Swiss voters reject proposal to ban synthetic pesticides

Swiss Voters Reject Proposal to Ban Synthetic Pesticides

Swiss voters on Sunday rejected a measure that would have banned the use of artificial pesticides in Switzerland, preventing their use in farms and gardens along with their imports.

The initiative had been proposed by Future 3, a citizens group that is pushing for a pesticide-free Switzerland. The group’s spokesman, Dominik Waser, said the main motivation was protecting the health of people and the environment.

“Pesticides have a huge influence on our health and it can’t carry on like this,” he said. While the long-term impact of the chemicals is not yet fully known, studies have suggested links between synthetic pesticides and a range of health issues including Parkinson’s and infertility.

Mr. Waser also cited possible ecological issues connected to the spraying of synthetic pesticides.

 

The Swiss are, obviously, not very environmentally friendly !!!

 

A victory in the fight to make science understand that adherence to climate-oriented policy will only damage the economy.

Petulant globalists take that!

...

 

Insects can not only destroy entire crops, they can also spread disease.
Therefore all insecticides should be studied for health effects, particularly their residue and the length of time that it takes them to fully break down.
Stopping science is not the answer.

 

I see the inflection in my post is not apparent. LOL @wilsjane. I was being entirely facetious. I find organic pesticide to be more than adequate... I prefer it, and would just as soon see Monsanto go the way of the dodo bird.

 

Because a substance is organic, does not always make it harmless, particularly to wildlife.
Government restrictions should take everything into account and include the time scales and quantities used.
Overly simplistic bans can end up doing more harm than good, so correctly regulated science should be applied. However I agree that historically this is not the way that things have always worked in the past.

 

Try telling that to Monsanto and Asta Zenica amongst others !!!

 

Ninety-nine percent of the pesticides in supermarket produce are natural pesticides, produced by the plants themselves. That doesn't mean the other manmade 1% should be tolerated, but for some people, it questions the wisdom of eating a lot of plant foods.

Plants don't love us. They don't have teeth and claws, and can't run away, so they produce defensive chemicals to harm animals and insects that want to eat them.

 

Unfortunately life is not always as simple as it looks
.
While I am sure that you have heard of the potato famine in Ireland, you are possibly not aware that wheat is the only cereal that will survive the damp conditions.
Even so, the harvested grain can contain a large quantity of dead bugs, in certain cases making it only suitable for animal feed.
That is part of the reason for the deal between Ireland and the UK where they provide a lot of our milk and beef, using the money to import flour and cereals, formally from Canada.
Although the deal predated the EEC by more than 50 years, Brussels started meddling like petulant children the day that we left the EU.

Back to pesticides.
In situations such as Ireland, they have allowed them to grow potatoes and certain crops pest free for decades, but used incorrectly their are risks.
The 2 most important are to not allow chemicals to enter the ground water and hence the water table, along with timing that does not leave chemical residue in the crop.

Ireland strictly follows the manufacturers guide lines and their are regular inspections from their department of agriculture. The penalties for transgression are severe, since Ireland exports a lot of dairy products that will be tested by countries importing them. For allowing any chemicals to enter the ground water, farmers will be fined tens of thousands and crops that contain residue will be incinerated.

The manufacturers of these products provide adequate and comprehensive data on the use on their products, but sadly a lot of greedy farmers do not even bother to read them, let alone follow the guidelines. It is like giving a child a big bag of sweets and expecting to only eat a few every day.
This is the area where governments should involve themselves and carry out testing to fine tune the use of the product to their country.
As you well know, most politicians are more worried about winning the next election than looking after the people who voted them into power in the first place.

 

Hmmm - and which political party was it that abolished the egg marketing board, the milk marketing boad and a host of other organisations tasked with food safety as well as dozens of regulations too because the farmers (including scumbag 'nasty party' members) objected to too many rules and regulations ???

 

The marketing boards were top heavy with red tape and became somewhat redundant when the EEC became the EU and the bombastic bureaucrats in Brussels became self appointed gods.

However, the decimation of standards committees was a great loss to the UK.
It was entirely the result of building standards inspectors being reduced to administrator's working alongside surveyors appointed by the client (a clear conflict of interest)
that resulted in the terrible fire at Grenfel Tower.
However, it was local authorities who allowed these cuts to happen when their budgets were reduced.
Again, they were working on public pressure to keep social centres funded and ignoring the fact that they were allowing death traps to be built.
This was made worse by EU laws allowing surveyors to practice who were not trained or qualified in the UK.

PS. The cause of the Grenfel fire was simple and a friend of mine working with me summarised it on 2 pages.
The official report buried the truth in more than 1,000 pages of utter drivel. Most of it made no sense at all.
Perhaps the most stupid part was the pressure group suggesting sprinklers in high rise buildings. They simply did not grasp the fact that the pipework, pumps and water would only deal with a fire in a maximum of 2 apartments at the same time. Not much use when you give an entire building a flammable overcoat.

 

I note your reluctance to answer a direct question, and your attempt at diverting away from that question, which obviously is uncomfortable for you, but for yours and other's enlightenment it was the scumbag 'nasty party' central government, NOT local councils who were responsible for the abolition of standards regulations and administration boards, boards, which the scumbag 'nasty party' detested because they were, far from being beaurocratic nighmares, were the protectors of the vast majority of the population against the lying, conniving, theiving scumbag 'nasty party' members.