If they ban Glyphosate

[cows sh#t me to tears]

How long does it allegedly take to cause cancer ? Dad had me driving the little fergie for him whilst he was spraying the channels since i was about 8. No protective clothing what so ever. Lost track of the amount of years of being covered in spray drift....37 years later i still don't have cancer. Geez even aspestos doesn't take that long

 

[Daniel]

The U.K. Government has no veto on this so I'm not sure that would be a very positive approach to take.

It may well be able to do whatever it wants on 24th June, though the NFU hopes it can't.

If it still has its hands tied it can behave like the Italian and Spanish governments and just ignore the rules and do as it wishes.

 

[B'o'B]

How long does it allegedly take to cause cancer ? Dad had me driving the little fergie for him whilst he was spraying the channels since i was about 8. No protective clothing what so ever. Lost track of the amount of years of being covered in spray drift....37 years later i still don't have cancer. Geez even aspestos doesn't take that long

They still don't know that it does cause cancer, they just that there is a chance that it might.

 

[B'o'B]

It may well be able to do whatever it wants on 24th June, though the NFU hopes it can't.

If it still has its hands tied it can behave like the Italian and Spanish governments and just ignore the rules and do as it wishes.

I think you may have unrealistic expectations of a vote to leave will result in.
For what it is worth the NFU looked at a lot of data and decided that on balance it looked to them like farm businesses would financially and competitively be worse off and be put at greater risk if we leave the EU than if we stay in. Having found that out they decided to tell the members and the public that. And apart from these latest EU shianigans I think that is a reasonable assessment and I'm someone who still hasn't decided how I'm going to vote. This glyphosate vote certainly isn't making me feel like voting IN right now.

 

[Brisel]

Demand, in no uncertain terms, that the UK government exercises a veto on any ban and continues to licence its use in UK agriculture.

As pointed out elsewhere, it will still be used outside the EU and the EU isn't about to ban imports of grains/soya etc from the Americas so therefore isn't going to ban any crop exports from us either.

You can't veto a ban. It doesn't work like that. There is no ban.

The approval expires by default, so all that needs to happen to see glyphosate's loss is a lack of renewal agreement by member states, which is what has happened here so far. When the approval expires without renewal, it becomes illegal to possess or use that chemical.

Post June 23rd, whether Westminster decides to turn its back on all these withdrawn pesticides will depend on the bargaining required with Brussels for the trade deals. Believing that we'll see IPU, Treflan, atrazine etc back straight away is just dreaming. It also assumes that the manufacturer wants to supply & support each product.

 

[turbo]

You can't veto a ban. It doesn't work like that. There is no ban.

The approval expires by default, so all that needs to happen to see glyphosate's loss is a lack of renewal agreement by member states, which is what has happened here so far. When the approval expires without renewal, it becomes illegal to possess or use that chemical.

Post June 23rd, whether Westminster decides to turn its back on all these withdrawn pesticides will depend on the bargaining required with Brussels for the trade deals. Believing that we'll see IPU, Treflan, atrazine etc back straight away is just dreaming. It also assumes that the manufacturer wants to supply & support each product.

Ipu is not banned in Europe just here as far as I know

 

[franklin]

Ipu is not banned in Europe just here as far as I know

And that is just one more reason to not be in the EU. Single market and level playing field my arse.

 

[B'o'B]

And that is just one more reason to not be in the EU. Single market and level playing field my arse.

It's not banned here, but you can only use tiny amounts of it. It's in Blutron and Blutron Plus.

 

[Daniel]

You can't veto a ban. It doesn't work like that. There is no ban.

The approval expires by default, so all that needs to happen to see glyphosate's loss is a lack of renewal agreement by member states, which is what has happened here so far. When the approval expires without renewal, it becomes illegal to possess or use that chemical.

Post June 23rd, whether Westminster decides to turn its back on all these withdrawn pesticides will depend on the bargaining required with Brussels for the trade deals. Believing that we'll see IPU, Treflan, atrazine etc back straight away is just dreaming. It also assumes that the manufacturer wants to supply & support each product.

If we stay in then I guess we are pretty powerless, but that shouldn't stop the NFU making our position clear.

In the event of Brexit parliament if it so wished could put a piece of paper in front of Liz, saying, 'glyphosate is legal in this green and pleasant land, for the purpose of turning green and pleasant things yellow' get her to sign it, tell Monsanto to keep shipping it, job done?

I don't expect to see ancient chemistry bought back but these is no reason at all that current stuff shouldn't be relicensed by an independent, sovereign government in the absence of any credible evidence that it's harmful.

Of course our government may well pander to the green lobby and ban it anyway, but then we can theoretically vote them out next time, which we can't with the EU commissioners.

I was on the fence re. Brexit but have now come off it....

 

[B'o'B]

In the event of Brexit parliament if it so wished could put a piece of paper in front of Liz, saying, 'glyphosate is legal in this green and pleasant land, for the purpose of turning green and pleasant things yellow' get her to sign it, tell Monsanto to keep shipping it, job done?

I don't expect to see ancient chemistry bought back but these is no reason at all that current stuff shouldn't be relicensed by an independent, sovereign government in the absence of any credible evidence that it's harmful.
..

Do you really think the legal system works like that?

 

[Daniel]

Do you really think the legal system works like that?

No, there are too many self interested parties getting fat on the bloated process and nay-sayers telling everyone it can't be done.

But in theory it could be a far more streamlined process yes.

 

[franklin]

It's not banned here, but you can only use tiny amounts of it. It's in Blutron and Blutron Plus.

Yup. So why cant we have a single EU pesticide licensing body, and do away with all the national ones? It doesnt need to be duplicated - like the June census.

 

[rob1]

They still don't know that it does cause cancer, they just that there is a chance that it might.

Unlike fags, now I wonder why they dont ban them

 

[llamedos]

No doubt you will consider that a tongue in cheek comment.
From what I hear the NFU are very active on this. Can you tell me if any other UK farmer representative body is doing anything and if so what?

Are they? Can you point me to any statements they have made on it?

Their membership is broadly in favour of Brexit yet they have publically endorsed Remain, I don't think they see promoting their members interests as a key priority?

Apologies I meant to post some links last night and forgot.

Not sure if you have seen the letter sent jointly by the unions
Credit for this copy to Scottish NFU

From their fields, yards and orchards across the UK, farmers are following the ongoing debate on the re-approval of glyphosate with mounting concern. To our minds, it comes down to a very simple question: what do we need? What do we need to keep providing people with food, our businesses viable and deliver other public goods that come from farming?

First and foremost we need a regulatory process that is based on solid, scientific evidence that is well scrutinised by an independent body and based on risk assessment. Indeed such a process for the registration of plant protection products has delivered a recommendation for the continued use of glyphosate. However, we need all elected officials and policymakers in national and European parliaments and institutions to respect the process. The ongoing situation has already severely damaged the credibility of the European Food Safety Authority and as a consequence has eroded confidence and certainty in the regulatory system.

It is deeply worrying that a decision that has very real consequences on millions of peoples’ everyday lives is the subject of political bargaining. We urge a return to evidence-led policymaking that is insulated from political swings and based on fair scientific risk assessment. Without this, we worry that doubt is unfortunately cast on the ability for the EU to deliver for farmers.

Secondly, European farmers need glyphosate to provide a safe, secure and affordable food supply while increasingly responding to consumer demand for greater environmental sensitivity. glyphosate is subject to regulation, as with all other pesticides, so that it is not found in dangerous quantities in the food chain. It is also an essential tool used in farming practices that actually improve soil structure and require less work with machinery; thus helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, application pre-harvest not only ensures the quality of the crop, but also means that less drying after harvest is required. This naturally reduces fuel and electricity usage, in turn lowering costs and minimising greenhouse gas emissions.

For environmental conservation too; the substance is used worldwide to manage vegetation to create biodiverse habitats. For whatever application, farmers are subject to the EU’s Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive. This ensures that we are certified to use these products and adopt strategies that seek to limit the risks of their use. Thereby we are allowed to access essential products which we need to produce while at the same time being regulated to use them responsibly.

Finally, the removal of such a tool carries the very real risk of yet another pressure on our incomes at a time when economic returns are already severely squeezed. The arable sector will likely be hardest hit through any restrictions, with direct impacts on yields. Loss of availability in the livestock and dairy sectors would result in an inability to tackle invasive and poisonous species in grassland and plant pests and diseases across all farm types. These effects would directly hit farmers’ margins too. Europe would therefore be at a further disadvantage to other nations, who face no such restrictions, but who we are increasingly trading with. Farmers are being asked the impossible. On one hand farmers are encouraged to improve and compete, yet we have tools that allow us to do so directly threatened with no like-for-like alternatives in place.

We therefore call on all policy makers and officials to seriously take into account the points we raise here. In our view there is no well-reasoned argument holding back a full reauthorisation of glyphosate in line with the regulatory process. We fear that without such a course of action there would be grave consequences for European agriculture that will resonate for years.




There has also been the #Farmers4Glyphosphate Copa Cogeca led with High Profile farmer testimonies, for the re authorization.

Such as the one by @Guy Smith

 

[Brisel]

Ipu is not banned in Europe just here as far as I know

IPU was withdrawn (and recently reregistered at a lower dose) due to the Environment Agency complaining about it turning up in water. The same happened for atrazine, cyanazine, simazine, trifluralin and will happen for glyphosate, metaldehyde & mecoprop. That will happen due to the EA which will continue to exist regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU.

 

[turbo]

IPU was withdrawn (and recently reregistered at a lower dose) due to the Environment Agency complaining about it turning up in water. The same happened for atrazine, cyanazine, simazine, trifluralin and will happen for glyphosate, metaldehyde & mecoprop. That will happen due to the EA which will continue to exist regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU.

Are most of the chemicals above banned in Europe or just here

 

[Brisel]

Good question. That will take a bit of time to answer, though I will just ask @Muck Spreader @le bon paysan @Xerion @Niels

 

[Niels]

For Holland:
IPU (Isoproturon) not banned
atrazine banned
Simazine banned
cyanazine banned
trifluralin banned
glyphosate not, of course EU regulation same everywhere.
metaldehyde no problem (we hardly grow rape no issue)
mecoprop also no problem

We have a lot of water courses so chemicals is always an issue. Tight regulations and we 'feel' that countries surrounding us (including UK) have more available to them. Not sure if this is the case. Because of the area of potatoes and onions grown here the focus for chemicals is mainly in that region. Glyphosate debate much less a topic here as virtually no min/no-till and we try to use it as little as possible anyway.

 

[Renaultman]

And that is just one more reason to not be in the EU. Single market and level playing field my arse.

Eh? We banned it, the EU haven't so this is a reason we should leave the EU? With all due respect, please read what you have posted again.

 

[will l]

For france
mecoprop ends next year (but only rumour at the moment)
IPU ends this year
all others banned
glyphosate only certain formulations allowed on feed wheat pre harvest but not approved for bread making or durum wheat or mais, No glyphosate sales allowed to the general public,only professional grower with certificate, we have been without clopyriphos for a long time,
5 metre zone non treatment next too all watercourses,