Guest
9 years ago
Edited
http://www.doitgarden.ch/de/garten/pflanzenpflege/pflanzenschutzmittel/spray-gegen-schaedlinge--500-ml/pp.658408200000
Supplementary information
Declarable substances
Guest
8 years ago
@Loxiran I rather think that such actions would bring something to the forum here?
@Daniel_Migros: "The accusations made by user Migroleum in his post on Friday, August 5, 2016 about the lack of approvals and glyphosate are false."
Strangely enough, the FOAG has changed a lot on its homepage in the last two weeks. This can be seen, among other things, by searching for the approval number on Google. If you click on the link to the BLW, you end up on a different page than the one still displayed on Google. The fact that my accusations are presented by Daniel as "false" is apparently for legal reasons. The only thing that seems to be true is that many products have received a new approval, with the same or different active ingredients!
Why haven't you(@Daniel_Migros) answered @ivan92's question for 2 weeks:"Does your statement also apply to Migros magazine, can't everything be explained in detail there?"
To come straight to the point, the claim in this forum that the wording explicitly (explicitly, unambiguously, clearly) refers to the "Greenpeace study "Bye bye bee?" from 2013" or from @Tanja_Migros "Migros was the first retailer in Switzerland to react to this in 2014 and promised Generation M only to offer insecticides and pesticides that do not contain any active ingredients criticized by Greenpeace in the Bye Bye Bee report and do not endanger bees." I still don't understand!
It's very questionable why the Migos magazine says...
"Now the retailer is going one
one step further: a study by the environmental
organization Greenpeace has identified four
additional active ingredients,
which it describes as critical. "We
take these findings seriously and
have checked whether the active
active ingredients in our plant
protection and insect repellents,
occur," says Sandro Glanzmann,
environmental expert at the Migros-Genos-
Federation. The analysis revealed
that some articles are affected that
against pests such as ants and
ants and aphids. The
substances that could be harmful to bees
bees are contained in very small
quantity in the products.
products. Migros is removing the affected
either completely from the product range
range or changes the formulation to
to more gentle active ingredients."
The full article can be downloaded here:
MIGROS MAGAZINE | NO. 5, 27 JANUARY 2014
According to Migros, the promise is still being kept, which suddenly only refers to the Greenpeace study "Bye bye bee" from 2013. Why are you lying to us? So that you don't lose sales?
A new statement from Migros would be more than appropriate!
I still take this promise seriously! Obviously Migros no longer does...
Guest
8 years ago
> The only thing that seems to be true is that many products have received new approval,
> with the same or different active ingredients!
Exactly, and that's why any accusations that Migros would sell products without authorization were false. And your riot in your Migros to get the sprays off the shelves was so unnecessary. The FOAG had apparently simply failed to update the approval list on the website in time. If you had simply informed the store management and/or the authorities, this would have been clarified and they would have come to the conclusion that the FOAG website is out of date, but everything else is OK. But no, of course it had to be done quickly, quickly.
>It's very questionable why the Migos magazine says...
The article in MM 5/2014 explicitly refers to the 7 active ingredients that the Greenpeace report from 2013 classified as harmful to bees, 3 of which were banned by law and 4 of which were voluntarily replaced by Migros. The "promise" was apparently made and implemented in the context of replacing the 7 active ingredients in question.
As I said, the only thing you can blame Migros for is that there wasn't an "asterisk" at the end, and then somewhere in small print the explanation that it was about the list of 7 active ingredients from the Greenpeace report from 2013. It's all half as bad.
Guest
8 years ago
@n_vogel I am still primarily concerned with the promise and that there are still some products in the range that are officially classified as "hazardous to bees". @Tanja_Migros just wrote about the active ingredients that have "recently" also been classified as hazardous to bees:
Now the criticized substances have been classified as hazardous to bees by Greenpeace and are therefore also included on the list! It looks like Tanja's answer will probably be just as meaningless for Migros as the promise itself!
Guest
8 years ago
Once again: The 'promise' was made in the context of the previously linked MM article, and it is clear from this (if you also read the article) that it refers specifically to the 7 substances from the Greenpeace report from 2013.
Of course, Tanja's article can also be more or less deliberately misunderstood, but I strongly assume that"the active ingredients classified by Greenpeace as hazardous to bees" also refers to the well-known 2013 report - and in particular not to active ingredients whose classification was changed after the promise was made, such as lambda-cyhalothrin.
As already mentioned, Migros can now be accused of not communicating optimally. That they should have written an asterisk behind the sentence on the Generation M sign and then somewhere at the bottom of the page "(*) referring to the study 'Bye Bye Biene', Greenpeace, 2013". Or formulate the sentence differently. Or even better, in my opinion, don't write an oversimplified summary in one sentence - the full article is clear, and you don't always have to chew everything up as quickly, simply and compactly as possible - if you're interested, read the whole article.
Guest
8 years ago
The promise did not say "fewer products that do not endanger bees", nor did it say "new products that endanger bees even more".
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160820/v7cgba3i.png
This means that Migros no longer wants to offer products that are harmful to bees. How else is this to be understood? There is no restriction to be seen and no small print. With other promises, there was more text in the green box, so Migros would have had room for conditions. There would have been room for a fourth line, and certainly a fifth line if the font had been a little smaller.
We now only offer insecticides
and plant protection products,
that do not endanger bees,
as long as we feel like it.
or
We do not offer insecticides and
pesticides that, according to the
Greenpeace list 2014 contain
dangerous substances.
or
We only offer insecticides
and plant protection products with
new substances that kill bees and
and bumblebees even more efficiently.
What I understand least of all is why Migros is fighting so doggedly for chemicals that it knows very well kill beneficial, pollinating insects. It gives me the impression that Migros is determined to kill them. Why else would it refuse to take the poison off the shelves? To protect plants efficiently against pests, fungi or diseases, biological agents are completely sufficient.
Guest
8 years ago
While suggestions 1 and 3 are provocative nonsense, as I'm sure you know yourself, a formulation along the lines of suggestion 2 would probably have been clearer, yes, as the Fairness Commission also pointed out. Especially when people only look at the one sentence without context - the context was clear in the MM article. But Migros has since removed the picture from the Generation M website for this very reason.
> What I understand least of all is why Migros is fighting so doggedly for the chemicals,
> which they know very well kills beneficial pollinating insects. That makes
> me the impression that Migros is determined to kill them.
This is, of course, polemical nonsense.
Firstly: Lambda-cyhalothrin is approved for use in agriculture in Switzerland and its neighboring countries. In comparison, the contribution of private gardens is negligible.
Secondly, if the biological alternatives were really just as effective, cheap and easy to use, why are they not used on a large scale, e.g. in (conventional) agriculture? Which active ingredient would you use for the applications described at http://www.blw.admin.ch/psm/produkte/index.html?lang=de&item=289 that is just as effective as lambda-cyhalothrin and has fewer side effects? I am sure that various manufacturers of plant protection products would be interested.
Guest
8 years ago
Want to distract from the topic again? But that's what you're paid for.
It's ONLY about the unfulfilled promise. Migros should have worded it correctly, but they didn't (on purpose). With all the advertising for promotions, nobody goes online to see exactly what it means. Migros never intended to do anything for the bees, the promise was just an advertisement to attract customers. It's the same as the VUVH scam.
Alternatives have been described by @deactivated user https://community.migros.ch/m/Forum-Migipedia/Bienenschutz-oder-doch-nicht/m-p/538001#M24702 and here https://community.migros.ch/m/Forum-Migipedia/Bienenschutz-oder-doch-nicht/m-p/539193#M24766
he has helped people here more with these two examples than you have with anything you have ever written.
But anyone who doesn't have your opinion is immediately polemical and moronic. If I write that about you, my profile will be blocked. You don't accept other opinions, you want to be right and have the last word, but you're not right. @deactivated user has described it correctly, migros only ever wants to deceive its customers.
Guest
8 years ago
@n_vogel,
you are completely contradicting yourself, or how should this be understood?
"The article in MM 5/2014 explicitly refers to the 7 active ingredients that the Greenpeace report from 2013 classified as harmful to bees, 3 of which were banned by law and 4 of which were voluntarily replaced by Migros. The "promise" was apparently made and implemented in the context of replacing the 7 active ingredients in question. As I said, the only thing you can blame Migros for is that there wasn't an "asterisk" at the end, and then somewhere in small print the explanation that it was about the list of 7 active ingredients from the Greenpeace report from 2013. It's all half as bad."
Please quote the passages from the MM that clearly link the promise to the GP study. Unfortunately, I still can't find the connection you mentioned.
It looks more as if Migros promises "to no longer offer products that are dangerous to bees and since GP has found some substances that are dangerous to bees, it said (quote):
"We take these findings seriously
and have checked whether the
active ingredients in question are present in our plant
protection and insect repellents," says Sandro Glanzmann,
environmental expert at the Migros-Genos-
senschafts-Bund. The analysis revealed
that some products used
against pests such as ants and
aphids are affected. The
substances, which could be harmful to bees
, are contained in the products in very small
quantities. Migros either removes the affected
products from the
range entirely or changes the formulation to
more gentle active ingredients."
So the promise clearly existed even before the 4 additional substances from the GP study were removed from the range! The only thing that would probably help to get Migros to keep its promise would be a boycott or informing people outside Migros that Migros is not keeping its promise! It makes you wonder why the almost 100,000 Generation-M fans on Facebook don't seem to mind being taken for such a ride!
8 years ago
hamilton describes exactly the behavior of hamilton, albus and Migroleum
Guest
8 years ago
As there is unfortunately nothing more to read here from Migros, I also phoned the M-Infoline to complain about incorrect declarations regarding plant protection products. As usual, the questions could not be answered immediately, so after a few days I received the answers by e-mail. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, Migros only replied with standard answers that did not address my questions at all. When I then followed up by email to make the matter clearer for Migros, I received the following reply, which still doesn't quite capture the extent of my accusations:
"As you have correctly noted, the product spray against pests bears the hazard statement "Spe8" on the packaging. Unfortunately, this declaration is currently not displayed in our online store. We thank you for pointing this out and will correct it this week."
I have to invest so much time so that I can express myself clearly to Migros. Unfortunately, Migros has obviously still not realized that the warnings generally need to be revised. I now hope that Migros will also take note of this via this channel, or will respond appropriately and take a stand on it here. Most employees take the concerns raised too little or not at all seriously and always try to let the matter rest so as not to have to expend any more resources. This is absolutely not the kind of customer service I would have expected from Migros!