Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
View Poll Results: On which initiatives will you vote yes
Popular initiative “For clean drinking water and healthy food" 19 45.24%
Popular initiative “For a Switzerland without artificial pesticides” 18 42.86%
COVID-19 Act 21 50.00%
CO2 Act 16 38.10%
Federal Act on Police Measures to Combat Terrorism 13 30.95%
None of the above 11 26.19%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 19.05.2021, 14:16
newtoswitz's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rapperswil
Posts: 3,754
Groaned at 75 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 4,537 Times in 2,076 Posts
newtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
But neonicotinoids are already not allowed here.
Or is your argument that because neonicotinoids had a bad side effect then this is a reason for banning the other 500 pesticides regardless of how important they are to agriculture?

I agree the current proposal is too far-reaching and unrealistic.
Try actually reading what I wrote.

I am against the proposal because it is too sweeping.

I stated that the neonicotinoid case is a strong argument for having stricter rules, but not banning everything.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank newtoswitz for this useful post:
This user groans at newtoswitz for this post:
  #162  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 318
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 577 Times in 213 Posts
Tox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
I'm not sure, but the current approach seems to be too focused on short-term human toxicity...
Again, this is interesting to me, as this perception does not match the reality that I have observed. In case anyone reading is curious, all pesticides have to be investigated for chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity in 2 species (mice and rats) over their entire lifespan (18 months and 2 years, respectively). You also have to test for effects on prenatal development in 2 species, plus you also need to run multigenerational studies in rats to look for effects on reproduction, post-natal development and the endocrine system. All those regulatory studies are done in addition to the shorter-term ones (acute and sub-chronic exposures). And there’s also a whole battery of environmental trials too. It takes about a 1 billion USD/EUR and 10 years to bring a pesticide to market, which is slightly less money and time than for the average drug. And the processes are pretty similar up until you get to the clinical trial stage in pharma.

It is easier to get a drug into first-in-human tests than to get a pesticide to market. For one thing, pharma doesn’t have to worry about the environmental impact of its active ingredients.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Tox_Rat for this useful post:
  #163  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:23
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
It's an interesting idea put together by 3 academics, but is not remotely ready for field-trials, let alone country-wide rollout. Put it this way, would you invest hundreds of thousands of your savings and an entire year's livelihood on a widget suggested by 3 PhDs in engineering with little practical experience in doing your job? I'm a gadget-prone academic with a PhD and I still wouldn't take that gamble.
I'd say there need to be taken under careful consideration and per use cases.
Since farming in CH is located in flat-land (Jura to Alps) and swiss tax system pays 50% for every machinery that is run to support agriculture.

I see no issues that there be 10-20 farmters that be given such equptment to evaluate on limited field sizes to see the results. That should be sufficient to get an answer whenever most required food supplys can be treated with pesticide-free solution. Once that is successful it would be one of many most likley ways to deal with weeds.

Now, it's not 3 PhDs - I quoted that article more of respect to AU and their respect for nature - where they could easy get away with all kind of pesticides let to the oceans and nobody would say a word . Below link to actual EU based solution . There is Chinese version of it as well I am sure

https://www.lasersystemseurope.com/n...weeds-fields-0

Vote is to stop paying farmers that use pesticides - not to stop using them - that is the difference everyone should understand.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
This user groans at for this post:
  #164  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:27
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Again, this is interesting to me, as this perception does not match the reality that I have observed. In case anyone reading is curious, all pesticides have to be investigated for chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity in 2 species (mice and rats) over their entire lifespan (18 months and 2 years, respectively). You also have to test for effects on prenatal development in 2 species, plus you also need to run multigenerational studies in rats to look for effects on reproduction, post-natal development and the endocrine system. All those regulatory studies are done in addition to the shorter-term ones (acute and sub-chronic exposures). And there’s also a whole battery of environmental trials too. It takes about a 1 billion USD/EUR and 10 years to bring a pesticide to market, which is slightly less money and time than for the average drug. And the processes are pretty similar up until you get to the clinical trial stage in pharma.

It is easier to get a drug into first-in-human tests than to get a pesticide to market. For one thing, pharma doesn’t have to worry about the environmental impact of its active ingredients.
Interesting - so I wonder why there was 10+billions$ paid for workers using Randap in health damages for cancer etc - guess a crack in the perfect system ...

"Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits
Bayer faced tens of thousands of claims linking the weedkiller to cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Some of the money is set aside for future cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/b...-lawsuits.html
"
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
This user groans at for this post:
  #165  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 318
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 577 Times in 213 Posts
Tox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Yes, but that's really late considering significant hive loss started in the mid-2000s.

Actually the EU took some action in 2013, but IMO the evidence of toxicity was clear at that time and the study the EU produced should have been enough evidence to take much stronger action, not waiting another five years.

Germany had already introduced a partial ban in 2008...
In my opinion, a better approach than banning, is to use the authorization process. This means that you must make an application for a specific use case which needs to have the permission of the authorities. If we take the case of the neonicotinoids, uses which prevent pollinator exposure would be allowed. For example, the use of fipronil in Frontline veterinary products would be an authorized use. This also allows for the development of next-generation products in the same family which are specifically designed to not have the undesirable off-target effect.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Tox_Rat for this useful post:
  #166  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:33
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
In my opinion, a better approach than banning, is to use the authorization process. This means that you must make an application for a specific use case which needs to have the permission of the authorities. If we take the case of the neonicotinoids, uses which prevent pollinator exposure would be allowed. For example, the use of fipronil in Frontline veterinary products would be an authorized use. This also allows for the development of next-generation products in the same family which are specifically designed to not have the undesirable off-target effect.
again ..it's not that - it's "not sponsoring it":

nobody is going to ban use of pesticides .. that is not a vote we have at hand
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:37
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Try actually reading what I wrote.

I am against the proposal because it is too sweeping.

I stated that the neonicotinoid case is a strong argument for having stricter rules, but not banning everything.
like a kindergarden

No, nobody is banning anything - simply we would stop paying extra money to farmers that use pesticides to give chance farmers that don't ( so we promote via subsidies these not using pesticides).

Farmers that want to stick to pesticide - they still could - however would not expect subsidies flowing down their way

.,,I rest my case...
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at for this post:
  #168  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:40
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,516
Groaned at 2,578 Times in 1,840 Posts
Thanked 39,652 Times in 18,690 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
like a kindergarden

No, nobody is banning anything - simply we would stop paying extra money to farmers that use pesticides to give chance farmers that don't ( so we promote via subsidies these not using pesticides).

Farmers that want to stick to pesticide - they still could - however would not expect subsidies flowing down their way

.,,I rest my case...
ALL farmers use pesticides.

Tom
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
This user groans at st2lemans for this post:
  #169  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 318
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 577 Times in 213 Posts
Tox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond reputeTox_Rat has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Interesting - so I wonder why there was 10+billions$ paid for workers using Randap in health damages for cancer etc - guess a crack in the perfect system ...

"Roundup Maker to Pay $10 Billion to Settle Cancer Suits
Bayer faced tens of thousands of claims linking the weedkiller to cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Some of the money is set aside for future cases.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/b...-lawsuits.html
"
Because that lawsuit happened in California which is essentially the worst legal system for the regulation and labeling of chemicals of any kind. The same courts also determined that coffee is carcinogenic (actually, it is protective) because it is “less protective than it could be if some naturally occurring substances in it weren’t there”. How’s that for stupid? Ergo every cup of coffee sold in that state was supposed to come with a scary warning label. Eventually the federal regulators intervened. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1H5399
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Tox_Rat for this useful post:
  #170  
Old 19.05.2021, 18:57
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Because that lawsuit happened in California which is essentially the worst legal system for the regulation and labeling of chemicals of any kind. The same courts also determined that coffee is carcinogenic (actually, it is protective) because it is “less protective than it could be if some naturally occurring substances in it weren’t there”. How’s that for stupid? Ergo every cup of coffee sold in that state was supposed to come with a scary warning label. Eventually the federal regulators intervened. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1H5399

I think you missed the point :

- did that chemical undergo screening as you said all do ?
- was it deemed safe for use ?
- did it kill people and caused cancer which was proven beyond the reasonable doubt ?

If answer is Yes - than it contradicts your statement . If answer is No - than you contradict information that is publicly available and can be verified.

Since you claim to be PhD/Toxologist - I'd just hope we would not have conversation about starbucs/mcdonalds coffee caps on this thread - perhaps starting new one would be of use .

and I am happy to learn from you - as I have not much to do with your field of expertise and critical look you provide is great , so to not to come out negative - just I do not believe in systems that perfect
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 19.05.2021, 19:00
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
ALL farmers use pesticides.

Tom
prove it. - and I can tall you that you wrong
Reply With Quote
This user groans at for this post:
  #172  
Old 19.05.2021, 19:05
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

"Campaigners have handed in 114,420 signatures by Swiss citizens in favour of the “Clean Drinking Water and Healthy Food" initiative, which aims to cut direct subsidies to farmers who use pesticides or antibiotics.

This content was published on January 18, 2018 - 15:29 January 18, 2018 - 15:2
9"

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/direct-...stage/43834044

I understand expats are not all the time interested in Swiss politics and like to share opinion - I guess often with a bit of ignorance as they do not have to make the decision on facts and can wonder around the subject - however let's set the subject back to what it is.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #173  
Old 19.05.2021, 20:17
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,810
Groaned at 611 Times in 517 Posts
Thanked 21,741 Times in 11,421 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
like a kindergarden

No, nobody is banning anything - simply we would stop paying extra money to farmers that use pesticides to give chance farmers that don't ( so we promote via subsidies these not using pesticides).

Farmers that want to stick to pesticide - they still could - however would not expect subsidies flowing down their way

.,,I rest my case...
Do you have real-life examples of successful farmers who do not use pesticides?$

Edit: "on a mass scale"
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #174  
Old 19.05.2021, 20:19
Sean Connery's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 5,565
Groaned at 58 Times in 54 Posts
Thanked 7,554 Times in 3,388 Posts
Sean Connery has a reputation beyond reputeSean Connery has a reputation beyond reputeSean Connery has a reputation beyond reputeSean Connery has a reputation beyond reputeSean Connery has a reputation beyond reputeSean Connery has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Do you have real-life examples of successful farmers who do not use pesticides?
please add "on a mass scale" because otherwise it will be some allotment....
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Sean Connery for this useful post:
  #175  
Old 19.05.2021, 20:53
hoover1
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Do you have real-life examples of successful farmers who do not use pesticides?$

Edit: "on a mass scale"
Let first s2lemans above prove "ALL farmers use pesticides" as I'd hate to step ahead to crash his case

I wouldn't know "scale" however thesis of "ALL" is strong statement I'd like to see evidence of it
Reply With Quote
This user groans at for this post:
  #176  
Old 19.05.2021, 21:15
newtoswitz's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rapperswil
Posts: 3,754
Groaned at 75 Times in 70 Posts
Thanked 4,537 Times in 2,076 Posts
newtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond reputenewtoswitz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
again ..it's not that - it's "not sponsoring it":

nobody is going to ban use of pesticides .. that is not a vote we have at hand
As well as not reading my posts, you're not even reading the initiatives you are spouting nonsense about.

To quote the actual text of the initiative you claim does not ban pesticides:

Quote:
Der Einsatz synthetischer Pestizide in der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion, in der Verarbeitung landwirtschaftlicher Erzeugnisse und in der Boden- und Landschaftspflege ist verboten. Die Einfuhr zu gewerblichen Zwecken von Lebensmitteln, die synthetische Pestizide enthalten oder mithilfe solcher hergestellt worden sind, ist verboten.
Quote:
The use of synthetic pesticides in agricultural production, in the processing of agricultural products and in soil and landscape maintenance is prohibited. The import for commercial purposes of food that contains synthetic pesticides or has been produced with the aid of such is prohibited.
So to be clear, prohibited = banned, and it not only bans the use of them in Switzerland but also the import of food which has been produced using them.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank newtoswitz for this useful post:
  #177  
Old 19.05.2021, 21:17
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,810
Groaned at 611 Times in 517 Posts
Thanked 21,741 Times in 11,421 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
Let first s2lemans above prove "ALL farmers use pesticides" as I'd hate to step ahead to crash his case

I wouldn't know "scale" however thesis of "ALL" is strong statement I'd like to see evidence of it
OK, so we can safely assume there are no major farms where a pesticide is not used.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #178  
Old 19.05.2021, 21:17
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Nyon
Posts: 6,599
Groaned at 390 Times in 286 Posts
Thanked 9,186 Times in 4,294 Posts
bowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond reputebowlie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Bio farming is, apparently, quite profitable.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank bowlie for this useful post:
  #179  
Old 19.05.2021, 21:29
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 11,810
Groaned at 611 Times in 517 Posts
Thanked 21,741 Times in 11,421 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Quote:
View Post
As well as not reading my posts, you're not even reading the initiatives you are spouting nonsense about.

To quote the actual text of the initiative you claim does not ban pesticides:

So to be clear, prohibited = banned, and it not only bans the use of them in Switzerland but also the import of food which has been produced using them.
"The use of synthetic pesticides in agricultural production....is prohibited. " a typical "green" idea that "natural" things are far safer than synthetic.

Have they never heard of botulism or tetanus? Botulinum toxin is over a million times more toxic than all of the synthetic chemicals, except dioxin, even dioxin is substantially less toxic (about one hundred thousand times less)!

This is worth reading "Study of carcinogenicity of naturally derived and synthetic pesticides."
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #180  
Old 19.05.2021, 21:45
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 32,516
Groaned at 2,578 Times in 1,840 Posts
Thanked 39,652 Times in 18,690 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Vote June 13th 2021

Papers arrived today, will fill them out tomorrow.

Tom
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank st2lemans for this useful post:
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3.5 Zimmer Apartment available in Zug (Riedmatt) from 1st June 2021 akk Property offered 2 15.07.2021 14:18
Vote 7th March 2021 Sean Connery Swiss politics/news 457 13.03.2021 22:28
Vote today 5th June marton Swiss politics/news 19 06.06.2016 11:42
Day Trip to Konstanz, Germany on June 13th The Real Stig Travel/day trips/free time 7 22.06.2011 08:29
World wide knit in public day June 13th MusicChick Daily life 2 09.06.2009 12:41


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0