ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS
Can we prevent the use of endocrine disruptors ?
Could we imagine a world free of endocrine disruptors ?
Can we forbid the commercialization and use of endocrine disruptors ?
“Should the precautionary principle be applied to endocrine disruptors commercialization?”
Endocrine disruptors have been proven to be extremely harmful for humans and all other living organisms. Our role as legislators is to protect the populations and the environment. As the industrials will not stop using endocrine disruptors by themselves, we need to find solutions to force them.
The 2 proposed solutions :
* ban all endocrine disruptors and prevent their use
* apply the precautionary principle and force the industrials to prove the safety of their product before reaching market
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The scene takes place within the National Assembly. The Health Commission (Committee?) is gathered to discuss a bill proposed by X, who wants to ban the commercialization and use of all the molecules suspected to be endocrine disruptors in France.
Deputy X and three colleagues, who have knowledge on endocrine disruptors due to their previous backgrounds, will first discuss the bill. You will then be able to give your opinion on the two different propositions. In the end, the bill will be put to the vote.
Participants :
- Deputy X, who was previously working as an endocrinologist : proposing the bill : Maïwen
- Deputy Y, who was previously working as a naturopath and former member of ASEF (Association Santé Environnement France) => supporting the bill : Amélie
Two deputies will represent those who strongly disagree with this bill as they do not believe it is realistic nor feasible
- Deputy Z, who was previously working as an engineer for a Green biotech company : Ouma
- Deputy A, who was previously working as a farmer and former member of AFDI : (Agriculteurs Français et Développement International) : Mathilde
The solutions proposed and put to the vote :
- supporting the bill = ban the commercialization and use of all suspected ED in France, then in Europe
- against the bill = force the industry to do clinical trials and prove the safety of their product for users ; if they cannot, ask them to find another molecule (proved to be safe already) to replace the dangerous one
Hello everyone. My name is Mathilde Pinon, I am 42 and deputy of the 5th district of Ille-et-Vilaine. I own a farm near Janzé where I was working on with my parents and my husband. My husband died a year ago from a prostate cancer, (very? Need emphasis here) possibly due to his exposition to the phytochemicals we used on our crops. This made me realize just how problematic these products can be, and made me convert to organic agriculture (organic farming?).
When deputy MAI first told me about her project of legislating (on?) endocrine disruptors, I was really interested and motivated to take part in (join in/in joining) the fight (not sure?). But, as a professional who has been using these products for years, I do not believe her proposition is realistic as it does not take into account the technical issues.
Forbidding all endocrine disruptors on the market at once is (or : forbidding endocrine disruptors on the market all at once is?), theoretically at least, a wonderful idea. But when it comes to actually putting it into practice (or : applying it?), things get really different.
Farmers are amongst the first victims of the use of pesticides in France. We don’t use them for fun. Our population wants to consume for a cheaper price, so we have got to adapt to these demands, and to meet these needs (no : to keep pace with these demands, or : to adjust to them, or : to follow them, or : to match????) we had to increase our yields, which phytochemicals helped us achieve.
Together with deputy OUM, we have also been thinking of an alternative solution, which sounds best to us. We think it would be smarter to reverse the burden of proof for the industrials, meaning they would have to prove the safety of their chemical in order to be allowed for it to reach the market. If the industrial is unable to do so, either because he cannot afford clinical trials or because these trials failed to prove the safety of the molecule, he would be forced to use a molecule already approved for its safety.
Key words :
* fungicide/weedkiller = herbicide/pesticide
* to reverse the burden of proof
* to put (something) into practice