Farmers call for reconsideration of chemical ban

[GreasyFingers]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

I did answer your question, the article showed the cancer dangers of those chemicals. You probably have limited education otherwise you would know that you don't have to feel that you get poisoned. That is the thing it can happen slowly over time. In general people don't feel poisoning unless its acute and that is unlikely to happen at those dosages. But the dangers over time are proven.

No, you did not answer either question, have you been poisoned, or are you dying.

 

As to my limited education my university taught me to have a health disregard for academics that has persisted to this day.

 

My first job was in a chemical laboratory. Some of the stuff we used or created would drop you on the spot if you were not careful, so I know a little bit about chemicals.

 

Chemicals do kill some people, so do motor bikes and cars. Since you like to quote other sources would you please check the number of people who have died from paraquat and glyphosate compared to those that have died in vehicle accidents. Then, ask yourself another question: which should be banned?

 

[digger70]

5 hours ago, Matzzon said:

People have been making a living on farming long before any chemicals were even invented. It´s called ecological farming. Actually it will demand a little bit more work, but on the other hand people pay more for ecological, human and environmentally safe products.

So, just stop spouting your rubbish. I am also pretty sure they can come up with a reasonably priced alternative. Maybe not as effective like the poisonous ones. That means you have to work a little bit more to make a living. Are you scared of that, and instead make a choice that makes both nature and humans suffer? Actually it is already alternative products on the market. The reason you are not accepting to use them, is that you are just to scared of the little bit of extra work it will mean. You just find it more comfortable to complain and get back to hurting people, animals and nature for your personal gain. Disgusting behaviour and attitude. You should be ashamed!

100% Ecological farming isn't going to cut it . you only get 50/75% of produce the rest ,sometimes more you lose by all the pest/Fungi/Soil born Bacterial diseases. 

You know what that means Produce prices will go sky high. 

There is no alternative for the same  cost that will do the same as the banned chemicals .that's the problem . 

The government should've first find/make/introduce a replacement product for a reasonable price before banning the chemicals.

As for what you said to the OP That's Disgusting Behaviour.

You should learn something about  farming or farm yourself first before you  try to preach something that you obviously don't know much about.

 

 

now it's going to cost the farmers more to get their products to the market and there will be Less product from the farm if the farmer can't spray for certain  problems on their crops

[GreasyFingers]

17 minutes ago, robblok said:

And yes I am perfectly willing to pay more for food that has no chemicals in it

I hope you do not buy and fruit or vegetables that have been picked early and then gassed with chemicals to have them ripen at the right time on supermarket shelves. Or from any genetically modified plants.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

No, you did not answer either question, have you been poisoned, or are you dying.

 

As to my limited education my university taught me to have a health disregard for academics that has persisted to this day.

 

My first job was in a chemical laboratory. Some of the stuff we used or created would drop you on the spot if you were not careful, so I know a little bit about chemicals.

 

Chemicals do kill some people, so do motor bikes and cars. Since you like to quote other sources would you please check the number of people who have died from paraquat and glyphosate compared to those that have died in vehicle accidents. Then, ask yourself another question: which should be banned?

 

No you equated the chemicals to having to feel your poisoned or dying it does not work that way. If you really went to university you would know that. So either you did not go or your just pretending to be dumb.

 

Your comparison between cars and bikes and poison from food is a non starter because I don't know what vegetables have been contaminated and what ones have not (no checks so a ban makes sense as checks don't work here with corruption and so on). If i knew what vegetables were poisoned by those chemical i could choose to not eat them, just like I can choose to travel by car or by motorbike. Now there is no choice. (even if i buy biological its unsure but suppose it was good what if i go to a restaurant.. best to ban it all)

 

Cars have use, motorbikes have too. Those chemicals only have use for farmers not for the consumer. What is my use for those chemicals that in ingest without wanting it ? Again I would gladly pay a bit more to be rid of those chemicals.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, GreasyFingers said:

I hope you do not buy and fruit or vegetables that have been picked early and then gassed with chemicals to have them ripen at the right time on supermarket shelves. Or from any genetically modified plants.

Did you really go to university ? I bet debating wasn't your strong suit. Bring up an other bad example does not excuse an earlier bad practice. Everyone knows that. That is like saying its a pitty she was raped but at least she was not murdered. Does not make sense either. 

 

I have no problems (in general) with genetically modified stuff. People have been modifying farm plants since the beginning of time selecting those that bore more fruits or better crops over others. 

[GreasyFingers]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

I have no problems (in general) with genetically modified stuff. People have been modifying farm plants since the beginning of time selecting those that bore more fruits or better crops over others. 

That is BS. It is only the chemical companies that have produced GM foods.

[GreasyFingers]

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Everyone knows that. That is like saying its a pitty she was raped but at least she was not murdered. Does not make sense either. 

 

Is this clutching at straws.

[bodga]

8 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Yeah, just go out and spray it. Then you can feel the satisfaction of poisoning some more people. Don´t forget to eat everything yourself to. Take a BIG bite!

paraquat is  not a  pesticide

[bodga]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

That is the problem most farmers are stupid and don't know how to handle it . You are now talking about paraquat but that was not the only one banned the others can get in food. Paraquat has indeed a really low chance to get in the food. So I would not be to worried about it if idiots poison themselves with it that is their problem. 

I am only  talking about paraquat and its  unnecessary ban due to morons using it, correct

[bodga]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

A stupid remark but that is probably because you did not think long enough.

 

No need to pay 3-4 times more as the chemicals dont represent 100% of the cost of farming. So a 4 fold increase of its cost would not result in foods being 4x more expensive.

 

And yes I am perfectly willing to pay more for food that has no chemicals in it. 

 

I don't really see the problem if nobody can use it then prices will rise and the market will show what price people are willing to pay. Farmers will get more money for their product. Its not as if the people can buy farm products that are cheaper because the ban is country wide.

 

Of course they would also have to make sure that imported stuff cant use the same chemicals for a level playing field.

Thais are totally  unwilling to work  on the land weeding by hand, that IS the real issue  here, for years we weeded by hand then about 5  years  ago staff would  not do it and that's persisted ever  since.

[Matzzon]

38 minutes ago, bodga said:

paraquat is  not a  pesticide

Whatever! Do you think it´s put as banned substance on a list just because it´s healthy for people, animals and nature? Stupid comment!

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, digger70 said:

% Ecological farming isn't going to cut it .

Never mentioned 100% ecological farming. I said it will take a little bit more work, but there is options to use on the market. Read, instead of guess after one sentence.

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, bodga said:

as in a LOT  more and theres a  total lack of workforce willing to do manual work in Thailand........but  you'd  know all that, right?

No it´s not any lack of work force. That is just something made up by foreigners coming to Thailand with a negative attitude against the citizens of the country.

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, bodga said:

I  usually  have a  totty at night

Good for you. Take 2 next time!

[robblok]

1 hour ago, GreasyFingers said:

Is this clutching at straws.

No you were clutching at straws you were telling me about other stuff that had to be banned in a way to excuse this ban. 

 

At least you gave up on your poisoning story how you have to feel it or dying from it. Guess your education did pay off in the end. 

 

Problem with carcinogenic stuff like glyphosate is that if you get cancer you can't really say it was this product as there are other things contributing too. But that does not mean its not poisoning you.

 

I am not sure how long you have lived in Thailand but once in a while they do test on vegetables in supermarktes and markets. They are almost always many times over the limit in many pesticides. So there is a real problem in Thailand with pesticides and still farmers are moaning like little children. Had they been more responsible themselves then they did not have to be forced.

 

Unfortunately farmers and industry are often unwilling to change (money first). In Europe (now talking the Netherlands). The rivers are cleaner then ever (species of fish making a comeback) nature is coming back we even have wolves again. Why because farmers and industry were checked better and nature improved. That just shows that rules are always needed for progress and if you leave it up to farmers or industry things can only get worse. 

 

However if you put up some rules things can improve. I havent heard that Europe is in big problems after the ban of glyposate and that food production has been destroyed. So it can work.

 

For paraquat i dont mind its usage as it does not get in fruits and vegetables just kills of fools that use it wrongly. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, bodga said:

Thais are totally  unwilling to work  on the land weeding by hand, that IS the real issue  here, for years we weeded by hand then about 5  years  ago staff would  not do it and that's persisted ever  since.

Not so sure that is the issue, because there is still tons of rice harvested. So that means plenty of people willing to do so. They might not line up for you and you might have a lot of people changing jobs. But that is not just farm work that is all over Thailand. Its not like in the west where people stay on forever with one job. 

 

I seen friends of mine move around quite a lot just small conflicts make them move out. Obviously its easy to find jobs and move otherwise that would not be done.

[djayz]

2 hours ago, bodga said:

and  will you be  happy to pay 3-4 times the price for "healthy living"

In a nutshell, yes. 

[tracker1]

4 hours ago, digger70 said:

100% Ecological farming isn't going to cut it . you only get 50/75% of produce the rest ,sometimes more you lose by all the pest/Fungi/Soil born Bacterial diseases. 

You know what that means Produce prices will go sky high. 

There is no alternative for the same  cost that will do the same as the banned chemicals .that's the problem . 

4 hours ago, digger70 said:

100% Ecological farming isn't going to cut it . you only get 50/75% of produce the rest ,sometimes more you lose by all the pest/Fungi/Soil born Bacterial diseases. 

You know what that means Produce prices will go sky high. 

There is no alternative for the same  cost that will do the same as the banned chemicals .that's the problem . 

The government should've first find/make/introduce a replacement product for a reasonable price before banning the chemicals.

As for what you said to the OP That's Disgusting Behaviour.

You should learn something about  farming or farm yourself first before you  try to preach something that you obviously don't know much about.

 

 

now it's going to cost the farmers more to get their products to the market and there will be Less product from the farm if the farmer can't spray for certain  problems on their crops

As for what you said to the OP That's Disgusting Behaviour.

You should learn something about  farming or farm yourself first before you  try to preach something that you obviously don't know much about.

 

 

now it's going to cost the farmers more to get their products to the market and there will be Less product from the farm if the farmer can't spray for certain  problems on their crops

I totally agree with your statement ! The government should've first find/make/introduce a replacement product for a reasonable price before banning the chemicals. after all they did say they had alternatives Where What ?

[jerolamo]

i do not understand...

There is nothing indicate about what precisely is inside the package most of the time (if not all the time). So what we are talking about ? Is there an official and regulated obligation there for industrial to indicate clearly what is inside the package ?

Because if not, how they would be able to control ?

[jerolamo]

1 hour ago, tracker1 said:

I totally agree with your statement ! The government should've first find/make/introduce a replacement product for a reasonable price before banning the chemicals. after all they did say they had alternatives Where What ?

difficult because problem of chemicals (we know it now after more than 50 years experience to use the <deleted>) is that it kill the soils. Then you will need more and more chemicals products to get it.

Next, as long as you rich better regular production (who is clearly the case at start point), the economy will change accordingly to this new state. But this is a start state point who will never stay up at no cost for the environment. This will also change the economy in a way it is very difficult to turn back (it is not an idea, it is an observation).

So... at the end point, it will increase the power of monopoly game, but not the little farm who is the only one able to produce stable quality with his real old skills and very local practice.

 

At the end, the problem is more wise than just a chemical product for farmer.

It is a cultural deep society problem about how to consume what and when.

actually, if the poor farmer survive again (and also all the population), it is because they can sale directly in local places. But little by little they have to move far to sale... it is a start point we experienced already in our own history time, and it is very close to us.

As you can see, with old skills, price of organic and vegetable food stay little comparatively of energize sources and salary (if you compare with our society prices practice for the same quality... but it change a bit already).

 

I think we can believe that human will not slide and fall again and again on the same banana skin, we should learn something from our history now.

Edited August 30, 2020 by jerolamo

[milesinnz]

15 hours ago, Grumpy John said:

While I do think there needs to be a different, probably safer, alternative it has to be at a reasonable price.  The last box of Glyphosate (6 x 5L) we bought was 460 baht/5L. If you come up with something safer to replace it at the same price,  or maybe a bit more,  we will be on it reasonably priced alternative like a rat on a KFC chicken wing!  Glyphosate will be gone forever once you name the reasonably priced alternative.  Can you name the reasonably priced alternative???  Playing the devils advocate: Are you one of the numpties that don't care if we pay 2 or 3 or 4 times as much for the current less effective alternative?  Like we don't deserve to make a living as long as you get what you want???

you might like to consider DDT, or agent orange...

[bodga]

11 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Whatever! Do you think it´s put as banned substance on a list just because it´s healthy for people, animals and nature? Stupid comment!

neither are motor  cars, i bet more  have died from those though, no need for the "stupid comment"  just because we  have opposing views. Paraquat is safe when used correctly......just  like motor vehicles.

[bodga]

10 hours ago, djayz said:

In a nutshell, yes. 

most wont including almost   all the Thais, the reason China has become the worlds main supplier is people want CHEAP

[bodga]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

Not so sure that is the issue,

You do  not  have experience in hiring farm workers, Rice is  harvested by machines in many cases, just  look why they burn sugar as  no one wants to cut it unburnt, its hard work its  hot work and finding workers is getting harder and harder,  on top  of  all of that you have massive reductions i the prices of many crops  now, Rubber, Palm Oil, Mangoes Pineapples have  been down at  ridiculously low  prices. When non one grows them the prices  rise and less seem to be working the land these days due to cant find any workers.

[digger70]

11 hours ago, Matzzon said:

Never mentioned 100% ecological farming. I said it will take a little bit more work, but there is options to use on the market. Read, instead of guess after one sentence.

You propose all the options to the Farmers and they will Laugh at you.

The options that you Don't Mention  are not financial viable compared to what they Had. 

[digger70]

8 hours ago, tracker1 said:

I totally agree with your statement ! The government should've first find/make/introduce a replacement product for a reasonable price before banning the chemicals. after all they did say they had alternatives Where What ?

They Have Jack Sh!t as one would say.

[djayz]

12 minutes ago, bodga said:

most wont including almost   all the Thais, the reason China has become the worlds main supplier is people want CHEAP

I know, you're 100% right. 

Reap what you sow. 

[Grumpy John]

13 hours ago, bodga said:

when used incorrectly, in Thailand they pay  no  attention to protective clothing whatsoever but imo thats their problem, see  many doing it in flip flops, I can use it perfectly safely.

Ha Ha Ha! You must be a neighbour!  All the old Thai guys around here, many in there 70's, have never used PPE...unless you consider wearing a knitted balaclava is a mask!  Most smoke, drink to much cheap rot gut whisky and they are still alive after years of spraying chemicals and poison and they can work all day in the sun.  Crazy huh!  But it's not crazy to look at alternatives.  We need to use science to improve outcomes.  And there's no sense in running around like headless chooks.  We need a big picture approach. ????

[digger70]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

glyphosate

Glyphosate is an Herbicide  Not a Pesticide if used as you said there wouldn't be a crop left in the Paddock.

Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, meaning it will kill most plants. It prevents the plants from making certain proteins that are needed for plant growth. Glyphosate stops a specific enzyme pathway, the shikimic acid pathway. The shikimic acid pathway is necessary for plants and some microorganisms.

[Matzzon]

11 minutes ago, digger70 said:

The options that you Don't Mention  are not financial viable compared to what they Had.

Ok, then it´s like with everything else. Things change, times change and work change. Just maybe farming should be on a professional level instead of something that each and every family is doing just to have rice for the year. Just maybe people have to realize that they have to do something else. Like getting an education and things like that.........