»

Our health in their hands

There’s good news and there’s bad news.

If you followed the Rio+20 headlines last week and the autopsies of that particular debacle, you’ll already know the bad news. The meeting of global ‘leaders’ was ostensibly to mark 20 years since the historic 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and to discuss how to better mitigate climate change and its effects on people and planet.

Only lots of global leaders, for instance from the US, the UK, Russia and Germany, didn’t show up. The conclusions of the summit were so uninspiring that the resulting document couldn’t be called a ‘declaration’ or even a ‘roadmap’. The Outcomes Document instead talked of ‘green economies’ and ‘sustained growth’. In other words lets make as much money as possible before the oil runs out and all our resources are depleted; before man-made climate change alters the global map forever and the only bequest left for our children is a dead planet.

That pretty much says it all about the mindsets of those who were there.

Why does this matter to health? Because as our recent article discuses climate change has direct effects on human health, on the way disease spread and on the way microorganisms evolve resistance.

If you are a concerned individual or a campaigner it’s easy to feel helpless. But the good news is that a recent judgement in the European Court means that campaigners now have the right to challenge EU regulations – a right previously granted to corporations but not campaigners (see link right).

The regulation being challenged was one that allowed higher levels of pesticide residues in food. Several hundred of the new higher limits on pesticide residues on food were, said the campaigners, unsafe according to the EU’s own safety rules.

As well as being a victory for anyone concerned about pesticides in their food, this is a significant development in how European courts interact with green groups, and could signal a shift towards more effective enforcement of environmental rights.

You and I know how to look after our day-to-day health – in particular through low-impact, natural remedies and support of organic farming – can we say the same for the policy makers who have power over our longer-term prospects?

Pat Thomas, Editor