Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Tory MPs urge government to scrap EU’s approach to pesticides


Silver
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Conservative MPs have urged the government to use its Brexit freedoms to ditch the EU’s cautious approach to making sure pesticides are safe for human consumption.

A new report authored by right-wing Tory MPs urges ministers to “peel back” the EU’s “precautionary principle” so that chemical companies can experiment, increase "yields", and "return a profit".

A chapter of the report, authored by MP Alexander Stafford, says the UK should automatically allow all pesticides permitted in the United States under a “mutual recognition” system.

“Governments, supported by private stakeholders like those attending my APPG [all-party parliamentary groups] roundtables, need to innovate in order to decarbonise and return a profit, and they need to do it now,” he said.

Brexit: Tory MPs urge government to scrap EU’s cautious approach to pesticides and allow all US chemicals | The Independent (archive.ph)

Edited by The Silver Shroud
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:cry:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea here is to use a risk based approach rather than a hazard based approach. 

 Food legislation in the European Union and elsewhere includes both hazard- and risk-based approaches for ensuring safety. In hazard-based approaches, simply the presence of a potentially harmful agent at a detectable level in food is used as a basis for legislation and/or risk management action.

Risk-based approaches allow consideration of exposure in assessing whether there may be unacceptable risks to health.

Scope and approach

The advantages and disadvantages of hazard- and risk-based approaches for ensuring the safety of food chemicals, allergens, ingredients and microorganisms were explored at an ILSI Europe workshop.

Key findings and conclusions

It was concluded that both types of approach have their place, depending on the context. However, problems can arise when both types of approach are used in regulation by separate agencies that address different aspects of the same agent/substance present in food. This separation of decision-making can result in hazard-based restrictions on marketing and use, whereas risk-based assessments for those exposed show there is reasonable certainty no harm will result. This in turn can lead to contradictory, confusing and ultimately unnecessary actions. Use of hazard-based approaches for foods also means that comparisons with benefits for nutrition and food security cannot be undertaken. This has the potential to lead to bias in the overall conclusions of regulators and risk managers, who may not have been presented with the benefits of particular foods. The value of risk-based approaches is becoming increasingly recognised.

Food safety is not absolute and in 1993 OECD prepared a working definition, namely “a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from intended uses under the anticipated conditions of consumption” (OECD, 1993). This definition recognises that zero tolerance of risks is not feasible for the majority of foods and the majority of safety contexts. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224415300170

 

So while this could be spun as a reduction in standards the reality is much more complex. 

And you have to ask yourself where are all the dead buried in the USA that have succumbed due to their lower standards. ;)

Its not as though litigation is unknown in the states. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I think the idea here is to use a risk based approach rather than a hazard based approach. 

 ..

I think the idea here is to increase "yields", and "return a profit". That is their concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, The Silver Shroud said:

I think the idea here is to increase "yields", and "return a profit". That is their concern.

I am not sure why holding back productivity, profits and yields without reasonable scientific reasons should be considered good practice. 

I wonder what a world would look like if all hazards are removed in all circumstances. 

I for one would not volunteer to live in it. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.