3 ms·
No, the difference is these countries are aware that the pesticide is banned in Europe. Last I checked they don't have a label saying "food poisoning" at food b
by password54321 3y ago
No, the difference is these countries are aware that the pesticide is banned in Europe. Last I checked they don't have a label saying "food poisoning" at food banks.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoOk, let me rephrase my example. If you wouldn't sell poison to your own people, why would you in good conscience sell poison to others who are "OK" with it?
- mc32 3y agoWe allow people to poison themselves with narcotics. We are legalizing this more and more knowing it's poison. The argument is people can make their own determination --but here the argument is whole countries can't make a determination? We, the US, allow things to be imported to the US which are banned in The EU too. We ban but sell to them things they don't ban. It's up to each jurisdiction to make their own determination. All countries have access to the toxicity information on things they import and can do what they want with that information.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoI don't think using the US as an example here is very strong for your position. The US has fewer restrictions than the EU for exactly the same reason the EU sells poisonous shit to poorer countries: there's a lot of money to be made that way.