Companies continue to export chlorpyrifos from the EU to poorer countries

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2023/03/28/eu-banned-pesticide-global-south/

by osivertsson • 2 years ago

110 40 2 years ago

unearthed.greenpeace.org

"The EU’s behaviour demonstrated a “double standard”, added Ramírez Muñoz: “It prohibits the use of this substance in its territories for health reasons, especially in children, but continues with its production and shipment to other countries where it is used for food production, as if in these countries the lives of infants who are exposed to chlorpyrifos have no value.”"

The blame is put squarely on Europe but do these countries that import have no responsibility for themselves?

FirmwareBurner2• 2 years ago

The blame is put squarely on Europe but do these countries that import have no responsibility for themselves?

Poorer countries are a lot more vulnerable that richer ones. It's like blaming the homeless person eating rotten food he received at he food bank for lacking personal responsibility for his food poisoning.

password543212• 2 years 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.

itsoktocry2• 2 years ago

It's like blaming the homeless person eating rotten food he received at he food bank for lacking personal responsibility for his food poisoning.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think this is a bad example: presumably, the rotten food is no one's fault. Someone gets sick, there's uproar, rules and regulations are put in place, and next thing you know it's difficult or restrictive to even provide food at a food bank. Everyone is worse off. This isn't a stretch, we see it all the time.

anilakar• 2 years ago

If exporting said pesticide was banned, people would be blaming EU for famine instead. Regarding your example, I have a concrete counterexample: Companies are already receiving blame for throwing expired food in the trash compactor instead of donating it to food banks.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Kognito2• 2 years ago

Bad analogy.

It’s more like your average lower income family eats more fast food than average high income families

We could ban fast food because it increases cancer risk and say the poor people don’t understand the risk so we need to save them from themselves. Meanwhile they just lost their main source of low cost food.

linguistbreaker• 2 years ago

Europe is more stringent about sunscreens too. They publish these standards. Each country has to set its own standards, and there are plenty to follow if they want a starting point...

nairboon2• 2 years ago

It's like blaming the homeless person eating rotten food he received at he food bank

I don't think these companies are donating Chlorpyrifos, so this analogy is not quite right.

mc325• 2 years ago

Exactly!

It's like saying the EU is poisoning the US because there are things we don't ban but they do. It's up to us to make that determination and stop the importation. They like raw cheese, that's great, we prefer to avoid the low chance of food poisoning. But that goes for lots of chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Each economic zone or country makes its own determination.

That's what national standards and regulations are for. If the countries don't care to even have laws to protect their citizens, then the blame is greatly on them.

But, instead of making hay with those governments, it's more attractive to say the EU is to blame. No, go protest those countries --that's where they should make hay, but it's probably not as sexy and they'd probably be run out.

aaomidi3• 2 years ago

Due to the difference in wealth, it is very easy to shift opinions in these types of situations.

Providing a known-bad chemical that is just going to, at the end of the day, impact everyone in this world is just plain wrong.

Kognito2• 2 years ago

Yeah, tend to agree here. The idea that the west knows best and less developed countries need a saving from themselves feels wrong to me.

The data is out there, it’s trivial for these countries to ban chemicals if they wish to do so, but it may not be trivial for their industries to switch to cleaner, greener and potentially more expensive alternatives.

6510• 2 years ago

I wouldn't put it that way. I would prefer it if anything we sell is up to our own standards. Just like any kind of branding.

giraffe_lady2• 2 years ago

They don't "need a saving from themselves" they need a protection from powerful entities that are incentivized to harm them for economic gain.

ToucanLoucan• 2 years ago

Yeah, tend to agree here. The idea that the west knows best and less developed countries need a saving from themselves feels wrong to me.

If the global south countries at hand have scientific data that shows these substances are not harmful, then sure. But somehow I doubt that's the case. I think it's far more likely that it's a cheaper product that they can (possibly) afford, and their people who did nothing wrong and had no say in that decision will bear the cost of it.

It's frankly some wild mental gymnastics to take "The West shouldn't make decisions for the global south" and turn that into "so, if western corporations want to dump toxic products that regulatory bodies have forbid the sale of in said western countries, then they're free to do it in the global south." Holy fuck.

rightbyte• 2 years ago

A weak gov. that can't piss off farmer interests might benefit a lot from external bans though.

itsoktocry2• 2 years ago

The blame is put squarely on Europe but do these countries that import have no responsibility for themselves?

This one is tough, because I agree it's the responsibility of the importer. But it's also strange to knowingly provide seriously harmful products. One is a legal argument, the other ethical.

pgeorgi• 2 years ago

Europe sometimes opts for not providing seriously harmful products - like the pharmaceuticals used for executions in the US.

But I think that's pressure group driven, and so might see a change in handling chlorpyrifos eventually.

mtrovo• 2 years ago

Lobbying or straight up corruption payed in euros go a long way on poor countries.

Pesticides usage lobbying in particular was a very vocal issue during the last election in Brazil https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Toxi...

ysofunny• 2 years ago

but so many things work like this:

"global south" countries, i.e. former eruopean colonies have resources that get shipped to the industrialized north, things get industrially transformed and then sold back to the resource originating countries

this makes it easy to imagine that the food once grown using those pesticides may well get exported back to europe. so maybe it's eruopean corporations doing the pesticide importing, growing the food, exporting the food. that's why the blame is put in europe.

mining really does work like this, why not agriculture?

okasaki• 2 years ago

I don't think that quote demonstrates any of the things you say.

dylan604• 2 years ago

The ironic bit is that the food produced outside of the EU with the use of products banned by the EU is making its way back into the EU and being sold cheaper than the EU produced items.

xkcd-sucks• 2 years ago

Of course they share responsibility, but also, in aggregate, circumstances worked out such that they are less capable of enforcing laws even if the compounds or their uses are completely banned

nairboon2• 2 years ago

The actual title of the article is quite dishonest:

Europe shipping banned pesticide linked to child brain damage to Global South

As if the whole continent packs up these pesticides and sends them southwards.

Later they clarify:

Almost all of Europe’s 2022 exports of the chemical – sent from Belgium and Denmark by the multinational pesticide companies UPL and FMC

But i guess the proper headline of "US and Indian multinationals export pesticides from Belgium and Denmark" is less sensationalist.

dig1• 2 years ago

The main destinations were Algeria, Tunisia, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Costa Rica.

These countries are known to have bad regulations and are easy to bribe, which creates a loophole for big corporations to get richer (and let's put aside how they get to the point of having bad regulations). However, remember that many developed countries import ingredients from the named countries, so saying "it's not my problem" can't be applied here.

aaomidi3• 2 years ago

It is near impossible to have a poor country that isn't easy to bribe. EU and these companies know this too.

Even if you say the responsibility is on these countries to ban them themselves, you know that's not going to happen due to the wealth disparity leading to corruption. What then?

Folks thinking this is a "not my problem" situation, put yourself in the shoes of the parents in the other country. They know they are generally powerless to protect their kids from these, and people from European countries producing these chemicals are saying "not my problem".

abdellah123• 2 years ago

lol, that's fine ...

They export bombs that kill hundreds (of children and women) per day in Gaza !

JoshTko• 2 years ago

This is just evil.

Companies continue to export chlorpyrifos from the EU to poorer countries

Related Stories