Dutch Parliament Bans Glyphosate Herbicides for Non-Commercial Use

Posted on Apr 4 2014 - 1:48pm by Sustainable Pulse

From the end of 2015 onward the sale of Glyphosate -based herbicides to private persons, including the World’s number one herbicide ‘Roundup’, will be prohibited in the Netherlands over health fears.

Glyphosate is an ingredient of Roundup, which is sold to private persons as a weed control product. The Dutch Lower House gave consent to a motion by Dutch Member of Parliament Esther Ouwehand, which prohibits the sale of glyphosate to private individuals.

Glyphosate is increasingly associated with health problems such as infertility, birth defects, damage to the nervous system, Parkinson’s disease and several forms of cancer. In addition to health risks for humans, the usage of chemical pesticides can also lead to loss of biodiversity and difficulties with purifying drinking water.

In 2011 the Dutch Lower House asked for a total ban on the use of glyphosate outside the agricultural sector. Municipalities also use this pesticide for weed control and even private persons can buy it everywhere. Contrary to the wish of the Lower House the cabinet made all kinds of exceptions to the requested ban. Private individuals were allowed to use products containing glyphosate in their gardens, but not on their terraces. This is unclear, uncontrollable as well as irresponsible, given all risks to health and environment.

Now that the Party for the Animals motion has been adopted the cabinet has to get pesticides containing glyphosate, such as the commonly-sold RoundUp, off the shelves. Political parties PvdA, CU, 50+, GroenLinks, SP and PVV support the motion by Ouwehand, which she has submitted together with Gerard Schouw (D66).

Esther Ouwehand: “Agricultural pesticides in user-friendly packaging are sold in abundance to private persons. In garden centres RoundUp is promoted as harmless, but unsuspecting customers have no idea what the risks of this product are. Especially children are sensitive to toxic substances and should therefore not be exposed to it.”

The Lower House, led by the Party for the Animals, makes a stand against agricultural pesticides more and more. The Lower House supported motions by Esther Ouwehand for a ban on neonicotinoids, toxins that cause massive bee mortality. Moreover, at the urging of the Party for the Animals measures are being taken to restrict agricultural pesticides in order to protect residents. Ouwehand’s plea has recently been underlined by the Dutch Health Council.

Many people are concerned about the use of glyphosate in their living environment. This is demonstrated by dozens of reports at Gifkikker.nl, the notification centre that the Party for the Animals and foundation Bollenboos launched in April last year. The Dutch Health Council praised this initiative, because up until then civilians who worry about the use of pesticides in their neighbourhood could not turn to anyone with their concerns and complaints.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
(No Ratings Yet)
About the Author

Sustainable Pulse is a global news outlet covering sustainable agriculture, GMOs and pesticides.

15 Comments so far. Feel free to join this conversation.

  1. GMOsRnotNice April 4, 2014 at 18:22 - Reply

    Glyphie should be banned from the Earth — as should all pesticides and herbicides.

  2. Zen Honeycutt April 4, 2014 at 20:57 - Reply

    Excellent new! Hats off to the Netherlands! We hope it is not long before all countries have the courage to protect their million of people over profits of a few corporations and ban glyphosate and other toxic chemicals completely. We have FAITH in our farmers that they can farm as has been done for thousands of years, without poisonous chemicals.

    • Bob April 14, 2014 at 03:52 - Reply

      Big deal-people can’t use it –it is still on the CROPS.

    • Dan Hill May 24, 2015 at 19:47 - Reply

      I’m a farmer, and there are several problems with “farming like we have for thousands of years.” Go back 200 years and you lose cropland as it sits fallow to repleshish nutrients, or mine the soil and offer lesser crops with terrible yields as revolutionary tobacco farmers did. Go back 100 years, we have increased tillage, with row crops receiving multiple cultivations to decrease weeds and increased erosion. All suffered severe loss to insects. There are trade offs and no perfect solutions. Could we decrease use or create a better pesticide? Yes, but to eliminate them all together eliminates sustainable farming practices like strip till or no till.

  3. Linda Baker Scheider April 5, 2014 at 02:28 - Reply

    It is wonderful news but I so wish it was banned immediately….

  4. Terri April 5, 2014 at 08:46 - Reply

    This is fantastic news. I think it should be banned from the enitire planet.

  5. Lucid Tree April 12, 2014 at 13:32 - Reply

    A step in the right direction. I wonder why still allowed for commercial use.

  6. Susan M April 12, 2014 at 19:05 - Reply

    Consumer use? What little difference will this make?

    It’s the HUGE amount of commercial spraying that does all the damage.

    Spraying of agricultural fields, along highways, parking lots, industrial sites – massive areas that will still be sprayed.

    Not much accomplished!

    • Hans Goedhart April 14, 2014 at 10:07 - Reply

      I agree Susan.

  7. GMOsRnotNice April 15, 2014 at 01:16 - Reply

    Once again, we must and WE WILL ban all pesticides, herbicides, and (insufficiently tested) GMOs from the Planet.

    Fracking, Tar Sands extraction, and eventually fossil fuels must and will also be banned.

    It is time for Humanity to grow up and cease fighting Nature — because we will lose any and all such fights.

  8. Dimitri April 24, 2014 at 00:32 - Reply
  9. Steve April 27, 2014 at 13:56 - Reply

    When we have banned all the synthetic pesticides and weed killers, food production will be be massively reduced, maybe back to the crop yields of the early 20th century.

    Who will decide the ones who get to eat and the ones left to starve?
    Who votes for no food for their children?

  10. Nath October 21, 2014 at 06:57 - Reply

    Banned for private use only? Or commercial use as well?

    The articles I have read on this read “Private persons”

    This could mean anything from private individuals to private enterprises.

    I’m not convinced. What I am reading is that this product is no longer for sale for the public consumer, but might very well be used by large-scale farmers, which I believe here in the Netherlands are partly government subsidized.

    I could be wrong.

  11. Alison October 28, 2014 at 21:40 - Reply

    Banning the pesticide for private use is pointless; It must be banned for commercial use. Monsanto’s round-up resistant seeds will thrive in commercial use, and kill all the plants of neighbouring farmers. Just another tool for Monsanto to really take over control of the world’s food growth.

  12. Stephen Fraser September 29, 2016 at 01:36 - Reply

    For those who sat we will go back to low yields blah, blah.

    1 – pesticides et al are killing people. Cancer mental disorders.

    2 – people like me can’t eat wheat anymore

    3 – vitamins in the food produced is a lot lower: compare vitamin in a 1920s/40s carrot to carrots today.

    4 – pesticides destroy the land over time creating deserts.

    The reason why farmers love these chemicals is because it gives them quick money.

    In regards to land producing more yields – more nutrients are removed from the soil. Over time the food has little nutrients. Also soil starts to turn to dust. Desertification

    There is only one way to maintain land and that is to leave it fallow for a period of time.

    Any other way lowers the quality and contaminates the land. Eventually becoming unusable. We are already seeing lots of farm land becoming deserts. Politicians blame climate change, but it’s the way the land is farmed.

    People will starve- No there is plenty of land on the planet to sustain the human race. Farmers need to buy new Land but they are unable to because they don’t make enough money and so need help from their governments to keep them solvent. The reason why food is so low in price is because governments place trade controls and print far to much money. Distorting the markets to the point that no one knows the real value of anything. Food prices should cost way more. But because of this government sponsored fraud via central banks food prices are way too low.

Leave A Response