3 ms·

This is also a consequence of Brexit and the UK aligning with the USA corporate interests.

by Shorel 6y ago

tw04 6y ago
Are they though? Bayer bought Monsanto a couple years ago. They seem to be aligning themselves with German corporate interest on this one. There doesn't appear to be a US source of the chemical anymore: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/bayer-closes-monsanto-deal-to-cap-63-billion-transformation https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/bayer-clo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid
- mistrial9 6y ago
  Bayer bought Monsanto along with extensive internal discussions with legal on the liabilities facing Monsanto with RoundUp and these adverse findings on some pesticides. Yet, there are human beings who will use stealth and obscurity to sign these approvals and take the money home. Those who profit are not those who are harmed -- is this not crystal clear that politics must resolve toxic (and highly profitable) chemical industry practices ?
bearbin 6y ago
Hardly, similar emergency authorizations have been applied in other EU countries, in actuality these exemptions were applied last year and the UK is late in doing this... Not sure how the EU really comes into this at all. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pesticides-efsa-examine-emergency-use-neonicotinoids https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pesticides-efsa-examine-e...
- iguy 6y ago
  It comes in because the subheading and first paragraph are carefully written to capture brexit-inflamed eyeballs. They do later tell you "11 countries to allow emergency use of the product" and "The UK ... joined EU countries including Belgium, Denmark and Spain in signing emergency authorisations", but easy to miss on the first skim. That doesn't of course imply that it's a great idea. A 25% decline in £18m worth of sugar doesn't really sound like a big enough deal, but maybe localized short-term use of chemical weapons also isn't such a big deal, I don't know?
- Panoramix 6y ago
  It's not quite the same to lift the ban entirely (UK) than to give individual, temporary exemptions to farmers that have difficulties for whatever reason. edit:Welp, I can't read. Seems it's also temporary emergency use.
  - detaro 6y ago
    The article clearly describes it as being an emergency authorization just like in other countries?
learnstats2 6y ago
That's what the headline is trying to imply; yet, the article makes it clear that other EU countries have equally granted emergency authorisations, within EU provisions for doing so.
kcartlidge 6y ago
Personally I'd rather the sugar beet was sacrificed, not the bees. That said, this is absolutely nothing to do with Brexit - unless Belgium and the Netherlands also left the EU without us noticing. The UK is neither the first nor the only country doing it. That doesn't make it right, but it does make the Guardian's slant wrong (and I speak as a Guardian reader).

This is also a consequence of Brexit and the UK aligning with the USA corporate interests.

by Shorel 6y ago

This is also a consequence of Brexit and the UK aligning with the USA corporate interests.

tw04 6y ago

Are they though? Bayer bought Monsanto a couple years ago. They seem to be aligning themselves with German corporate interest on this one. There doesn't appear to be a US source of the chemical anymore: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/bayer-closes-monsanto-deal-to-cap-63-billion-transformation https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/bayer-clo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid

mistrial9 6y ago
Bayer bought Monsanto along with extensive internal discussions with legal on the liabilities facing Monsanto with RoundUp and these adverse findings on some pesticides. Yet, there are human beings who will use stealth and obscurity to sign these approvals and take the money home. Those who profit are not those who are harmed -- is this not crystal clear that politics must resolve toxic (and highly profitable) chemical industry practices ?

bearbin 6y ago

Hardly, similar emergency authorizations have been applied in other EU countries, in actuality these exemptions were applied last year and the UK is late in doing this... Not sure how the EU really comes into this at all. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pesticides-efsa-examine-emergency-use-neonicotinoids https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/news/pesticides-efsa-examine-e...

iguy 6y ago
It comes in because the subheading and first paragraph are carefully written to capture brexit-inflamed eyeballs. They do later tell you "11 countries to allow emergency use of the product" and "The UK ... joined EU countries including Belgium, Denmark and Spain in signing emergency authorisations", but easy to miss on the first skim. That doesn't of course imply that it's a great idea. A 25% decline in £18m worth of sugar doesn't really sound like a big enough deal, but maybe localized short-term use of chemical weapons also isn't such a big deal, I don't know?
Panoramix 6y ago
It's not quite the same to lift the ban entirely (UK) than to give individual, temporary exemptions to farmers that have difficulties for whatever reason. edit:Welp, I can't read. Seems it's also temporary emergency use.
- detaro 6y ago
  The article clearly describes it as being an emergency authorization just like in other countries?

learnstats2 6y ago

That's what the headline is trying to imply; yet, the article makes it clear that other EU countries have equally granted emergency authorisations, within EU provisions for doing so.

kcartlidge 6y ago

Personally I'd rather the sugar beet was sacrificed, not the bees. That said, this is absolutely nothing to do with Brexit - unless Belgium and the Netherlands also left the EU without us noticing. The UK is neither the first nor the only country doing it. That doesn't make it right, but it does make the Guardian's slant wrong (and I speak as a Guardian reader).