The European Union Strikes down the ubiquitous right of American companies to poison human beings

[truedelphi]

Have you ever wondered what good all the protests in Seattle did during the WTO hearings there almost a decade ago? Those protests stopped the WTO from forcing the EU to accept the no-restriction policies of American chemical companies. Instead, the EU has kept in place the mechanisms to keep its populace healthy.

The bottom line of the following article is this one sentence from its middle:

The E.U. standards will force many manufacturers to reformulate their products for sale there as well as in the United States.

WASHINGTON POST THURSDAY JUNE 12, 2008




Chemical Law HasGlobal Impact
E.U.'s New RulesForcing Changes By U.S. Firms


By LyndseyLayton
Washington Post StaffWriter
Thursday, June 12, 2008; PageA01


Europe this month rolled out newrestrictions on makers of chemicals linked to cancer and other healthproblems, changes that are forcing U.S. industries to find new ways toproduce a wide range of everyday products. The new laws in the European Union require companies to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before itenters commerce -- the opposite of policies in the United States,where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it canbe restricted or removed from the market. Manufacturers say thatcomplying with the European laws will add billions to their costs,possibly driving up prices of some products.


The changes come at a time when consumers are increasingly worried about the long-term consequences of chemical exposure and are agitating for more aggressive regulation. In the United States, these pressures have spurred efforts in Congress andsome state legislatures to pass laws that would circumvent thelaborious federal regulatory process. Adamantly opposed by the U.S. chemicalindustry and the Bush administration, the E.U. laws will be phased in over the next decade. It is difficult to know exactly how the changes will affect products sold in the United States. But Americanmanufacturers are already searching for safer alternatives tochemicals used to make thousands of consumer goods, from bike helmetsto shower curtains.


The European Union's tough stance on chemical regulation is the latest area in which the Europeans are reshaping business practices with demands that American companies either comply or lose access to a market of 27 countries and nearly 500 million people. From its crackdown on antitrust practices in the computer industry to its rigorous protection of consumer privacy, the European Union has adopted a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes the consumer. Its approach to managing chemical risks,which started with a trickle of individual bans and has swelled into a wave, is part of a European focus on caution when it comes to health and the environment.

"There's a strong sense in Europe and the world at large that America is letting the market have a free ride," said Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and technology studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The Europeans believe . . . that being a good global citizen in an era ofsustainability means you don't just charge ahead and destroy the planet without concern for what you're doing."

Under the E.U. laws, manufacturers must study and report the risks posed by specific chemicals. Through the Internet, the data will be available for the first time to consumers, regulators and potential litigants around the world. Until now, much of that information either did not exist or was closely held by companies.

The rest of the article can be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/5e2jvl

Well worth reading. And the next time you think that protests don't accomplish anything, think again! So thank you Seattle WTO protesters!

[no_hypocrisy]

1. And if the EU banned Round-Up, then it would be easier to ban GM crops, right?

[truedelphi]

2. I think it is entirely possible.

Most scientists are unaware that RounduP was ILLEGALLY presented to the EPA for its licensing for sale to average over the counter customers.

RoundUp contains FORMALDEHYDE, and the Monsanto people somehow forgot to mention that fact to the people at the EPA. Had they mentioned that fact, then RoundUp would ahve never been approved of for over the counter sale. ANd in fact, formaldehyde in its formula probably would have cost it its abuility to be sold inside the state of Californai,due to our state's Prop 65 laws.

So now it is simply a matter of getting people in the upper science/government postions in Europe to realize this - then the ban should go down and no more GMO!

[crikkett]

14. I heard about roundup containing formaldehyde, but never found a source

Where did you learn this?

Thanks
:hi:

[TreasonousBastard]

3. I wouldn't give the protests too much credit...

for this.

The EUI has been way ahead of us on everything from recycling to privacy for years and this is a logical progression from their banning GM crops, Frankencows, and lots of other stuff we have in abundance. It just took a while longer since it's more complex.

[mod mom]

4. Change can't come soon enough for this country.

Also, for those who suggest Hillary for VP-we don't need a second in line who is on board with Monsanto. They might be well served by reading this letter from a Wellesley College Alumna :



RE: Open Letter to Hillary Clinton From a Wellesley College Alumna, by Linn Cohen-Cole. Thought you all might be interested in reading this open letter to Hillary Clinton, by Linn Cohen-Cole, on the Clinton's ties to Monsanto, promotion of genetically engineered crops and rBGH, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone.
Open Letter to Hillary Clinton From a Wellesley College Alumna
February 19, 2008

-snip

You have connections to Monsanto through the Rose Law Firm where you worked and through Bill who hired Monsanto people for central food-related roles. Your Orwellian-named “Rural Americans for Hillary” was planned withTroutman Sanders, Monsanto’s lobbyists.

Genetic engineering and industrialized food and animal production all come together at the Rose Law Firm, which represents the world’s largest GE corporation (Monsanto), GE’s most controversial project (DP&L’s - now Monsanto’s - terminator genes) , the world’s largest meat producer (Tyson), the world’s largest retailer and a dominant food retailer (Wal-Mart) .

The inbred-ness of Rose’s legal representation of corporations which own controlling interests in other corporations there and of corporate boards sharing members who are also shareholders of each other’s corporations there, is so thorough that it is hard to capture. Jon Jacoby, senior executive of the Stephens Group - one of the largest institutional shareholders of Tyson Foods, Walmart, DP&L - is also Chairman of the Board of DP&L and arranged the Wal-Mart deal. Jackson Stephens’ Stephens Group staked Sam Walton and financed Tyson Foods. Monsanto bought DP&L. All represented at Rose.

You didn’t just work there, you made friends. That shows in the flow of favors then and since. You were invited onto Walmart’s board, you were helped by a Tyson executive to make commodity trades (3 days before Bill became governor), netting you $100,000, Jackson Stephens strongly backed Bill for Governor, and then for President (donating $100,000).

Food and friends, in Clinton terms: Bill’s appointed friend Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, who immediately significantly weakened federal chicken waste and contamination standards, opening the door to major expansion of Tyson’s chicken factory farms. Espy resigned, indicted for accepting bribes, illegal contributions, money laundering, illegal dispersal of USDA subsidies, …. Tyson Foods was the largest corporate offender.

-snip

http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2008/03/29083.php

[Overseas]

5. K&R !!

[Brewman_Jax]

6. At least their government regulators haven't been bought

unlike the US agencies that seem to spend their efforts protecting the big corporations.

[truedelphi]

8. The first thing I woke up reading this morning

Was an early nineteen nineties article on how the Federal Agencies stopped the alternatives to DEET.

Even though the alternatives were often as effective and all of them were far less poisonous to humans.

[ihavenobias]

7. K & R

[anigbrowl]

9. I fail to see what this has to do with protests in Seattle

I'm European, and they EU (or its member countries) has had tougher regulations for a very long time because we've had our problems in the past with loose regulation and complacent belief in the idea that technological change is always benign or safe. The EU hasn't 'adopted' a regulatory philosophy that benefits the consumer, that idea has been around most of the time and consumer rights have a higher profile in Europe (albeit one that waxes and wanes like everything else) because it's smaller and has a much greater population density.

Certainly this is good news, but I don't see why you're taking it as a pat on the back for WTO protesters in Seattle. That's absolute nonsense, especially considering that the EU is a trade-based body to begin with. Globalization protesters tend to be one seriously misguided set of people.

[truedelphi]

11. Basically the WTO has a way of setting the agenda for countries

WHether the countries want what the WTO wants or not.

For instance, in the USA, in the nineteen fifties, most national policy directives were set by "Acts" and those acts required a vote in The House of Representatives, and thena twothirds approval vote in the Senate.

These days, our national policies still may be set by "acts" but they are also set by "agreements" - for instance the NAFTA trade agreement that has turned life upside down for people in the United States and in Mexico and Canada. These "agreements" only need a fifty one per cent victory in the Senate to pass.
And often these MERE "Agreements" are more life-altering than any of the Acts that we saw in the previous 250 years.

So if you examine the inner workings of yourlife as an European, you will probably find the same set of standards apply.

Because of the protests, the portion of the WTO meetings that would have locked the European Nations into being fast tracked OUT OF their original health policy provisions were blocked. Thus the EU still has not signed away from the tyoe of policy that would have been set in cemebnt for that block of nations, ahd those "trade meetings" takenm place.

[crikkett]

15. The OP said that the WTO was deciding whether to pressure EU to

accept lower food standards (the way that the US has strong-armed S. Korea into doing as part of our recent free trade agreement with them).

And the OP is claiming that the Seattle protests helped the WTO decide against the idea.

[autorank]

10. A lot of people sacrifised fighting the WTO

And that's a good way to get your name on a bunch of lists.

Great news. The Europeans are rockin'

[mod mom]

12. If only they would put war crimes pressure on the US Administration.

:hi:

[ForeignSpectator]

13. European K&R