BioThai strikes back after delay to chemicals ban

[webfact]

BioThai strikes back after delay to chemicals ban

By The Nation

 

 

After delay to the ban of agricultural chemicals was announced, BioThai Foundation, a strong supporter of the ban, released an analysis report titled “36 days to cancel glyphosate ban” which identified the four factors behind the postponement.

 

The delay was not totally unexpected.

 

A ban was imposed on paraquat from 2005-2007 in Malaysia before multinational chemical companies teamed up with the country's palm-rubber industry to successfully pressure the government to lift it.

 

However, this time round, the Malaysian government was not able to resist the pressure from within the country and abroad. It will restart the ban on January 1, 2020.

 

The Sri Lankan government announced a ban on glyphosate for all crops in 2015, it then limited use of the chemical to rubber and tea in mid-2018 after a campaign by giant chemical companies.

 

The US government under president Obama banned the use of chlorpyrifos in 2015. After Donald Trump became the US president, Scott Pruitt who has a close relationship with Dow Chemical Company, was appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt lifted the ban on the toxic chemicals harmful to children, but was forced to resign after a US court ruled that the ban must be restored with 60 days. The case is currently in the appeal process.

 

Factors affecting Thailand

 

1. US government

 

As soon as the Hazardous Substance Committee announced the ban on glyphosate and two other toxic substances on October 18, 2019, the US government led by Ted McKinny, undersecretary of Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs who had worked in the Dow Chemical Company for 19 years, wrote a letter to the Thai government in opposition to the ban of glyphosate. In the letter, the undersecretary claimed that baning glyphosates will 1) lead to Thailand using more expensive chemicals costing Bt75-125 billion, 2) are not based on sound science, suggesting the Thai government should consider the use of risk assessment data from EPA and 3) will affect US exports of soy beans, wheat, and other agricultural products to Thailand, worth a total of Bt51 billion a year.

 

2. Thailand's colossal animal feed industry

 

Thailand's animal feed industry is the number one manufacturer of animal feed in the world. It supported the US stance, claiming that the ban on glyphosate would affect the feed, livestock and food industries, resulting in trillion-baht losses and leaving 2 million people unemployed. They also spread the news that pet food-exporting countries would raise the issue with Thai government.

 

Their view was different to that of the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Trade of Thailand which supported a ban of three years, and had asked the government to allow imports of raw materials with glyphosate residue at international standard level.

 

3. A network of pesticide companies under the leadership of CropLife which has a branch in Thailand, the Thai Agricultural Innovation Trade Association (TAITA)

 

An anti-ban statement was announced by multinational corporations, namely Bayer-Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow-Dopp and BASF who were major players in opposition to the ban and had been joined by two pesticide trading associations, the Thai Crop Protection Association and the Thai Agro Business Association.

 

The content of the statement coincided with a letter from the US government which questioned the ban on scientific findings and citing its effect on the Thai economy.

 

4. Politicans in the government

 

It is not surprising that 2 ministers from Palang Pracharat and Democratic are keymen against the ban.

 

4.1) Suriya Juangroongruangkit, Industry Minister, was the first person in the government to make a request for a re-consideration of the ban of glyphosate after assuming his position as chairman of the National Hazardous Substances Committee.

 

4.2) Chalermchai Srion, in a letter on 18 September 2019, suggested to the Ministry of Agriculture restricted use of the chemicals, instead of banning the three 3 toxic substances.

 

His role became more clear when he appointed Anan Suwannarat, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, to head a research on the effect and remedial measures for farmers.

 

Anan published information which were seen in favour of ending the ban, citing 1) is against the WTO agreement, 2) claiming 75 per cent of farmers protest the ban, 3) unable to find sufficient substitution/replacement chemicals, 4) compensation for farmers to change to other chemicals is too high, costing tens of billion of baht, 5) there are restrictions on sending chemicals back to the country of origin / third country and 6) affecting the economy and causing a rise in the jobless rate.

 

It now depends on whether the public will accept the 6 reasons for lifting the ban. Is there any reason to support it? Is it just an excuse to benefit the chemical and feed industries and will the Thai government cave in to US pressure ?

 

Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30378869

 

-- © Copyright The Nation Thailand 2019-11-29

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[ukrules]

15 minutes ago, webfact said:

The delay was not totally unexpected.

Strange, I read yesterday that there will be no delay.

 

It's almost like they don't know what they're doing and eventually any decision made by the underlings come to the attention of the person who's actually in charge of the country (presumably the Prime Minister), he then makes his decision which may or may not override any and all previous decisions and that's the end of the matter.

 

I've noticed this pattern of indecision many times over the last few years.

Edited November 28, 2019 by ukrules

[tompelli]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

5) there are restrictions on sending chemicals back to the country of origin / third country

Why would that be if they're so beneficial?

[1duckyboy]

39 minutes ago, tompelli said:

Why would that be if they're so beneficial?

They may be banned from use in their country of origin.

[farmerjo]

This what they said the other day...2 years...

 

Their attempt to "recall" the three pesticides, which began last week, should not be allowed to proceed at the moment, the anti-farm chemical group, Biothai Foundation, wrote on its Facebook page yesterday.

"It is acceptable to delay the ban until the end of next month," foundation director Witoon Lianchamroon suggested.

"But if the committee [NHSC] changes its decision, the government will not be pleased."

Mr Witoon insisted officials must solve the problem and that in this case they must give farmers and sellers more time to make the transition. However, he added the ban should remain.

Yet opponents of the ban -- who are mainly worried over the economic impact of such a move -- want the NHSC to give farmers and business people at least two years to prepare for the change.

During this transitionary period, a search for new alternatives should be carried out.

[hotchilli]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

It now depends on whether the public will accept the 6 reasons for lifting the ban. Is there any reason to support it? Is it just an excuse to benefit the chemical and feed industries and will the Thai government cave in to US pressure ?

We all know the answer to that.

The Thai populous are to lazy to do anything!

[GalaxyMan]

17 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

We all know the answer to that.

The Thai populous are to lazy to do anything!

It's not so much that they're lazy, they're uneducated and not interested in anything but putting food on the table as inexpensively as possible. This is a country of serfs dominated by 500 families who will not allow anything to interfere with their accumulation of money. They don't care how many people die, as long as they continue to make money. A perfect example is the way they killed the attempt to raise the minimum wage from 350 baht/day to 400 baht/day. They kicked and screamed that it would hurt their profits. Money is god in Thailand.

[Cadbury]

6 hours ago, ukrules said:

Strange, I read yesterday that there will be no delay.

 

It's almost like they don't know what they're doing and eventually any decision made by the underlings come to the attention of the person who's actually in charge of the country (presumably the Prime Minister), he then makes his decision which may or may not override any and all previous decisions and that's the end of the matter.

 

I've noticed this pattern of indecision many times over the last few years.

Indecision is like a national sport In Thailand; no single person alone makes any decision and takes responsibility. Sometimes the PM thinks he makes decisions all by himself but those he delegates to do their best to make sure nothing happens. We all know in our mind instances of those occasions.

Thailand is run by committee which are deliberately formed so as not to reach a decision, but to avoid it.

Similarly those puffed up twits who sit on Thai committees are the ones who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a committee.

 

[stephenterry]

I support the ban, 100%. Chemical pesticides are toxic and a danger to health - just like the annual hazing in the north, which really pees me off as it's preventable.

 

Trouble is, we live in a country that where businesses worship money above all else, including consumer health. As for the USA, their health issues are amongst the worst in the world. I would never purchase any of their exported food products. 

[FarFlungFalang]

45 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I support the ban, 100%. Chemical pesticides are toxic and a danger to health - just like the annual hazing in the north, which really pees me off as it's preventable.

 

Trouble is, we live in a country that where businesses worship money above all else, including consumer health. As for the USA, their health issues are amongst the worst in the world. I would never purchase any of their exported food products. 

Can you name one country where money is not worshipped above all else?How do city dwellers aquire food and services without money?

[Scot123]

People blaming America for lifting the ban but if we look at the generals track record so far they have back tracked on every law I can think of that there was any backlash from the public. The riding in the back of a pickup ban which would have saved hunders of lives per year lasted a few days, even the removal of deakchairs etc all sreep back. Imagine if these generals had to fight a war, how long would it be before they threw up their arms? Last time it was as soon as they could find the general and it was the cadets doing the fighting if I remember. 

[stephenterry]

21 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Can you name one country where money is not worshipped above all else?How do city dwellers aquire food and services without money?

I would suggest non-industrial countries, where living standards and lifestyle are a whole lot healthier than the West.