Lawmakers move to ban cancer-causing chemicals from farmlands — here's what's happening
According to The Tico Times, a bill being discussed by representatives on the Special Permanent Commission on Environment would ban pesticides that meet the World Health Organization's international criteria for high toxicity and those with evidence of causing cancer or genetic mutation or affecting reproduction, according to the Globally Harmonized System.
The bill would require the ministries of Environment and Energy, Health, and Agriculture and Livestock to update the national list of banned pesticides every two years based on new information from the WHO and increase training so farmers in Costa Rica know their options when it comes to pesticides.
The bill would represent a massive change to the way Costa Rica approaches farming. Estimates have shown that Costa Rica ranks among the biggest users of pesticides per agricultural area, ranging between 10 and 35 kilograms of pesticides used per hectare of farmland. Making matters worse, eight of the 10 most frequently used pesticides in the country are classified as highly hazardous by the Regional Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances at the National University of Costa Rica.
Pesticides have become an increasingly controversial subject in agriculture. Many see them as essential to reducing crop loss, but chemicals in pesticides can cause serious issues. Recent studies indicate that certain pesticides can wreak havoc on the endocrine system. Other studies have shown that chemicals in pesticides linger on fruits and vegetables after they've been harvested and washed — and washed again at home. In the United Kingdom, studies have shown that perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances have been found all over fruits and vegetables.
The bill would represent a profound shift toward healthier, more environmentally friendly agricultural practices in Costa Rica, which would benefit not just the Central American country but also its trade partners, including the United States.
Do you think gas stoves should be banned nationwide?
No way
Let each state decide
I'm not sure
Definitely
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk's X and Billboard Chris celebrate 'decisive victory' against censorship in Australia
Conservative activist and children's safety campaigner "Billboard Chris" took a victory lap Wednesday after successfully suing part of the Australian government for trying to censor his posts critical of government officials that advocate for transgender operations. Following a lawsuit filed by social media platform X and the conservative activist – whose real name is Chris Elston – the Australian government was forced to back down from its demands that X delete Elston's 2024 post criticizing a World Health Organization bureaucrat for what Elston described as their pro-child gender operation views. "I think this was a very large dose of rationality for Australia, which has really gone off the deep end in terms of censorship," Elston told Fox News Digital following an Australian Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) ruling this week that Elston could leave his post on the platform. Elston added that the ruling was "a decisive victory" and declared that "Australians should rejoice because they're free to call a man a man, and a woman a woman." Marjorie Taylor Greene Pushes Bill To Punish Those Who Perform Gender Transition Measures On Minors X's official Global Government Affairs account reacted to the verdict, stating, "This is a decisive win for free speech in Australia and around the world. X will continue to fight against coercive state censorship and to defend our users' rights to free speech." Read On The Fox News App Elston shared a Daily Mail story on X in 2024 that exposed the identity and sexual proclivities of Teddy Cook, an Australian transgender male who had just been appointed to a WHO body tasked with drafting "care guidelines for trans and non-binary people." The Daily Mail reported that Cook has a "kinky track record in everything from bestiality to bondage, drugs and nudism." Elston posted the article to X and referred to Cook as a "she," in accordance with Cook's biological sex. In the caption to his original post, Elston wrote, "This woman (yes, she's female) is part of a panel of 20 'experts' hired by the @WHO to draft their policy on caring for 'trans people.' People who belong in psychiatric wards are writing the guidelines for people who belong in psychiatric wards." Police Arrest 'Billboard Chris,' Christian Activist In Eu Capital For Denouncing Child Transgender Treatments After his posts, Elston revealed that Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant sent the activist and X a notice demanding they remove the posts because it amounted to "cyber abuse" of Cook. The government official then threatened X with a nearly $800,000 fine if the platform did not remove the post, prompting X and Elston's legal challenge. Lois McLatchie Miller, a spokesperson for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International – the legal group who coordinated Elston's case against the ruling along with Australia's Human Rights Law Alliance – explained to Fox News Digital how Grant tried to justify the demand to have Elston's speech removed from social media. According to the legal expert, Grant charged Elston and X with violating Australia's "Online Safety Act," alleging his post engaged in "cyber abuse against an Australian adult." Miller continued, "So they use that terminology to say that Chris's post should have been banned. But of course, that would give rise to or demand that Chris intended or the intention of his tweet was to bully someone to abuse them. And, of course, that was not the case." After a week-long hearing over Elston's case that occurred in March, ART reached a verdict Wednesday siding with the activist. According to ART Deputy President Damien O'Donovan, it was clear that Elston's post was not cyber abuse but a statement of his beliefs. Donovan stated in his ruling, "The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent." "When the evidence is considered as a whole I am not satisfied that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that by making the post Mr Elston intended to cause Mr Cook serious harm," he added. Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture Miller described Donovan's finding as a "really significant point," telling Fox News Digital that Elston's "intention was to keep his conviction to speak in the way that he thought was accurate and true. And to uphold the right of identity of women and children." Elston mentioned he felt his team beat the case on "every single legal point." "I think this sets a fantastic precedent going forward, and it should, at the very least, make Australians feel safe to say that a man is a man and a woman is a woman, because we've set a precedent for that," he said. Miller added, "This is a really significant early ruling in favor of free speech, which is going to be helpful for citizens all over the world as they tackle these new laws coming in." In a press release, ADF International executive director Paul Coleman celebrated the verdict. "This is a decisive win for free speech and sets an important precedent in the growing global debate over online censorship. In this case, the Australian government alarmingly censored the peaceful expression of a Canadian citizen on an American-owned platform, evidence of the expansive reach of censorial forces, even beyond national borders. Today, free speech has prevailed." The Australian eSafety Commission pointed Fox News Digital to their statement on ART's verdict, which read, "eSafety welcomes the guidance provided by the Tribunal on the statutory test for adult cyber abuse. We will continue to take seriously the responsibility of remediating online harms and protecting Australians from serious online harms."Original article source: Elon Musk's X and Billboard Chris celebrate 'decisive victory' against censorship in Australia
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business Insider
US court clears deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan despite legal fight
Eight migrants are now set to be deported to South Sudan after a US court denied their final legal bid to remain in the United States, following a series of emergency court proceedings held during the Independence Day holiday. A US judge has denied the final legal attempt to stop the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan The migrants' attorneys argued that deporting them to volatile South Sudan constitutes unconstitutional punishment given the country's ongoing instability. The deportations align with a broader immigration policy expansion initiated during the Trump administration targeting repatriations to conflict zones. South Sudan is currently plagued by political unrest and violent conflict, prompting international warnings against travel to the region. The decision came on Friday, July 4, after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that he was bound by a recent Supreme Court order, which had earlier clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could no longer be barred from deporting the men. The ruling effectively ended the migrants' last-ditch effort to stop the deportation, allowing the U.S. government to proceed with its scheduled transfer of the individuals to South Sudan at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time the same day. Lawyers representing the migrants had argued that deporting them to South Sudan, a country long plagued by violent conflict and political instability amounted to unconstitutional punishment, especially since some had already served criminal sentences in the U.S. However, Judge Murphy ruled that their claims were 'substantially similar' to previous ones he had already rejected. Before the ruling in Boston, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington briefly paused the deportation effort earlier that afternoon. But he ultimately returned the matter to Murphy, who affirmed that the Supreme Court's guidance left him no legal ground to intervene. Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the Seattle Clemency Project who represented the men, expressed disappointment with the outcome. ' Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives,' she said. ' That is what is so tragic about where we came out. ' Trump's third‑country deportations Trump's third-country deportation policy began in his first term with deals to send asylum seekers to Central American nations like Guatemala, even if they weren't from there. In his second term, the policy expanded to include deportations to conflict zones like South Sudan and Libya. These moves targeted migrants whose home countries refused repatriation. Critics argue the policy violates due process and international law, while the Supreme Court has allowed it to proceed, marking a sharp turn toward harsher immigration enforcement. South Sudan, the destination for the deportation, remains volatile. The U.S. State Department currently warns against travel to the country due to armed conflict and high levels of violent crime. The United Nations has also cautioned that the region's unresolved political tensions risk reigniting a devastating civil war that formally ended in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that the migrants who come from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan, and Vietnam include individuals previously convicted of serious crimes, with four convicted of murder. A Department of Justice lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, warned during Friday's hearing that halting such deportations could harm diplomatic relations and discourage other countries from accepting U.S. deportees in the future. This case marks another chapter in the broader legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies, particularly those targeting individuals for deportation to unstable or dangerous regions.
Washington Post
a day ago
- Washington Post
Tobacco report shows progress on anti-smoking policies worldwide
Measures linked to falling tobacco use worldwide now reach 6.1 billion people — or 75 percent of the global population, according to a report from the World Health Organization. The report, issued at the recent World Conference on Tobacco Control in Dublin, found that 2.6 billion people in 79 countries are covered by smoke-free policies in indoor public places.
