Hazardous chemicals do not have an ideology

Click to read the article in Turkish

The Parliamentary inquiry submitted by the İYİ Party to "investigate the pesticides used in agricultural production and harming human health and environment" has been rejected by the votes of ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) MPs.

The Parliamentary inquiry briefly read as follows:

"Pesticides are the most widely used hazardous chemicals in agricultural production in our country. Pesticides are said to cause the extinction of several species in nature, especially flying insects such as bees and butterflies, which are indispensable for food production, to pollute physical entities such as soil and water, which are vital for the continuity of life, and to harm human health and nature in general.

"Based on this information, we request that a Parliamentary Inquiry be launched with the aim of investigating the harmful effects of pesticides used for many years in our country on public health and environmental health, detecting the residues left by them in food and water bodies and taking the necessary measures to protect human and environmental health."

The Parliamentary inquiry submitted with the above justifications has been rejected by the votes of AKP and MHP MPs.

In other words, the proposal to hold a Parliamentary debate and inquiry on what is done and what needs to be done to protect the health of humans, bees, birds and other species in natural life and to prevent chemical pollution in soil and water bodies has been rejected.

Which justification put forward in the inquiry was found improper, I wonder.

What is wrong with inquiring the ways in which human health and natural life can be protected and pollution in soil and water can be prevented?

Among the pesticides that are used in agricultural production in our country, there are several of them which impair reproductive health, have an adverse effect on the hormonal development of babies and children, can remain in soil and water bodies without losing their hazardous effect for months and cause serious harm on bees and birds.

What is wrong with detecting these harms and having a debate on what precautions should be taken to eliminate them?

I wonder what the MPs who voted against the inquiry were thinking. Did they think that these hazardous chemicals did no harm to them?

A chemical substance that has an hazardous impact, impairs endocrine system or causes cancer does not differentiate people or does not sort them out based on their party affiliation, religious beliefs or gender.

Hazardous chemicals do not have an ideology.

Every living being subjected to a hazardous chemical comes to harm to a greater or lesser extent. But it is the children who come to harm the most.

Is it thought that pesticides make ideological choices or that they do not harm the MPs who rejected the inquiry or their spouses, children and relatives?

What do they think, really?

(BŞ/APA/SD)