Subject: POPs Treaty to Protect Environment and Health
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:31:02 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State
of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Carol Browner browner.carol@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker,
I thought you might like to read an article from P A N U P S -
Pesticide Action Network Updates Service entitled: POPs Treaty to Protect
Environment and Health dated December 22, 2000.
Delegates from 122 countries ended a week of negotiations
in Johannesburg, South Africa, on December 10 with agreement on an
international treaty to eliminate persistent organic pollutants (POPs). The
final treaty is strongly supported by NGOs from around the world who have
tracked the negotiations for several years.
The treaty identifies an initial list of 12 POPs slated
for elimination, with various phaseout timetables for each chemical. An
official signing ceremony will be held in Stockholm, Sweden in May 2001, and
the treaty will go into force when ratified by 50 countries. This initial
list, which includes nine pesticides, will be expanded over time according to
criteria set forth in the treaty.
One of the most controversial issues in the final
negotiations was how the "precautionary principle" would appear in
the treaty, and specifically what role it would play in the addition of new
chemicals. Throughout the negotiations, the European Union supported the
inclusion of a precautionary approach, which allows that when enough
information is available to raise legitimate concerns about a chemical, the
international community should act to protect public health. A small number of
countries led by the United States, and including Australia, Japan and Canada,
insisted that this approach would be "unscientific" and would bring
too many chemicals under the treaty.
The compromise reached involves the adoption of both a
precautionary approach and a rigorous scientific review of health effects of
chemicals being considered. While many NGO's had hoped the precautionary
language would be even stronger, they are pleased that the concept is included
in several key sections of the final treaty language.
The treaty also includes provisions for financial and
technical assistance to developing countries to meet treaty obligations. A
limited public health exemption for continued use of DDT to control malaria
was put in place, along with strong incentives to develop and adopt safer
alternatives.
Nearly 100 NGO representatives were present during the
final negotiations, including several Pesticide Action Network representatives
and many other organizations participating in the International POPs
Elimination Network. Many of these NGOs have worked throughout the several
years of negotiations to raise public awareness about POPs and press their
governments to support a strong treaty.
Chemical manufacturers were also well represented at the
meeting, and outlined several specific demands for the treaty, including
limited reference to the precautionary principle, no goal of elimination for
byproducts (dioxins, furans), and inclusion of several broad categories of
general exemptions. While some narrowed exemptions remain (which NGOs pledged
to work to tighten further during the treaty implementation process) none of
the chemical industry's suggested approaches appear in the final treaty.
While NGO representatives following POPs issues are
pleased with the strength of the POPs treaty, they note that agreement on the
treaty text must be seen as the beginning rather than the end of the treaty
process. These NGOs urge civil society to maintain pressure on their
governments to ensure that the treaty is ratified and implementation initiated
as soon as possible.
Sources: PANNA; NGO Press Release from
Johannesburg--Sierra Club Canada, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee, Great
Lakes United (USA/Canada), National Toxics Network (Australia), RAPAM
(Pesticide Action Network - Mexico), Commonweal (USA), CNIID (France), The
Council of Canadians; http://www.ourstolenfuture.org.
For more information on the treaty: http://www.ourstolenfuture.org,
http://www.iisd.ca/chemical/pops5/
For information on POPs pesticides: http://www.pesticideinfo.org
To become involved with the International POPs
Elimination Network: http://www.ipen.org.
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA
Phone: (415) 981-1771
Fax: (415) 981-1991
Email: panna@panna.org
Web: http://www.panna.org
Well Mr. Helliker, why is it that you consider the
precautionary principle "unscientific" when none of your
"registered" POISONS have never solved or eliminated even one pest
problem and you historically have had to remove many of these
"registered" POISONS but, only after they have created enough
sickness, death and contamination? Is
it "scientific" to use "registered" POISON COMPOUNDS that
ignore the bulk of the toxins and do not even properly or adequately test the
active ingredients - none of which in total are capable of controlling pest
problems as well as safe, economical, unregistered alternatives?
Respectfully, Stephen
L. Tvedten
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing
information on pesticides, Email Us.
with "subscribe" in the subject line.
Click Here to Add Comment