Bayer-Monsanto en Heineken willen een patent op meerdere gewassen

Schande!! Nadat het Europese Octrooibureau (European Patent Office >> EPO) vorig jaar heeft gesteld dat conventioneel geteelde gewassen niet voor een patent in aanmerking komen, hebben Bayer-Monsanto, DowDupont, Heineken en Carlsberg een maas in de wet gevonden en doen opnieuw pogingen om voor iedere boer, tuinder en particulier toegankelijke zaden van gewassen te patenteren...... Daarmee zou men bijvoorbeeld het patent krijgen op broccoli en zou iedereen die dat groentegewas teelt een bepaald bedrag moeten betalen aan de eigenaar van dat patent......

Dit soort geteisem zou alleen al voor die poging aan de paal genageld moeten worden, ze hebben met hun vieze grofgraai klauwen af te blijven van gewassen die in feite van iedereen zijn!!!

Het is trouwens al zo dat de grote gifmengers in feite de meeste groentezaden in bezit hebben, dit door overname van een enorm aantal zaadbedrijven........ Met hun (giftolerante) gentech zaden belazeren ze kleine boeren in arme landen, als die boeren een slechte oogst hebben bijvoorbeeld door droogte of andere omstandigheden, kunnen ze niet terugvallen op de eigen zaden die door vermeerdering zijn verkregen (zoals dat traditioneel ging) en gaan failliet, daar ze gedwongen hun zaden moeten kopen bij het bedrijf dat hen belazerde en dat zijn bedrijven als Bayer-Monsanto, DowDupont en Syngenta, echter die boeren hebben daar na een slechte oogst uiteraard het geld niet voor...... 

Na zo'n faillissement komt de grond in handen van deze bedrijven die na een aantal faillissementen enorme gebieden tot hun beschikking hebben, waar ze giftige groenten telen (middels gentech zaden waarvan de planten grote hoeveelheden van bijvoorbeeld het uiterst kankerverwekkende glyfosaat kunnen verwerken, zonder dat de plant sterft, maar vervolgens wel afgeladen is met dat gif......) Veel van de kleine boeren bijvoorbeeld in India hebben zich het leven benomen na zo'n faillissement.... Je zal begrijpen dat die gifmengers niet zelden boeren, die door hun toedoen failliet zijn gegaan, laten werken op hun akkers, voor een appel en ei wel te verstaan, met waardeloze arbeidsvoorwaarden en zonder afdoende bescherming als er met gif moet worden gespoten...... Tijd dat de eigenaren van de genoemde grote bedrijven strafrechtelijk worden vervolgd door het Internationaal Strafhof (ICC)!!

Lees enteken de petitie ajb en geeft het door: geen patenten op zaden van gewone gewassen!!

Bayer-Monsanto at it again

David - WeMove Europe <info@wemove.eu>

No one should be able to own the exclusive right to grow and sell fruits and vegetables. It sounds obvious but this is what we fought to prevent for over four years. And we won. Last year, the European Patent Office (EPO) officially accepted that conventionally bred plants are not patentable. [1]

But companies like Bayer-Monsanto, DowDupont, Heineken and Carlsberg have found ways to undo that win by finding legal loopholes to register new patents on melons or barley. [2]

What they are doing is pretty sneaky: it’s called ‘technical topping’ and it’s a way to exploit the loopholes introduced by the EPO. [3] While patents on conventionally bred plants are prohibited, patents on breeding by means of genetic engineering, including new methods such as genome editing can be patented. [4]

Now companies can try to blur the distinction between conventional breeding and genetic engineering. In practice, this means that seeds to make beer or melons can still be claimed as an invention.

We already got the EPO to listen to us through a huge petition, filing thousands of complaints against a patent on tomatoes, and a protest in Munich at the Oktoberfest beer festival. [5]

As the EPO meets next week, it’s time to remind them that we’re still here and we won’t allow them to cancel our win. Right before they meet, our partners will dress up as screaming vegetables (see photo below) in front of EPO’s office in Munich and hand over our signatures.

Free the seeds! Save the future of our food

Patents create monopolies: fruits, vegetables and seeds claimed in patents cannot be used by other farmers for further breeding without the permission of the patent holder. This means that a handful of large corporations get far-reaching control over our daily food production - they can decide what we eat, what farmers produce, what retailers sell and how much we all have to pay for it. 

 Our partners "No patents on seeds" recently protested in front of the German Ministry of Justice
and will soon bring their screaming vegetables in protest in front of the EPO’s office in Munich.

If these patents are not stopped, small farmers will become more and more dependent on big companies that can control access to seeds for further breeding. The EPO needs to take action as soon as possible, before the likes of Bayer-Monsanto and DowDupont own the exclusive rights to fruits, vegetables and seeds. Let’s make sure the EPO stands strong, and does not allow any more patents on seeds until they close these loopholes.

No more patents on seeds!

After more than four years of campaigning to stop patents on seeds, our efforts put an end to years of complete legal absurdity and chaotic decision-making at the EPO. Corporations fought tooth and nail, lobbying, spending a lot of money to beat us, but our people power prevailed. As corporations try to find loopholes, let’s make sure our voice stays strong, again. Save the future of food, sign now!

With hope,
David (London), Giulio (Rome), and the entire WeMove Europe team

References
[1] https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/communications/2020/20200514.html
https://www.sdhsprogram.org/european-patent-office-plants-animals-obtained-classical-breeding-not-patentable/
[2] https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/sites/default/files/news/No%20patents%20on%20seeds%20-%20Overview%202018-2019_1.pdf
https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/publications/report2021
[3] https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/news/G3-19
[4] https://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/news/report2020
[5] https://www.wemove.eu/big-win-patents

WeMove Europe is an independent and values-based organisation that seeks to build people power to transform Europe in the name of our community, future generations and the planet. To unsubscribe from WeMove Europe, please click here.

WeMove Europe is funded by donations from our community across Europe. Can you chip in with a few euros a month and help make sure we can move fast to win the campaigns that matter to all of us? Donate

Follow on Twitter | Like on Facebook | Subscribe on Youtube

WeMove Europe SCE mbH | Planufer 91 Berlin | www.wemove.eu | Privacy policy

========================================

Zie ook: 'Monsanto 'liefdadigheidsorganisatie die zich inzet voor wereldvoedselprobleem......'' (o.a. over Monsanto's patent op radijs.....)

'Supermarkten en de rest van de voedselindustrie zijn verworden tot een supermacht' 

'Greenpeace vraagt Australische regering de verkoop van Roundup aan banden te leggen, nadat een VS rechter oordeelde dat het gif kankerverwekkend is.....' (en zie de links in dat bericht!!)

Voor meer berichten over Monsanto, Bayer (nu één bedrijf maar vanwege de labels, blijf ik ze apart noemen), Heineken, Dupont en Dow Chemical (voor de laatste 2 geldt hetzelfde als voor Bayer-Monsanto) en Syngenta, klik op het label met de betreffende naam, direct onder dit bericht.

Geweldloze 'actievoerders' tegen gebruik van landbouwgif in Zuid-Tirols dorp worden strafrechtelijk vervolgd door overheid

Karl Bär and Alexander Schiebel worden door de deelregering van Zuid-Tirol vervolgd vanwege hun inzet voor een dorp waarvan de bevolking een verbod op pesticiden eist.

Karl had een groot bord gemaakt om de aandacht te trekken voor een verbod op landbouwgif. Alexander schreef een boek over de bevolking van het kleine dorpje Mals in Zuid-Tirol, die stemde voor een verbod op het gebruik van alle pesticiden. Me dunkt wat kan daar tegen zijn, de bevolking die niet langer wil dat de boel wordt vergiftigd?? Echter dan reken je buiten de deelregering van Zuid-Tirol, zij vervolgen de 2 voor hun inzet...... Hoe zot wil je 't hebben???

Eén ding is zeker, de deelregering van Zuid-Tirol zit niet te wachten op slechte reclame, daar men zwaar leunt op de inkomsten uit de toeristenindustrie.....

Te gek dat een regering haar burgers verbiedt om te spreken over de gevaren van landbouwgif en dat men moet stoppen met het gebruik van kankerverwekkende rotzooi die niet alleen de natuur en insecten vernietigt, maar daarmee ook nog eens grotere dieren als vogels doodt!! Ofwel deze regering zit diep in de zakken van de grote gifmengers als Bayer, Dow Chemical en Syngenta, kortom een heel grote kans dat hier weer eens sprake is van corruptie........

Karl en Alexander vragen om de petitie te tekenen en zoveel mogelijk te verspreiden, hoe meer stemmen uit de rest van Europa, hoe moeilijker het deze autoritaire deelregering zal vallen om de zaak door te zetten, immers dat kan een aanmerkelijk aantal toeristen schelen (de zaak tegen Karl en Alexander zal overigens volgende week beginnen, ofwel er is wel haast geboden bij het tekenen van de petitie en doe dat ajb!!). Laat deze regering zien dat men zich deze zaak ook elders aantrekt en dat mocht e.e.a. niet leiden tot een verbod, dit wel eens kan zorgen dat heel veel toeristen afzien van een vakantie naar deze autonome provincie van Italië.......(en wie wil er [vrijwillig] met vakantie naar een gifbelt??)

They want to silence us on pesticides

David - WeMove Europe <info@wemove.eu>

This is the story of Karl Bär and Alexander Schiebel.

Karl displayed a billboard to draw attention to the use of pesticides in South Tyrol. Alexander wrote a book about the small village of Mals in South Tyrol whose citizens voted to ban pesticides. [1] [2]

Now, they’re being sued by South Tyrol’s local government. The trial starts next week.

But this is bigger than just their trial. This also about people like us being able to take on decision makers without being bullied into silence. Together, we can help Karl and Alexander.

Here's how: We know the local government of South Tyrol isn’t used to being targeted: they rely heavily on tourism and they hate bad publicity.
Karl and Alexander have a plan to spread their story across Europe. [3] All it takes is your signature to stand with them.

Karl and Alexander spoke up against the use of pesticides in the Italian region of South Tyrol. In response, the region is suing them in an attempt to bully them into silence. Tell the region that Europeans care about our food safety and they don’t respond well as bullies.

South Tyrol’s government has already attacked many who have tried to stop the use of pesticides. That’s because millions of euros are at stake, and they’re willing to do anything to protect profits at the expense of our health. [4]
Just talk to the citizens of Mals. They voted to ban pesticides, only to see their democratic vote ignored. The region then came up with a law saying that no municipalities could regulate the use of pesticides on their own, and later the ban in Mals was considered unlawful by the courts. [5]

But Karl and Alexander have dedicated their lives to stopping pesticides. They’re going to 
continue the fight. And right now, they need our help – let’s join them!

As a community, we’ve been fighting for years to stop the use of pesticides, such as glyphosate, across Europe. This is our chance to support local activists like Karl and Alexander who fight for our goal of a pesticide-free Europe.

In solidarity,
David (London), Giulio (Rome), Olga (Bologna) and the WeMove Europe team

References:
[1] https://www.tageszeitung.it/2017/08/10/suedtirol-ist-pestizidtirol/
[2] http://alexanderschiebel.com/wunder-von-mals/; https://www.chelseagreen.com/2018/freedom-from-poison/
[3] https://www.slowfood.com/do-pesticides-poison-freedom-of-expression/
[4] http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3789e.pdf
[5] http://lexbrowser.provinz.bz.it/doc/de/204538/landesgesetz_vom_15_april_2016_nr_8.aspx?view=1

WeMove Europe is an independent and values-based organisation that seeks to build people power to transform Europe in the name of our community, future generations and the planet. To unsubscribe from WeMove Europe, please click here.
WeMove Europe is funded by donations from our community across Europe. Can you chip in with a few euros a month and help make sure we can move fast to win the campaigns that matter to all of us? Donate

Follow on Twitter | Like on Facebook | Subscribe on Youtube
WeMove Europe SCE mbH | Planufer 91 Berlin | www.wemove.eu | Privacy policy
================================ 
Voor meer berichten over landbouwgif, glyfosaat, imidacloprid, neonicotinoiden (de laatste 2 zijn andere kankerverwekkende gifsoorten), Dow Chemical, Syngenta, Bayer (nu ook in bezit van Monsanto) en/of insectensterfte (sinds 70er jaren van de vorige eeuw voor twee derde uitgestorven.....), klik op het desbetreffende label, direct onder dit bericht. 
Dan nog dit: vanmorgen maakte het Wereldnatuurfonds bekend dat niet alleen twee derde van de voor ons bekende insecten is uitgestorven, maar dat sinds de 70er jaren ook nog een 70% van andere diersoorten het loodje heeft gelegd......)

Shell, Exxon, Total, Dupont, Dow en anderen lobbyen bij Trump om afval plastic te exporteren naar Afrika

De American Chemistry Council (ACC), een lobbyorganisatie van chemische bedrijven, waar ook oliemaatschappijen als Shell deel van uitmaken, is tegen nieuwe wereldwijde regels om de stroom van plastic naar arme landen op het zuidelijk halfrond te beperken....

Niet vreemd dus dat oliemaatschappijen als Shell, Exxon en Total, plus een aantal grote chemische bedrijven waaronder Du Pont en Dow Chemical, die zijn aangesloten bij de ACC, de Coronacrisis hebben aangegrepen om bij de, wat betreft milieu maatregelen totaal onverantwoorde, Trump administratie te lobbyen tegen beperkingen die zijn opgelegd aan het exporteren van afval plastic.....

Eén van de landen die men wil gebruiken voor het onverantwoord dumpen van gigantische hoeveelheden plastic is Kenya, waar al een enorme stroom plastic uit de VS naartoe gaat........

Als je nu denkt dat genoemde bedrijven en anderen zich inzetten om de productie van eenmalig te gebruiken plastic te verminderen, heb je het helemaal mis, nee zelfs daar weigert men actie op te ondernemen.....

Nogmaals geven dit soort bedrijven aan dat ze lak hebben aan het redden van de planeet zoals wij die kennen, nee: 'Geld über alles....'

Vergeet niet dat Shell al een paar jaar bezig is om haar naam op valse gronden groen te wassen (greenwashing), terwijl de praktijk laat zien dat het bedrijf alles behalve duurzaam bezig is, of zelfs maar poogt echt duurzame doeleinden na te streven, zoals ook uit dit bericht weer blijkt......

Lees het volgende artikel van Unearthed (onderdeel Greenpeace) over deze zaak en zegt het voort, de hoogste tijd dat deze bedrijven tot de orde worden geroepen (boycot Shell, Total en Exxon benzinestations!!), zeker als je ziet dat een aantal van die bedrijven zoals Shell, zich zoals gezegd in het openbaar voordoen als duurzaam bedrijf dat 'zich echt inzet om de klimaatverandering af te remmen en vervuiling tegen te gaan.......'

Oil-backed trade group is lobbying the Trump administration to push plastics across Africa 


Thousands of plastic bottles lay on the ground at the Dandora rubbish dump, an eastern suburb of Nairobi, Kenya's capital. Photo: Jan Hetfleisch/Getty
 

The American Chemistry Council also pushed back against new global rules that will restrict the flow of plastic waste to the global south

A lobby group representing oil and chemical companies, including Shell, Exxon, Total, DuPont and Dow, has been pushing the Trump administration during the pandemic to use a US-Kenya trade deal to expand the plastic and chemical industry across Africa.

Documents obtained by Unearthed show the same lobby group – and the US recycling industry – also lobbied against changes to an international agreement that puts new limits on plastic waste entering low- and middle-income countries.

Several of the companies in the American Chemistry Council (ACC) – including Shell, Exxon and Total but not BP – were the founders of a $1bn initiative that pledges to create “a world free of plastic waste”.

In public letters to top officials at the US Trade Representative (USTR) and US International Trade Commission (USITC), the ACC writes: “Kenya could serve in the future as a hub for supplying U.S.-made chemicals and plastics to other markets in Africa through this trade agreement.” 

The letters also call for the lifting of limits on the waste trade, a move which experts say amounts to an attempt to legally circumvent the new rules on plastic waste, rules which – the documents reveal – the firms had also vigorously opposed. 

Kenyan environmentalists said the proposals would mean that “Kenya will become a dump site for plastic waste”.

US Democratic Senator Tom Udall, who last year introduced legislation to tackle the plastic waste crisis accused the companies of “double dealing.” 

He told Unearthed: “It is outrageous that petrochemical and plastic industries claim the solution to our mounting plastic waste crisis is to produce more disposable plastic. These same companies and corporations then point the finger at developing nations for the plastic waste showing up in our oceans. This double-dealing makes clear what the true source of our plastic waste crisis is: companies and corporations off-shoring their responsibilities to make billions of dollars… Requiring these companies to take responsibility for their excessive waste and pollution is the only way we will tackle our colossal plastic waste problem.”

Workers sort recycling material at a waste management facility in Maryland. US waste, including plastic, is often shipped overseas to poorer countries. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty

The ACC is a major trade association for chemical companies, including Dow and DuPont, as well as the petrochemical arms of some of the oil majors. Although BP is a member, it does not produce any plastics and last month sold off its petrochemicals business to Ineos. A spokesperson told Unearthed that their work with the ACC focuses on Castrol lubricants, which are used in the automotive industry. 

Basel Convention

Following public outcry about plastic waste, in May last year, new rules agreed under a global treaty called the Basel Convention mean that as of 2021, almost all countries outside the OECD will be prohibited from trading mixed, contaminated or unrecyclable plastic with the US, because it is one of the few countries not party to the Convention. 

The OECD has not yet ruled on whether it will accept the new plastic waste rulings, following objections from the US. The Basel Convention provides a limited exception which would allow continued trade between the US and the 37 member countries of the OECD, but only if those countries adopt standards on plastic waste as strong as those in the Convention. 

The 187 countries that are part of the treaty will have to partake in a procedure to obtain prior informed consent from importing countries, a procedure which requires checks on environmental processing facilities. 

Unpublished documents obtained by Unearthed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that the oil and chemical industry lobby group wrote to the Secretariat of the Basel Convention in March 2019. 

It objected to the new rules on the basis that they would create a “regulatory burden”, lead to shipping delays, logistical issues and increased costs. It forwarded its letter to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) two weeks later, requesting a meeting to discuss its concerns. 

The documents also reveal that the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) – a major trade association representing the US recycling industry – lobbied against the new rules on the basis that they could severely limit US exports, discourage legitimate trade and exacerbate marine litter by preventing plastic from reaching recycling facilities.

“In principle, we would prefer the proposals not be adopted and maintain the status quo,” they wrote in an email sent to USTR on 3 April 2019.

A spokesperson from the ACC told Unearthed the basis of their concerns regarding the new Basel restrictions was that they “could very well limit the ability of African and other developing countries to properly manage plastic waste,” because they will restrict their capacity to export materials to other countries.

Academics, civil society and politicians are concerned that Kenya - and other African countries - do not have the infrastructure to manage increasing plastic production and exports. Photo: Simon Maina/AFP via Getty

ISRI echoed these concerns. A spokesperson told Unearthed that the new restrictions “will prevent countries that lack materials management infrastructure – such as for collection, sorting and recycling – from sending what they can collect to countries that do have recycling and disposal capacity… Without this outlet for developing countries, ISRI worries that an already bad situation will become much worse.”

According to ISRI, in 2018 the US imported more than 92,000 metric tons of plastic waste from non-OECD countries. 

However, in the first six months of that year, US exports to China, Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam alone – all countries outside the OECD – totalled 480,432 tons. These exports are five times the US imports in half the time. 

The Trump administration backed the industry position – opposing the implementation of the new rules at the OECD. US opposition has led to concerns over whether the country will seek ways around the changes. 

Dr. Innocent Nnorom, an associate professor in environmental chemistry at Abia State university in Nigeria, who co-authored a recent inventory of plastic consumption in Africa, told Unearthed: “Most countries in Africa do not have the recycling infrastructure for managing increasing plastic waste.

“It appears that loopholes are being sought to continue the trade in plastic waste. Once in Africa, the emerging free trade routes could be used to facilitate transboundary movements to other African countries. The African Union and its member states should be on the look-out.”

Demand for petrochemicals is expected to rocket in coming decades, with companies expected to be looking to low- and middle-income countries to expand the market. Plastic is already the US’ biggest export to Kenya, with sales totalling $58m in 2019.

In their letters to the Trump administration regarding the US-Kenya FTA* earlier this year, the ACC called for it to “prohibit imposition of domestic limits on production or consumption of chemicals and plastic and restrictions on cross-boundary trade of materials and feedstocks”. Feedstocks could include plastic waste for recycling.

They added that the US and Kenya should “enable trade in waste for the purposes of sound management and recycling consistent with relevant international commitments”.

Even so, David Azoulay, an attorney and director of the environmental health programme at the Center for International Environmental Law told Unearthed: “The suggestion to use this potential agreement to preempt any national limitation on plastic production and consumption is a clear indication of the ACC’s objective to leverage such a trade agreement to circumvent global efforts to curb plastic production and use, as well as newly adopted provisions from the Basel Convention to better control the global plastic waste trade.”

US president Donald Trump shakes hands with Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in 2018. Photo: Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty

Jim Puckett, executive director of the NGO Basel Action Network commented that it would also contradict the Bamako Convention, a separate treaty in Africa.

“The effort to enlarge trade in waste and harmful chemicals in between the US and Kenya is a rather insidious effort that, if taken across Africa would go head to head against Africa’s Bamako Convention – a treaty which prohibits virtually all plastic waste imports into Africa as well as the import of many hazardous chemicals,” he told Unearthed.

Kenya

Environmentalists are concerned the deal could also undermine national efforts to limit plastic consumption, including new rules on plastic bags. 

Sub-Saharan Africa is thought to lead the world on plastic bag laws, according to reports, with 34 countries adopting taxes or bans.

Dorothy Otieno, the plastics programme co-ordinator at the Centre for Environment, Justice and Development (CEJAD) in Kenya, told Unearthed that this trade deal could threaten the momentum and change created by these efforts. 

“As a country we have made strides to reduce the plastics that are used here, and which end up as waste – there is a ban on use and manufacture of carrier bags and recently a ban on plastic in protected areas – so this trade deal would diminish what we have achieved as a country.” 

But Kenyan politicians and trade groups said such fears will be addressed. Negotiations began several weeks ago, but have recently stalled due to coronavirus concerns.

Cornelly Serum, an MP for the ruling Jubilee Party and member of the Trade and Industry Parliamentary Committee, told Unearthed: “Fears that under the trade deal use of plastics might be reintroduced into the country are valid… Trade associations planning to expand their businesses in Africa – and mainly in Kenya – are welcome but cannot use the deal to introduce materials that have so far been banned and as a parliament we will not allow any protocols likely to ruin our economy.”

Carol Karuga, CEO of broad-based lobby group the Kenya Private Sector Alliance, added: “It does not augur well to ban use of plastics materials in the economy and later reintroduce the same through a trade deal… The deal before it is finally agreed will have to be checked at all levels.”

Otieno also expressed concerns about the impact of more waste. “There would be an increase in waste – some will be reused and recycled but the majority will end up in dump sites. We will end up in a situation where Kenya will become a dump site for plastic waste,” she said.

“It clogs our waterways and our drainage systems and leads to flooding. We also see the effect of pollution from the burning of plastics – it produces dioxins and furans that lead to respiratory diseases… Somebody can burn these wastes right next to your house and suffer the impacts. We also see the aesthetic value of our towns being reduced because of plastics.”

Last year, some of the ACC companies – including Shell, Exxon and BASF – alongside major consumer goods and waste management companies launched the Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW), committing $1bn, in part to finance waste management projects to clean up and prevent plastic waste in Africa and Asia. 

In the public letters, the ACC wrote that: “There is a global need to support infrastructure development to collect, sort, recycle, and process used plastics, particularly in developing countries such as Kenya. 

“Such infrastructure will create opportunities for trade and investment and help keep used plastics out of the environment, thereby reducing marine litter… The U.S. and Kenya can play a strong role together in promoting innovative circular economy solutions in East Africa that enable universal access to better waste management capacity and for used plastics in all countries.”

Voor de rest van het artikel, zie het origineel.

* FTA: Free Trade Agreement, ofwel vrijhandelsverdrag.

Zie ook:

'Microplastics doden ons lichaam, tijd voor actie!!'

'Microplastics ongevaarlijk aldus TNO en kunststofverwerkende industrie......'

'Alarmerende hoeveelheid microplastics gevonden in het lichaam van kinderen'

'Shell en Exxon lobbyen voor het behoud van eenmalige plasticverpakkingen'

LG fabriek in India lekte een dodelijk gas: 12 doden en een groot aantal zieken: 'corruptie in werking......'

Het was weer eens zover in India, in een fabriek van LG* in de stad Visakhapatnam, vond in de nacht van 7 mei een ramp plaats in haar fabriek waar plastic wordt geproduceerd........... Een lek zorgde ervoor dat een uiterst gevaarlijk zenuw aantastend gas ontsnapte en dit kostte aan 12 bewoners in de buurt het leven, plus zoals je begrijpt honderden (nog) niet dodelijke slachtoffers..... (het aantal doden zou intussen al zijn opgelopen, kan echter geen cijfers vinden op het net....)

De fabriek was door een vakbond al gewezen op het slechte onderhoud en het gevaar dat dit oplevert voor de werknemers en omwonenden (in een straal van 3 kilometer rond de fabriek zijn slachtoffers gevallen), wat door de topgraai leiding werd gebagatelliseerd..... Een alarmsysteem dat af had moeten gaan door dat lek werkte eenvoudigweg niet......

Bovendien is de fabriek al meer dan 10 jaar illegaal bezig, daar het zonder vergunning werd uitgebreid en daarbij de milieuregels heeft overtreden...... (corruptie zorgt ervoor dat deze bedrijven zich niet aan de regels behoeven te houden; zo meer daarover)

De zaak doet sterk denken aan de ramp bij Union Carbide in het Indiase Bhopal, waarbij duizenden mensen omkwamen en die een groot aantal mensen voor het leven chronisch ziek maakte..... 2.000 mensen overleden destijds vrijwel onmidddellijk door deze ramp, waar er later nog eens 6.000 aan moesten worden toegevoegd...... Het aantal chronisch zieken was en is enorm en tot op de dag van vandaag worden kinderen met misvomingen geboren (als gevolg van die ramp op 3 december 1984....)..... De naam van deze chemiereus werd daarna veranderd in Dow Chemical en ondanks de overduidelijke schuld voor die ramp, heeft het bedrijf een schandalig lage schadevergoeding uitgekeerd, waar velen die zelfs nog niet hebben ontvangen..... 

Ook het ongeluk in Bhopal was te danken aan uitermate slecht onderhoud en het lak hebben aan regels (ook voor het milieu) die in acht moeten worden genomen door zo'n bedrijf..... Grote westerse bedrijven hebben juist daarom hun productie verplaatst naar India en landen als Indonesië, Bangladesh en Vietnam: weinig of geen regelhandhaving, plus uiteraard 'het bijkomende voordeel' van bijzonder lage salarissen en slechte of in het geheel geen bescherming voor de slavenarbeiders in die fabrieken....)..... Kijk dat noemt men 'globalisme' en dan vindt men het vreemd dat een gigantisch aantal mensen deze vorm van globalisering afwijzen en daar tegen tekeer gaan als de rijke landen weer eens overleggen..... 

Deze tegenstanders zijn in feite de werkelijke globalisten, mensen die volkomen terecht vinden dat iedereen op onze kleine aarde gelijkwaardig moeten worden behandeld, waar de reguliere westerse media deze mensen afschilderen als relschoppers, terwijl diezelfde media de grote misadigers als die van LG, Dow Chemical en Unilever (grote palmolie gebruiker) de handen boven het hoofd houden..... 

De grote westerse berdrijven zijn bovendien hoofdverantwoordelijk voor de enorme corruptie in arme landen, daar ze hierbij 'garen kunnen spinnen'** en zich niet druk hoeven te maken over regels die in het westen wel gelden......

Lees de petitie van het Care2 team en teken deze ajb (en geeft het door!):

A Gas Leak Killed 12 People and Made Hundreds More Sick, But It Could Have Been Prevented!

• van: Care2 Team
• ontvanger: India's Central Bureau of Investigation
  

In the middle of the night on May 7, 2020 residents of Visakhapatnam in India's Andhra Pradesh state started choking in their sleep. Those who remember what happened recount a white mist that smelled and tasted like death creeping into their homes, making them gag and their eyes burn. That was how the "accident" began, and it ended having killed 12 people and made hundreds more ill. As it turns out, the town of Visakhapatnam is home to a plastics factory, owned by LG Corp., from which a dangerous neurotoxin leaked -- poisoning anyone within a three kilometer radius, or about two miles. Now it has come to light that this plastics factory was not up to code, and should not have been operating in the first place.

We must demand justice for the victims of this leak, who were also victims of corporate greed and political apathy. Sign the petition asking for a federal investigation into why LG's plastics factory was allowed to operate without clearance!

The noxious gas leak was just the first step in a series of horrible accidents that could have been prevented. Sirens at the factory malfunctioned and failed to go off when the leak began. The factory had also been brushing off real concerns raised by its union about safety protocols and "poor maintenance of equipment," which likely led to the deadly leak.

LG preferred to pinch pennies when it came to the safety of their employees, who ended up paying the ultimate price. The port town of Visakhapatnam houses many factory workers and their families -- two children were among the dead after the accident. During the accident, stray and family dogs lay unconscious or dead in the street. Time will tell how the escape of poison gas will affect India's complex and fragile ecosystems. 
The LG plastics factory was operating illegally for more than 10 years. Due to expansion of their operations, LG was required by law to file for a federal environmental clearance. But they never did. Instead, they decided to illegally cut corners and only obtain permits on a state level -- which require far fewer safety checks and assessments. Now, 12 people are dead in part because this industrial heavyweight was too lazy and cheap to ensure their safety.
 
This cannot stand. LG prioritized monetary gain over human lives and the health of our planet, and they must be held responsible. Demanda federal investigation into why this LG factory was allowed tooperate without federal permits, so that they are held accountableand also so that this dangerous loophole is finally closed!

==============================
*  LG staat nu voor Lucky Goldstar, terwijl dit bedrijf aanvankelijk alleen was gericht op het fabriceren van chemische stoffen, de naam bij oprichting in 1947 was dan ook Lucky Chemical Industrial Co, dit onderdeel is nu bekend onder de naam LG Chemical. In 1958 richtte het bedrijf zich ook op huishoudelijke electronica. Philips heeft een tijd samengewerkt met het bedrijf voor de fabricage van beeldbuizen en later LCD schermen, waar Philips in 2007 een eind aan maakte. 

** Over 'garen spinnen' gesproken: zie ook de rampen in textielfabrieken in landen als India en Bangladesh, waar al zovelen het leven verloren door brand in die fabrieken, daar nooduitgangen waren geblokkeerd..... Klik voor meer berichten daarover op het label 'brand in textielfabriek', direct onder dit bericht.  

Voor berichten over de ramp in Bhopal, of over Dow Chemical en/of Union Carbide, klik op het label met deze naam, direct onder dit bericht.

Hersen-beschadigende chemicaliën in voedsel

Als je je boodschappen bij de gewone grootgrutters koopt, haal je gegarandeerd voedsel in huis waarin resten van landbouwgif en andere ongezonde chemicaliën zijn terug te vinden. Het is zelfs zo zot dat we fruit en groente kunnen kopen, die van buiten de EU komen en die zijn behandeld met gif dat hier al lang is verboden (al zijn dat er maar weinig)....... Volgens de DEA is de situatie in de VS zo dat in 84% van in de VS geoogst fruit, in 43% van de in de VS geteelde groenten en in 42% van in de VS geproduceerde de granen, je de resten vindt van giftige stoffen..... Gif als paraquat, chloorpyrifus en glyfosaat worden in deze levensmiddelen gevonden, stoffen die hersenbeschadiging, kanker en andere levensbedreigende zaken kunnen veroorzaken.....

De macht van de makers van deze letterlijke kankerzooi is echter gigantisch en als het er ook maar op lijkt dat een land deze stoffen wil verbieden, komt een enorme lobby opgang deze stoffen vooral niet te verbieden daar ze 'niet gevaarlijk' zijn en juist 'goede oogsten' garanderen (ook goed voor de economie), er zijn foute wetenschappers genoeg die voor wat geld hun vak ten schande willen maken......

Thailand is een land die genoemde giftige stoffen wil verbieden en ja hoor, de lobby draait al overuren om een verbod tegen te gaan, de lobby van o.a. Bayer (ook eigenaar van Monsanto dat glyfosaat verwerkt in RoundUp), Syngenta (verantwoordelijk voor paraquat) en Dow Chemical (producent van chloorpyrifus). Genoemde fabrikanten verdienen zoveel aan deze kankertroep als het bbp van een aantal kleine landen.... De lobby heeft het nu voor elkaar dat zelfs Trump zich ermee bemoeit en Thailand te verstaan heeft gegeven deze stoffen beter niet te verbieden, anders.........

Vergeet niet dat met de drie genoemde stoffen ook de insectensterfte is veroorzaak, zodat twee derde van de insecten is uitgestorven sinds de 70 er jaren van de vorige eeuw en je weet het: zonder de insecten is het met de mens gedaan........

Lees het volgende artikel van het Care2 team, met daaronder een petitie die ook wij mogen ondertekenen, lees en teken de petitie ajb en geeft het door:

Brain-deteriorating chemicals are being added to our foods

More than 80 percent of fruits, 50 percent of vegetables, and 40 percent of grains sold to consumers in the U.S. are covered in residue from toxic pesticides. While giant agricultural companies like Monsanto assure us that there's nothing wrong with eating these pesticides on a regular basis, we know that's a lie.

Studies show that the compounds used in some of the world's most popular herbicides and insecticides can cause everything from brain damage to cancer to Parkinson's disease. That's why many countries around the world, including Thailand, have already decided to ban these chemicals in an effort to protect their citizens from the serious health problems they pose.

Or, Thailand did plan to enact a ban. That is, until the corrupt Trump administration, wooed by pesticide companies' deep pockets, pressured them not to.

The leading makers of these pesticides — Monsanto (which produces glyphosate), Syngenta (paraquat), and Dow Chemical (chlorpyrifos) — accumulate annual earnings that dwarf many countries' GDPs. They've used these riches to get their way by becoming extremely cozy with Trump administration officials. They even successfully lobbied the U.S. government to nix its own chlorpyrifos ban back in 2017.

Just because the U.S. previously caved in the face of ruthless corporate influence, does not mean it gets to overturn Thailand's public health decisions. We can't let rich corporations continue to win!

Tell the Thai government: health is more important than corporate profits. Stand strong and ban these terrible pesticides!

Thank you for all that you do.

These Pesticides Can Cause Everything from Brain Damage to Parkinson's But Their Makers Want to Keep Them on the Shelves.

• van: Care2 Team
• ontvanger: National hazardous substances committee of Thailand, Government of Thailand

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over 84% of domestic fruits, 53% of vegetables, and 42% of grains sold to consumers carry pesticide residue. Pesticides like paraquat, chlorpyrifos, and glyphosate have been recognized by scientists around the world to cause serious health problems. From cancer to Parkinson's and brain damage, the compounds used in some of the world's most popular herbicides and insecticides have become infamous.

Perhaps that's why many countries have decided to, or plan to, ban these pesticides in an effort to protect their citizens from the serious health problems they pose. After a thorough review of the data that suggests that the three pesticides put both farmworkers and consumers at risk, Thailand's national hazardous substances committee voted to ban the products by December.
The only problem is, the makers of the pesticides - Monsanto ( glyphosate ), Syngenta (paraquat) and Dow Chemical (chlorpyrifos) - have used their deep pockets to get the Trump Administration to pressure the Thai government to abandon the upcoming pesticide ban.
Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow Chemical are behemoth multinational corporations, their annual earnings dwarf that of many countries' GDPs. And they have used their coffers to fight bans of their products all over the world. Their efforts have often been successful. In fact, when the United States Environmental Protection Agency was on the brink of banning chlorpyrifos, Dow Chemical convinced the agency to ignore scientific recommendations and scratch the ban altogether.
Now they are putting their heft behind the US government, using American officials to convince Thailand that these pesticides aren't that bad and should still be sold - never mind the stacks of studies that say they are dangerous.
These compounds have been linked to human, animal and environmental tragedies and the best thing a responsible nation can do is to take them off the shelves! It's time Thailand do what's right for their people and stand up to the bullying corporations and the Trump administration that doesn't have their best interest at heart.
Think about the people of Thailand, their wildlife and their environment and show support for Thailand's upcoming ban. Sign the petition and tell Thailand not to cave to these ruthless companies. Tell them to ban these terrible pesticides.

Shell en Exxon lobbyen voor het behoud van eenmalige plasticverpakkingen

Sharon Lerner heeft op The Interecept een uitgebreid artikel geschreven over de enorme plasticberg waar de wereld in dreigt te verstikken en de pogingen van o.a. de oliemaffia om verboden tegen gebruik van eenmalig plastic en andere plasticproducten tegen te gaan...

De manier waarop deze bedrijven e.e.a. doen is ernstige volksverlakkerij, zo bestaat er een initiatief van bedrijven die bij de productie van plastic zijn betrokken, waarmee men het volk wil laten geloven dat men er alles aan doet om plastic uit het milieu te krijgen......

Zo is er een organisatie met de naam 'A Bag's Life', die een studentenproject tot winnaar heeft uitgeroepen voor een doos waarop tanden te zien zijn in de vorm van driehoeken met de woorden 'Feed Me' De studenten die het project wonnen kregen ieder $ 100.00 en de goegemeente gelooft dat 'A Bag's Life', een onderdeel van de American Progressive Bag Allience, werkelijk een organisatie is die zich inzet tegen het gebruik van plastic...... Terwijl de American Progressive Bag Allience een organisatie is die in het leven werd geroepen door de Plastic Industry Association, een lobbyorganisatie van: Shell Polymers, LyondellBasell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Phillips, DowDuPont en Novolex.... En beste bezoeker deze organisatie is redelijk succesvol in de VS.....

Ook hier doen bedrijven als Shell, DSM en Unilever alsof ze 'op het rechte groene pad zijn', echter in werkelijkheid doet men het tegenovergestelde, terwijl de wereld zoals gezegd bijna letterlijk stikt in plastic..... Zo werd een aantal maanden geleden bekend gemaakt dat bijna iedere aardbewoner microplastics in het lichaam heeft........

Lerner geeft verder een inkijk in de recyclingsindustrie en geeft met cijfers aan dat er maar zeer weinig werkelijk wordt gerecycled (lelijk anglicisme) en als klap op de vuurpijl blijken veel gerecyclede producten zwaar gif te bevatten, stoffen die o.a. vrijkomen bij het recyclen van plastic.......

Ook aandacht voor het verschepen van miljoenen tonnen aan westers consumentenplastic, dat zogenaamd wordt gerecycled in landen als China en de Filipijnen, waar het 'recyclen' bestaat uit plastic verbranden, begraven of het openlijk op divers plekken te storten....... Uiteraard gebeurt dit in de buurt waar arme mensen wonen, ofwel die betalen het gelag in de vorm van een slechte gezondheid en een vroegtijdige akelige dood........

Lees het ontluisterende artikel van Lerner en geeft het door, tijd dat ook onze politici stoppen met liegen en eindelijk wat doen, zoals hare D66 leeghoofdigheid Stientje van Veldhoven, die tot 3 keer toe werd gekozen tot groenste politicus van het jaar, maar die zo gauw ze aan het bewind kwam de 'terminologie van haar voorgangers' ('waar ze zo tegen heeft gevochten...') overnam en stelde dat de industrie het zelf wel kan regelen..... Welnu van Veldhoven, ook in het hieronder opgenomen artikel kan jij lezen hoe geweldig e.e.a. verloopt, smerige oplichter! Van Veldhoven wilde al jaren statiegeld op kleine petflesjes en blik, iets waar de VVD mordicus tegen is, en zoals gezegd: net aangetreden kwam van Veldhoven met het platgetreden cliché van haar voorgangers.........

Tot slot wat betreft mijn schrijven hier: iedereen die meewerkt aan het oplichten van het volk wat betreft plastic (en luchtvervuiling) zou strafrechtelijk moeten worden vervolgd en voor jaren de bak in moeten draaien en dan meteen via de 'Pluk-ze'-wetgeving alle kapitaal van deze figuren confisceren en gebruiken voor (echte) milieumaatregelen...... Wat een godvergeten geteisem, gadver!!! (vergeet niet dat Exxon en Shell respectievelijk in de 70er en 80er jaren van de vorige eeuw uit eigen wetenschappelijk onderzoek al wisten dat de verbranding van fossiele brandstoffen de klimaatverandering heeft veroorzaakt, waar deze bedrijven dit niet alleen onder de pet hielden, maar zelfs wetenschappers inhuurden om dit te ontkennen....... Strafrechtelijke vervolging meer dan waard!!)

WASTE ONLY

How the Plastics Industry Is Fighting to Keep Polluting the World

A portion of plastic bottle found on Mothecombe Beach at the mouth of the Erme Estuary in South Devon, England, on May 30, 2019. Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Sharon Lerner July 20 2019, 1:30 p.m.

THE STUDENTS AT Westmeade Elementary School worked hard on their dragon. And it paid off. The plastic bag receptacle that the kids painted green and outfitted with triangular white teeth and a “feed me” sign won the students from the Nashville suburb first place in a recycling box decorating contest. The idea, as Westmeade’s proud principal told a local TV news show, was to help the environment. But the real story behind the dragon — as with much of the escalating war over plastic waste — is more complicated.

The contest was sponsored by A Bag’s Life, a recycling promotion and education effort of the American Progressive Bag Alliance, a lobbying group that fights restrictions on plastic. That organization is part of the Plastics Industry Association, a trade group that includes Shell Polymers, LyondellBasell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron Phillips, DowDuPont, and Novolex — all of which profit hugely from the continued production of plastics. And even as A Bag’s Life was encouraging kids to spread the uplifting message of cleaning up plastic waste, its parent organization, the American Progressive Bag Alliance, was backing a state bill that would strip Tennesseans of their ability to address the plastics crisis. The legislation would make it illegal for local governments to ban or restrict bags and other single-use plastic products — one of the few things shownto actually reduce plastic waste.

A week after Westmeade’s dragon won the contest, the APBA got its own reward: The plastic preemption bill passed the Tennessee state legislature. Weeks later, the governor signed it into law, throwing a wrench into an effort underway in Memphis to charge a fee for plastic bags. Meanwhile, A Bag’s Life gave the Westmeade kids who worked on the bag monster a $100 gift card to use “as they please.” And with that, a minuscule fraction of its vast wealth, the plastics industry applied a green veneer to its increasingly bitter and desperate fight to keep profiting from a product that is polluting the world.

A Bag’s Life is just one small part of a massive, industry-led effort now underway to suppress meaningful efforts to reduce plastic waste while keeping the idea of recycling alive. The reality of plastics recycling? It’s pretty much already dead. In 2015, the U.S. recycled about 9 percent of its plastic waste, and since then the number has dropped even lower. The vast majority of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic ever produced — 79 percent — has ended up in landfills or scattered all around the world. And as for those plastic shopping bags the kids were hoping to contain: Less than 1 percent of the tens of billions of plastic bags used in the U.S. each year are recycled.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t try to properly dispose of the array of toys, single-use clamshells, bottles, bags, takeout containers, iced coffee cups, straws, sachets, yogurt tubs, pouches, candy bar wrappers, utensils, chip bags, toiletry tubes, electronics, and lids for everything that passes through our lives daily. We have to. But we are well past the point where the heartfelt efforts of schoolchildren or anyone else on the consumer end can solve the plastics problem. It no longer matters how many hoots we give. There is already way too much plastic that won’t decompose and ultimately has nowhere to go, whether it’s mashed into a dragon container or not.

A Chinese worker walks past piles of plastic bottles at a plastic bottle recycling station in Ji’nan city, in east China’s Shandong province, on May 4, 2017.Photo: Imaginechina via AP Images

China’s National Sword

China’s decision in 2017 to stop receiving the vast majority of plastic waste from other countries blew the flimsy lid off our dysfunctional recycling system. That year, when the Chinese government announced the National Sword policy, as it’s called, the U.S. sent 931 million kilograms of plastic waste to China and Hong Kong. The U.S. has been offloading vast bundles of scrap this way since at least 1994, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began tracking plastics exports. The practice has served to both mask the mounting crisis and absolve U.S. consumers of guilt. But in fact, much of the “recycled” plastic scrap that the U.S. sent to China appears to have been burned or buried instead of being refashioned into new products.

Although China’s turnabout made the failure of the plastics recycling system suddenly and undeniably obvious, in truth the plastics problem has been with us as long as plastic has. Over the decades, as production has grown exponentially, we’ve never managed to repurpose even one-tenth of our plastic waste. Since the EPA began tracking plastics recycling in 1994, when the U.S. recycled less than 5 percent, the rate went up only about 5 percent, peaking at 9.5 percent in 2014.

Although there is no data before 1994, the rate was almost certainly even lower then. Some of that failure can be blamed on careless consumers, but much of the waste that is dutifully put into recycling bins and bags also gets landfilled and burned because there’s no market for it.

The plastics problem has been growing exponentially for decades. In 1967, when Dustin Hoffman’s character in “The Graduate” was being advised to go into plastics, less than 25 million tons were produced each year. Even back then, the companies that made the plastic were already aware of the growing waste problem. Yet by 1980, production had doubled. Ten years later, it doubled again to 100 million tons, surpassing the amount of steel produced globally. Today, the plastics industry, estimated to be worth more than $4 trillion, generates more than 300 million tons of plastic a year according to the most recent records — nearly half of which is for single-use items, meaning that it will almost instantly become trash.

With the institution of China’s new policy in January 2018, the extent of the plastic waste crisis became dramatically more visible. Around the world, bales of used plastic that just a year earlier would have been destined for China began piling up. In the U.S., some cities have stopped their plastics recycling programs altogether.

Without good alternatives, the U.S. is now burning six times the amount of plastic it’s recycling — even though the incineration process releases cancer-causing pollutants into the air and creates toxic ash, which also needs to be disposed of somewhere. And poor people are stuck with the worst consequences of the plastics crisis. Eight out of 10 incinerators in the U.S. are in communities that are either poorer or have fewer white people than the rest of the country, and residents living near them are exposed to the toxic air pollution their combustion produces.

Globally, too, the problem is being dumped on the less fortunate and less powerful. Because the U.S. can no longer ship its plastic waste to China, much of that waste is going to Turkey, Senegal, and other countries that are ill-equipped to deal with it. In May, the most recent month for which data is available, the U.S. sent 64.9 million kilograms of plastic scrap to 58 countries. Thailand, India, and Indonesia — where more than 80 percent of waste is mismanaged, according to data published in Science — are among the countries that now find themselves besieged with U.S. plastic that’s being illegally dumped and burned.

A reservoir contaminated with plastic waste in Lhokseumawe, Indonesia, on March 22, 2019. Photo: Zikri Maulana/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

All the Plastics in the Seas

The terrifying news about plastic seems to be as inescapable as the plastic itself, tiny bits of which are now almost everywhere. One study found these “microplastics” in the Pyrenees mountain air 100 miles from the nearest city. Another found that microplastics are being turned into sewage sludge and spread on fields that grow food. And, as we know from the plastic-filled whales that regularly wash up dead, the oceans are awash in plastic waste and now contain some 150 million tons of the stuff — a mass expected soon to surpass the weight of all the fish in the seas.

We humans also have plastic lodged in our bodies. The substance often sold to us as protection from contamination is in both food and water.

Bottled water, sales of which are increasing in part because people are seeking alternatives to contaminated local water supplies, now contains plastic as well. A 2018 study found that 93 percent of bottled water samples contained microplastics. While all the big brands tested positive for microplastics, the worst was Nestlé Pure Life, which claims that its water “goes through a 12-step quality process, so you can trust every drop.”

It’s worth noting that in both 2017 and 2018, Nestlé ranked in the top three among brands whose plastic trash was most often collected in global cleanup efforts conducted by the environmental group Break Free From Plastic.

The confluence of terrible news has taken public outrage over plastic to a new level. Once regarded mostly as an eyesore or a nuisance, plastic waste is now widely understood to be a cause of species extinction, ecological devastation, and human health problems. And because more than 99 percent of plastic is derived from oil, natural gas, and coal — and because its destruction also uses fossil fuels — environmental groups now recognize plastic as a major contributor to climate change. Naturalist David Attenborough has likened the shift in public opinion over plastics to the process through which the public reached a consensus on the harms of slavery.

Between extraction, refining, and waste management, the production and incineration of plastics will add more than 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere this year alone — an amount equal to the emissions from 189 500-megawatt coal power plants, according to a report from the Center for International Environmental Law.

Recycled plastics — once seen as a sign of environmental virtue — is increasingly recognized as posing threats to our health. Plastics contain additives that determine its properties, including stability, color, and flexibility. Most of the thousands of these chemicals aren’t regulated, but it’s clear that some of those additives, which end up in recycled plastics, are dangerous. One studyfound that half of recycled plastics in India contained a flame retardant associated with neurological, reproductive, and developmental harms.

Black plastic, used in everything from children’s toys to kitchen utensils, food packaging, cellphone cases, and thermoses, appears to be particularly dangerous. The plastic is often sourced from recycled electronics that contain phthalates, flame retardants, and heavy metals, such as cadmium, lead, and mercury. Even at very low levels, these chemicals can cause serious reproductive and developmental problems.

But most of the additives aren’t tracked or well studied. “The industry has no idea what they’re putting in the plastic and who’s putting it in,” said Andrew Turner, a British chemist who recently found toxic chemicals in 40 percent of the black plastic toys, thermoses, cocktail stirrers, and utensils he tested. In some plastic, he found the chemicals present at 30 times safety standards set by governments.

Even chemicals that are regulated often have limits set for electronics but not for recycled products. “You’ve got something that wouldn’t be compliant with the regulations as an electric item because its levels are too high, but because it’s turned into a fork, there’s nothing to stop it from being used,” Turner said. Antimony, which Turner found in food containers, toys, and office supplies, “is restricted in drinking water, but not in electrical waste.” Turner and Zhanyun Wang, another scientist I spoke with who studies chemical additives to plastics, told me that they no longer use black plastic utensils. “Given the option, I’d prefer something white or clear,” said Turner, adding that he tries to avoid utensils made of any kind of plastic.

The solution to this global mess clearly has to be much bigger than personal cutlery choices. Among the organizations demanding that we push past the idea of recycling and require corporations to limit plastics production are Greenpeace, the Surfrider Foundation, As You Sow, the Rainforest Alliance and 5Gyres, an organization started by a couple who sailed across the Pacific Ocean on a raft made out of discarded bottles. Fueled by a spike in consumer frustration with products that make them complicit in the problem, plastic-free restaurants and grocery stores are now emerging.

Taxes, bans, and fees on plastic products have been catching on around the world. In March, the European Union voted to ban single-use plastics by 2021. In June, Canada followed suit, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowing to not just ban single-use plastics such as bags, straws, and cutlery, but also to hold plastics manufacturers responsible for their waste. One hundred and forty-one countries, including China, Bangladesh, India, and 34 African countries, have implemented taxes or partial bans on plastics.

In the U.S., the Trump administration has worked against international efforts to crack down on plastic waste, so cities and towns are leading the way. While only eight states have enacted plastic restrictions, more than 330 local plastic bag ordinances have passed in 24 states. Some federal lawmakers have also recognized that federal action is necessary to beat back the mounting tide of plastic. “Plastics recycling is not a realistic solution to the plastic pollution crisis. Most consumer plastics are economically impractical to recycle based on market conditions alone,” Rep. Alan Lowenthal and Sen. Tom Udall wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump in June, noting that the “spread of single-use plastic products has led to widespread pollution of plastic in the U.S. and has caused a growing financial burden on state agencies, local governments and taxpayers for remediation.”

Bottles of Pepsi Max travel along the production line at the Britvic PLC factory and warehouse in Leeds, U.K., on Jan. 23, 2017. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Big Plastic Fights Back

Even the executives at a recent plastics industry conference admit how bad the crisis is — at least to one another. All we hear is “you’ve got to get rid of plastics,” Garry Kohl, of PepsiCo, said to his fellow members of the Plastics Industry Association at a conference in April. Gathered in the gilded ballroom of a Dallas hotel, the representatives of big plastics manufacturers, recyclers, raw materials providers, extruders, brand owners, and others in the plastics business grappled aloud about their role in the crisis. Especially difficult, said Kohl, who directs packaging innovation of PepsiCo’s snacks and foods, was the widely circulated picture of a dead plastic-filled albatross. “This is very emotional for our senior leaders,” Kohl said, as the now iconic picture of the albatross — really just a few feathers and a decaying beak arranged around an assortment of bottle caps, lighter parts, and plastic bits — flashed above him. “They’re all talking about the albatross.”

Patty Long, interim president and chief executive officer of the Plastics Industry Association, the group that convened the Texas meeting, also acknowledged the pain of being the public face of an industry held responsible for the devastation of the natural world. Long admitted that she squirmed her way through another social media phenomenon that, along with the albatross, has changed the course of the war over plastics: the video of the sea turtle with a plastic straw jammed in its nostril. Long isn’t the only one. Since it was posted in 2015, the eight excruciating minutes in which marine biologists yank at the plastic straw with pliers while the creature squirms and bleeds, has been viewed 36 million times.

In this photo provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a black footed albatross chick with plastics in its stomach lies dead on Midway Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands on Nov. 2, 2014. Photo: Dan Clark/USFWS via AP

Klik hier voor het vervolg van het artikel

Read Our Complete Coverage Bad Chemistry

Voor meer berichten met D66 oplichter van Veldhoven, vul haar achternaam in op het zoekvlak aan de rechterbovenkant van deze pagina.