envy.

They all started out as young small companies once apon a time.

They spend more on R&D than most and meet regulations.

Don't people think we created our own mess with globalisation.

Having blocks EU,ASEAN etc.

That is what's taking away the market place otherwise we would have a lot more independant companies.

 

[ChouDoufu]

27 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

I'm not sure why everybody is against big companies.

Is it envy.

They all started out as young small companies once apon a time.

They spend more on R&D than most and meet regulations.

Don't people think we created our own mess with globalisation.

Having blocks EU,ASEAN etc.

That is what's taking away the market place otherwise we would have a lot more independant companies.

 

problem is in the usa...

 

They spend more on lobbying and congressional campaigns than most, and therefore get to write the regulations themselves.

[farmerjo]

8 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

problem is in the usa...

 

They spend more on lobbying and congressional campaigns than most, and therefore get to write the regulations themselves.

Like a CP in Thailand.

Everyone has them.

[farmerjo]

58 minutes ago, notrub said:

Gee!  What a lot of thoughts.  Sorry to offend but...

 

This recent report has come out in spite of the producers of harmful chemicals efforts to suppress this sort of information.  

 

Aside from poisoning our waterways and produce a very big issue has to do with agricultural workers who have no protective equipment and no choice about what they use on a daily basis.  

 

If you think that multinationals have your interest in mind cast your thoughts back to the behaviour of big tobacco.  And, they are still doing it.

Although your heart is in the right place,a newspaper that asks for dollar donations has to be questioned.

[Dumbastheycome]

23 minutes ago, farmerjo said:

Like a CP in Thailand.

Everyone has them.

Yes. An unavoidable  fact. But... does that make it acceptable?

At the end of the day it is  not  about such simplistic  issues  such as envy as it is about the incrementally provided evidence that not only is a chemical and related  GMO  products of huge commercial  interest that has been inflicted on the global population based  on deceit as to harm .

That a rejection  can cause  political  reaction should indicate  the issue  goes  much  further than just a  ban on  the use of a chemical. 

The implications are that it is an interruption of a  much  more insidious   scheme to  control  base food supplies. There  have been  various attempts to  introduce legislation into  national  law that  would  grant the entirety of rights to the ownership of food crop seed  to a  corporate  entity to the point where to  propagate  reserved seed from a previous crop would be considered  illegal ! Even if that seed acquired undesired  GMO attributes  accidentally !

There  remain 3 things  that the  global population  need at this time and  are  being extorted for.

1: Potable  water

2: Clean  food

3: Individual  land ownership rights

All   are  being  incrementally  being stripped and   accorded  to  corporate control  via  "credit".

A new version of  serfdom is on the the  near  horizon.

 

 

[farmerjo]

16 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Yes. An unavoidable  fact. But... does that make it acceptable?

At the end of the day it is  not  about such simplistic  issues  such as envy as it is about the incrementally provided evidence that not only is a chemical and related  GMO  products of huge commercial  interest that has been inflicted on the global population based  on deceit as to harm .

That a rejection  can cause  political  reaction should indicate  the issue  goes  much  further than just a  ban on  the use of a chemical. 

The implications are that it is an interruption of a  much  more insidious   scheme to  control  base food supplies. There  have been  various attempts to  introduce legislation into  national  law that  would  grant the entirety of rights to the ownership of food crop seed  to a  corporate  entity to the point where to  propagate  reserved seed from a previous crop would be considered  illegal ! Even if that seed acquired undesired  GMO attributes  accidentally !

There  remain 3 things  that the  global population  need at this time and  are  being extorted for.

1: Potable  water

2: Clean  food

3: Individual  land ownership rights

All   are  being  incrementally  being stripped and   accorded  to  corporate control  via  "credit".

A new version of  serfdom is on the the  near  horizon.

 

 

I tend to agree with you to a point.

But as farmers we all still have choices.

Buying gmo seed from a multinational,i'll leave it.

Using a bit of roundup,i'll take it.

Whether true or not they say we will have to produce double the amount of food in the next 30 years.

If were not using multinationals we better start getting a good plan in place.

[IsaanAussie]

Well presented post Dumbastheycome. Congratulations. 

[Chazar]

23 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

So if you still use it you aren't too bright, why would you take the risk.

because the  risk is "probably" not definitely..........