Glyphosate Herbicides Now Banned or Restricted in 17 Countries Worldwide – Sustainable Pulse Research

Posted on  May 28 2019 – 4:00pm  by  Sustainable Pulse, original article here

Following the recent bans on the use of glyphosate-based herbicides by cities and institutions in the U.S., including Key West, Los Angeles, the University of California and Miami, Sustainable Pulse decided to research which countries around the world have banned or restricted the use of the world’s most used herbicide.

This research has led to the discovery that there is a growing swell of government level support worldwide for bans on glyphosate-based herbicides for both health and environmental reasons.

17 countries have now banned or restricted the use of this carcinogenic herbicide.

Previous research by Sustainable Pulse on the number of countries that have banned GM Crops has reached millions of people and we look forward to our latest research reaching an even wider audience. Sustainable Pulse welcomes additions or edits to the list below from readers and experts from around the Globe.

Africa:

Malawi: Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Water Development announced the suspension of import permits for glyphosate in April 2019.

Asia:

Vietnam: Vietnam announced that it banned the import of all glyphosate-based herbicides with in March 2019 following a cancer trial verdict from San Francisco

Sri Lanka: In 2015 a full import ban on all glyphosate-based herbicides was put in place by the then newly elected President Maithripala Sirisena. This ban was partly lifted in July 2018 but only for use on tea and rubber plantations.

Six Middle Eastern countries banned the import and use of glyphosate-based herbicides in coordination with each other in 2015 and 2016:

  • Oman
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Kuwait
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Bahrain
  • Qatar

Central America:

Bermuda: Bermuda’s Environment Minister Cole Simons confirmed the ban on glyphosate-based herbicides at a public meeting in January 2017.

St Vincent and the Grenadines: In August 2018 Agriculture Minister Saboto Caesar called on all stakeholders to be understanding of the new suspension on glyphosate-based herbicides “in light of the nation’s quest to promote a safe working environment and good agricultural health and food safety practices.”

Europe:

Belgium: In October 2018 the ban on the sale of broad-spectrum herbicides (including glyphosate) to non-professional users entered in to force across Belgium.

Czech Republic: In 2018 the Czech Republic put strict restrictions on the use of glyphosate and banned pre-harvest spraying; “These substances (glyphosate-based herbicides) will only be employed in cases when no other efficient method can be used,” Agriculture Minister Miroslav Toman said.

Denmark: In July 2018, the Danish government implemented new rules banning the use of glyphosate on all post-emergent crops to avoid residues on foods.

France: In 2017 France banned the use of glyphosate and all other pesticides in public green spaces. In November 2018 President Macron said he would take all measures necessary to ensure that glyphosate-based herbicides are banned in France as soon as an alternative is available and at the latest within three years. However, he has since stated that this deadline may only be 80% met.

Italy: In August 2016 Italy’s Ministry of Health banned the use of glyphosate in public areas and also as a pre-harvest spray.

The Netherlands: From the end of 2015 the sale of glyphosate-based herbicides has been banned to all non-business entities.

Call to Action:

Want to help keep Mexico’s ban on corn (maize) in place? You can make a difference, by adding your voice to Be the Difference or, just as important, donating so that the nonprofit organization Alternativas can continue its legal battles against GMO in Mexico.

A Blog Looking Back at the Cooperation of The Crowd and the Bees

25 March 2019

By Andrea Carta, Greenpeace EU Senior Legal Strategist

My collaboration with “The Crowd Versus” began in September 2016. At that time, I was providing EU law expertise to Greenpeace International, who had intervened in a case that Bayer and Syngenta had started against the EU Commission: the two agrochemical companies were trying to annul a regulation that prohibited the use of three active substances for pesticides (neonicotinoids), which the Commission found to be harmful for bees. 

Together with other NGOs engaging in the protection of bees and pollinators (Bee-Life.eu, Bugslife.org, and Pesticides Action Network-Europe), we decided to intervene in the proceedings in support of the Commission’s ban.

The Crowd Versus made their platform available for a fundraising campaign, to help us pay the costs of the court intervention and to provide communication opportunities around the case. 

Getting the fundraising campaign started was a relatively easy process. The Crowd Versus uses a simple and transparent standard agreement and it provides the parties with all the basic information to develop the crowdfunding page. At the design stage, requests for input on Greenpeace’s side were minimal, and limited to a short description of the legal case and to some pictures. 

The Crowd Versus produced a dedicated webpage and a video. It also took care of the launch of the crowdfunding via social media like Facebook and Twitter. Communication was regular and all the adjustments that proved necessary (text, timeline and target) were made practically in real time. 

On 29 September 2016 we were online and the campaign ended on 15 February 2017 with € 1.680 and 85 individual donors, most of which from the Netherlands, where The Crowd Versus is based.

Considering that we were practically running a pilot, and that The Crowd Versus was mainly counting on its own audience, I think the result of this short campaign was encouraging, even if it did not reach the target that we had initially set. 

What could have we done differently to achieve the target?

Based on my experience with the bees’ case, I think that, beyond a thorough preparation, communication is the factor that can determine the success of a crowdfunding campaign. Here are my two advices:

Communicate frequently and widely around the case

This should be easier for grassroots organisations, whose main focus is on one legal cases (or a small number of them), than for large organisations like Greenpeace, who have many campaigns and initiatives running at the same time. 

Find a way to make (administrative) law appealing

Administrative law is already boring for law students. Don’t expect it to be entertaining for the public unless you put some serious work on it!

Beyond a doubt, our case was important from both the legal and the environmental perspective. However, mobilising supporters was very difficult, given that cases before the EU Court of Justice are very slow, very technical and very quiet. 

With a well-designed and planned communication strategy, a crowdfunding campaign can bring, in addition to the monies that are necessary to run a legal case, a valuable opportunity to mobilise around it and turn a lawsuit into a real campaign.

BIO

Andrea Carta works as Senior Legal Strategist for the European Unit of Greenpeace, where he advices on a broad range of EU environmental law issues, including pesticides, GMOs, energy, access to justice, illegal timber imports and trade policy.

Ban on Trade of Wild Animals in China Stands

GOOD NEWS! Ban on Trade of Rhino Horn and Tiger Parts in China Still Stands

 

19 November 2018

In October 2018, China’s government announced a decision that outraged conservation groups worldwide. China was planning to lift the 25-year-old ban on the trade of rhino horn and tiger parts.

The Chinese government argued that the use was only for ‘medical research’, using animals bred in captivity. Environmental groups spoke out against the plan and addressed the devastating effects. It is not possible to discern the difference between animals from the wild and from captivity once they have been destroyed.

Black market

Both tigers and Rhinos are endangered species. A black market for the use of parts of the animals already puts a lot of pressure on the population of wildlife. This lift would only make this pressure worse. It would confuse consumers and authorities about what is considered legal and what is not.

Postpone the decision

A few weeks later the official Xinhua News Agency reported that, after further study, they have decided to postpone the decision.

It is not clear if it would be permanent, but at this moment the old ban is still in force. This means that they prohibit the import and export, sale, transport, carrying and use of rhino horns and tiger bones.

This case proves again that public opinion and protest does have an effect, which is good news for these beautiful animals, who are part of the Big Five, and reserves all over the world, including the beautiful Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Wilderness area.

Original article: Reuters.com