13 ms·
EU dropped plans for safer pesticides because of TTIP and pressure from US
- ddon 11y agoAnd what can be done now?
- higherpurpose 11y agoWrite to your MEPs. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html
- sillygoose 11y agoYou know, if EU countries were genuinely concerned about their beloved citizens coming into contact with damaging chemicals, they could warn them on the evening news or something. Hey there Dear Citizens, these products have been found to cause cancer. Please avoid using them, and tell your friends to avoid them too! Best Regards, Your Benevolent, Caring Overlords Do you think that just might have an effect on the companies producing the toxic crap they force on us? "Those naughty companies haven't stopped putting cancer-causing chemicals in their products. You should still boycott them." If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until they were safe.
- ownagefool 11y agoThere's probably nothing stopping the individual members from doing something about it and many of them probably will in the form of laws, not news. Sadly, assuming that it's evidenced based, it would be better if it was an EU wide thing.
- Maarten88 11y agoBecause there is freedom of transportation of goods within the EU, banning a substance in one country does nothing to prevent products containing the substance reaching consumers.
- nraynaud 11y agoIt might be forbidden to bar a product altogether, because you would be distorting the competitive landscape. That's the case with GMOs, there are a few temporary bans, but no solid and definitive legislation, because that would be forbidden.
- Flimm 11y agoYou mean, in addition to regulations and taxes, right?
- m_eiman 11y agoOr they could, your know, ban the use of the dangerous stuff. That'd be a whole lot more efficient.
- psykovsky 11y agoDangerous stuff like, say, cannabis? That has been efficient.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- m_eiman 11y agoYes, that's exactly what I said. Let's have a debate about the merits of drug laws here, that seems on topic. Or not.
- psykovsky 11y agoOr maybe let's have a debate on the efficiency of outright banning stuff without regard for other potential applications of said stuff.
- imron 11y agoUh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news, and also have bigger marketing budgets than the companies producing such chemicals. Sure. If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until they were safe. No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals.
- sillygoose 11y ago> Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news Well yeah, they largely do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes? > No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals. Sure, and if they really cared, they could do that even despite the TTIP, or they could reject or re-negotiate the TTIP. There's no way around that, regardless of whether you trust that governments are operating with our best interests at heart.
- imron 11y ago> But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes? As privately run corporations, news organizations go where the money is and I trust them even less than I trust the government. The number of ignoble causes they have cooperated on in the recent past leaves them with a very large credibility gap in my mind. And while the government is not perfect, at least I live in a country where lobbying (aka bribery) is no where near as institutionalised and prevalent as you see in the U.S. So while my government might not always have my best interests at heart, they are definitely more concerned and more trustworthy than a news organisation.
- sillygoose 11y agoAlright, but if governments work for the people, as we're told, then they'd also erm.. "regulate" news organizations and make them actually serve the public. You know full well they could, if they wanted to. That would include warning us of cancer-causing shit that we come into contact with all the damn time. Strangely enough, they don't. What does that tell us?
- rrrrob 11y agoBut this would surely open the governments up for lawsuits in the TTIP courts...
- sillygoose 11y agoWell they could just reject or renegotiate the TTIP then?
- kibibu 11y ago"just"
- sillygoose 11y agoWell, are they looking out for their citizens or not? Isn't that supposed to be their job?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Bustard 11y agoYour username is incredibly fitting.
- fleitz 11y agoIs the EC in charge of the EU? Couldn't they just say no?
- germanier 11y agoSimplified, the EC is the government of the EU. Additionally, they are (almost always) the only ones that can propose legislation.
- SagelyGuru 11y agoand they are unelected
- matt4077 11y agoNeither are Merkel, Cameron, Tsipras and probably about 50% of the heads of government. I doubt there is a country where the Secretary of Defense is elected. There's nothing wrong with an elected parliament choosing the executive, and the EU actually moved to a more direct election with the 'Spitzenkandidat' system. People still didn't care to vote for the EU parliament.
- benaston 11y agoYour comment re Merkel, Cameron et al is a strawman: just because the existing system of parliamentary democracy is deeply flawed, it does not follow that another even less democratic system is acceptable. You point out that Cameron (for example) is not directly elected as PM. He does however have to be elected to parliament via a democratic vote. Unlike the European Commission, where commissioners have no democratic mandate to speak of and yet they hold immense power. 34% of those eligible voted in the UK European elections (i.e. for the European Parliament). Your comment re people not caring is overly simplistic. People will not vote for a wide variety of reasons. Only one of which is that they "don't care". Edit: please explain your downvote, so that I may improve my comment or respond.
- germanier 11y ago
- Maarten88 11y agoTo me this whole TTIP feels like the US trying to bundle and export their most profitable corporate lobbying results through the corrupt and payed-for US politicians to the EU. Secret negotiations, state-investor dispute, all of this seems organized to help big corporations screw consumers further. I simply hope the whole thing fails, I really don't see the benefit to me.
- mercurial 11y agoI'm sure the EU corporations are doing their share of lobbying, but I agree that all these trade agreements seem to be tailored for Big Business at the expense of consumers.
- pizza234 11y agoThis is a completely different level than lobbying, this is effectively corporative control. You enforce labeling of "inconvenient" ingredients on food? That hurts Mamacorp, you're going to be sued. You ban pesticides? Mamacorp is going to sue you. You prevent smoking? Mamacorp is going to sue you. You block eternal copyright? Well, you got the rap. The thing I find terrifying is that virtually any form of social progress can be interpreted as damage to some company's profit. TTIP is corporatocracy at its finest.
- Brakenshire 11y agoYes, there's no need to make the US the bad guy. The key point is the way in which a treaty like this puts a whole class of what would once have been domestic legislation beyond the reach of democratic decision-making. Both in the treaties themselves, and their transnational private courts.
- based2 11y agoChemicals Legislation http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/legislation/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/legislation/ind... http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/harmonised-standards/pesticide-application-equipment/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/... Measuring REACH and CLP Enforcement - new study Published on: 19/05/2015, Last update: 20/05/2015 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8280&lang=en&title=Measuring-REACH-and-CLP-Enforcement---new-study http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/newsroom/cf/itemd... src: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/eu-monitoring/dg-environment-explains-delegated-acts-biocides https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/eu-monitoring/... http://newsletter.echa.europa.eu/home/-/newsletter/entry/4_12-bjorn-interview;jsessionid=FA3521FA977B29C9D750FBFC67D0605E.live2 http://newsletter.echa.europa.eu/home/-/newsletter/entry/4_1...
- tzs 11y agoSee also extensive discussion from 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587772 That was a submission from a different publication, though.
- realusername 11y agoHow can you seriously defend the EU to the average European when you see things like this ? This kind of stories are not going to help to reduce the current distrust of everything related to the European union. All this corruption really does a disservice to the EU.
- peteretep 11y agoHonestly? Because my first thought was "there's no way the EU signed off on this". I challenge anyone to find a stauncher protector of consumer rights in history than the EU...
- andy_ppp 11y agoThis is the strange thing about the EU, it is almost as barmy as the BBC but like them somehow largely manages to do the right thing. It's amazing that most of our politicians believe with a kind of religious faith that big business and the free market is the solution when it seems fairly clear the psychopathic behaviour and the free market has bankrupted government and ruined the economy. Instead of saying let's put in further more stringent regulations the neocons have got more of their policies through. I think this is largely due to an obedient and corporate controlled media.
- allendoerfer 11y agoThat is because they have very limited area that they can regulate, so consumer protection laws are essentially their playing field. For more serious topics they have to ask Merkel & Hollande.
- based2 11y agohttp://ec.europa.eu/consumers/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/index_en.htm
- chki 11y agoCould you please elaborate on the corruption point, because I don't see anything about that in the article and have actually not heard about corruption in the European Union for a long time.
- kokey 11y agoOpening up trade is bad by default... to those that benefit from the barriers that are in place. I am always suspicious of a lot of emotive campaigning in response to trade agreements that opens up trade.
- Brakenshire 11y agoIt's not that opening up trade is bad by default, it's that opening up trade is not an absolute value which overrides all other considerations (in this case, an individual's right to protection from harm by third parties, or a democracy's right to make decisions within its own borders).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- msvalkon 11y agoDid you by chance read the article? This has little to do with opening up trade and much to do with providing ridiculous amount of power to any major corporation. EDIT: Suppose I'm a producer of bottled water from Germany. I bottle a lot of water in California. The Californians vote to move to heavy water rationing and regulation due to the threat of continuous draught. This hurts my business, so should I be allowed, as a corporation, to sue the state of California, have any possible trials and hearings within a closed courtroom and possibly overrule the vote?
- RobertoG 11y agoAgree, the motivation of all this is, at least, worrisome. You should be allowed, as a corporation, to sue the state of California... in California. But this is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the creation of new special courtrooms above the laws of California, staffed by people that worked for corporations and when they left the job are going to work for corporations again. If this is not worrisome, you tell me what it is.
- beastofthefield 11y ago
- ck2 11y agoThe do-nothing-congress better crash and burn that thing in the House. It's going to be crazy if this is one of the few things they pass this year.
- benaston 11y agoParliamentary democracies are often deeply flawed and in need of reform. That much is obvious (in the UK at any rate). The problem with the EU is that is is even less democratic and hence less accountable than the pre-existing system of national governments. Furthermore, as this article shows, the EU makes it easier for large companies and trading blocks to pull-off greater subversions and abuses of power via lobbying and corruption, since power is concentrated in a much smaller number of people. The founders and implementors of the EU "project" used the term "ever tighter integration" in their founding documents, where they laid out their vision for a United States of Europe. They even describe how they intended to implement this via a technique called "gradualism". The idea being that big sweeping reforms would be rejected by the individual polities, but that more gradual, subtle changes spread over time could achieve the same effect without the same resitance. And we have seen this in action over the past forty years. A bit like the apochryphal boiling of a frog. The problem is that this is in some sense subversive and in another, presumptious that the EU project is desired and/or sensible. At some point the frog metaphor breaks down and people begin to realize what is happening and what has happened. And in the UK at least, finally, we are beginning to see a debate being held on the desirability of the EU being a political union (rather than the more prosaic free-trade area).
- higherpurpose 11y agoAll democratic republics are in dire need of an overhaul for the 21st century. However, US and UK tend to be worse than many because of the first past the post voting system.
- minot 11y agoI feel bad for the voters in the UK. LD got trounced in this election but in the previous two elections they had 22 and 23 percentage of votes. In 2010, Conservatives had 47% of the seats with 36 percent of votes. Labor had almost 40% with 29% of the votes. LD had 8% with 23% of votes. Even in 2015, they had 1.2% of seats with 7.9% of votes. If you have almost a quarter of the population voting for you, you'd think you can make things happen. What went wrong with the referendum? What could the YES proponents have done differently? More importantly, has the damage been done? How long do UK nationals have to be quiet about alternative voting now?
- jokoon 11y agoI hate to say this, and I don't think it's justified, but that's the kind of stuff al-qaeda would fight against. Someday having anti-american opinions might equate with being a terrorist.
- andy_ppp 11y agoSomeday! Funny that you should say this but David Cameron wants us to never be left alone by the state and anti terror laws are regularly used against people who are not terrorists. The police are being militarised and the human rights act is being removed from law here in the UK. Someday looks like tomorrow to me.
- mcintyre1994 11y agoProbably not terrorist but maybe extremist? If you haven't heard that's David Cameron and Theresa May's current choice of undefined term for people they want to attack but that haven't broken any terror laws (or any other actually).
- matternew 11y ago``EU plans to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals found in pesticides have been dropped because of threats from the US that this would adversely affect negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)'' They shouldn't drop them, we should regulate freely and be removed from TTIP. Being involved in TTIP isn't a privilege or in any way desirable, it's an undemocratic exercise in futility. So, to me, being ejected is a win-win scenario.
- reimertz 11y agoDo people want TTIP? Nope.(http://goo.gl/FD145h http://goo.gl/FD145h) Do people want pesticides? Nope. (https://goo.gl/AQNdZv https://goo.gl/AQNdZv) So what is the problem?
- glandium 11y ago> So what is the problem? People.
- danbruc 11y agoDo people want TTIP? Nope. That's (sadly) (possibly) not true. I thought it would be scandalous if Europeans didn't want TTIP and they just ignored the people and continued negotiating. But then I found this chart [1] and in almost every country the majority is for a trade agreement. I don't know if the numbers are wrong, if people are uninformed or if they just don't care, but if the numbers are correct then it all is just democratic, the majority wins, whether I or you like it or not. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/is-europe-on-board-for-a-new-trade-deal-with-the-u-s/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/is-europe-on...
- taejo 11y agoThose survey results show people who are "for a free trade and investment agreement between the EU and the USA" -- not those who are for this trade agreement; the objections to TTIP are arguably not about the freedom of trade and investment.
- minot 11y agoExactly. How am I supposed to say whether I like it or not when I don't know what "it" is? Lets leave surprises for company pot luck lunches. Would any elected official dare ask the same about the legislative process? Isn't a trade agreement that sets precedent as legislation the opposite of a participatory democracy? It just makes no sense. How can they have things like TPP and TTIP and still complain about the lack of involvement in politics by ordinary folks?
- 11y ago
- motbob 11y agoThe article uses numbers pretty dishonestly. "[T]the health costs of EDCs to Europe are between £113 billion and £195 billion (between €160 and €277 billion) every year." There is no mention that pesticides/herbicides are a very small percentage of that number. It doesn't matter whether it's "still bad" that it's a small percentage. Arstechnica willingly led me to believe that the impact of pesticides/herbicides was in the hundreds of billions of Euros. These numbers also, notably, came out long after the 2013 negotiations mentioned. What was the scientific consensus on EDCs in 2013?
- Tosh108 11y agoFurther down the article there's an indirect reference: “I would recommend that pregnant women and children eat organic fruits and vegetables and avoid using plastic containers and canned food, especially in the microwave, because containers are usually treated on the inside with substances and compounds that can leak into the tomato soup and may act as endocrine disruptors,” he said.
- inDigiNeous 11y agoSo,you think it's only the money or cost that matters? How about the fact that this means that pesticides will contain more harmful ingredients and might destroy parts of the agriculture? Oh yeah, but you can't really see immediate dollar results from that.
- beastofthefield 11y agoBoohoo. It's just one small detail. Free trade between US and EU will boost prosperity of each economy by a lot and enable the free market to be less constrained by bureaucratic governments and their nonsensical laws. TTIP should have been passed 30 years ago.
- cyphunk 11y agoCollectively the EU bloc represents the larges global economy (18tr GDP). It should be the US forced to accept EU regulations to participate in the EU economy, not the other way around.
- adventured 11y agoThe US economy is about $1.8 trillion larger than the EU economy presently. The EU economy is roughly $15.7 trillion (€14.3 trillion), and hasn't grown in seven years. During that time, the US retook the lead in size and added around ~$2.5 trillion to its GDP. The dollar run in the prior year has also lifted the value of the US economy at the expense of the EU economy, by about ~13%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
- cyphunk 11y agothanks for updating my outdated data :)
- tim333 11y agoWhile I'm against the TTIP, the "the health costs of EDCs to Europe are between £113 billion and £195 billion" mentioned in the Ars article seems to be from the Guaridan article "(£113bn-£195bn)" http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/health-costs-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-150bn-a-year-europe-says-study http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/health-co... that says "Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interfere with the human hormone system, and can be found in food containers, plastics, furniture, toys, carpeting and cosmetics." no mention of pesticides in their opening bit. I'm guessing the percentage exposure coming from pesticides is very small so the financial figures in the Ars article are misleading.
- PythonicAlpha 11y agoThe problem about "TTIP" and "free trade treaties" is, that they are continuously used to support the interests of big corporations -- and thus, lowering health, environmental and other standards is one of the big targets of those treaties. I lately saw a documentation about the trade treaty of the US with Mexico. They said, that standards where lowered in both countries. Take two or more countries and make today a "free trade treaty" between them, you get the lowest common denominator, since the big corporations are at the head of the table. TTIP starts to reduce standards even before it is signed.
- parennoob 11y ago> EU regulations would have banned 31 pesticides containing endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that have been linked to testicular cancer and male infertility. Obvious criticism of sweeping trade treaties aside, this is another blatant case where the health and well-being of males takes a back seat to political considerations. I'll bet my bottom dollar that if these chemicals caused, say, ovarian cancer, Governments on both sides of the Atlantic would be racing to ban them and get political brownie points.
- joering2 11y agoJust after the official launch of the TTIP negotiations on 13 June 2013, a US business delegation visited EU officials to demand that the proposed regulations governing EDCs should be thrown out in favour of a further "impact study." May I please know the names of those scumbags, or at least how can I find out? I want to know more about those brainacs, perhaps place a few phonecalls, express my disgust.