The majority of Thais have recently been victimised by short-sighted state agencies which appear to favour big business over you and me.
The refusal of the 29-member national committee on hazardous substances to ban the use of toxic farm chemicals, namely glyphosate, chlorpyrifos and particularly paraquat, for at least two years, after which the matter will be raised for reconsideration, is a shameful decision based on the interests of the agro-industrial sector with little regard for the safety of consumers.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.
Thiravat Hemachudha, a neurology professor at Chulalongkorn Hospital and a vocal campaigner against the use of paraquat, has suggested the 16 committee members who voted against the banning of the herbicide, as demanded by a network of more than 600 civic groups, might have been influenced by a retired army general.
It has been suggested that this general personally received a petition from the business that has been importing the substance into Thailand for decades and making huge profits from its sale to farmers.
Besides the unnamed general, the Ministry of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives will allow the use of this poisonous chemical for at least another two years on the grounds that there is still no viable alternative to paraquat (market name Gramoxone), which it claims is an effective and cheap weed killer.
Although the committee may have won the battle this time, the civic groups have vowed to carry on with their fight by taking the case to the National Anti-Corruption Commission through the Ombudsman's office.
For the sake of consumers, who have been exposed to toxic chemicals by farmers to the extent that many vegetables and fruits are laced with the substances, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha should have stepped in to right the wrong and do something rather than taking a hands-off approach.
What if the civic groups call on voters not to cast their ballots for parties which do not support the banning of this toxic substance to put pressure on the government? Wishful thinking? But who knows? Anything can happen when someone is in a desperate situation.
While the committee and the agriculture ministry have been roundly condemned for siding with the agro-industrial sector, rice farmers are wondering aloud whether the rice bill which seeks to restrict their use of their own rice seeds for cultivation was intended for the benefit of the farmers or for agro-giants.
Even Agriculture Minister Grisda Boonrach is against this controversial provision and has asked the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) to remove it.
The initiator of the bill, Kittisak Rattanavaraha, who is a member of the NLA, insisted the provision was primarily intended to prevent seed traders from selling substandard rice seeds which are not certified by the Rice Department to farmers and, hence, causing damage to the reputation of Thai rice.
The bill does not restrict farmers from using their own seeds for cultivation, but it prevents them from selling the seeds for commercial purposes.
After each harvest, farmers usually keep one portion for their own consumption, another portion for the next cultivation and the surplus -- if there is any -- is sold to the rice millers. Each year, about one million tonnes of rice seeds are needed for cultivation and, of these, half are from farmers' own rice seeds with the rest supplied by the agro-industry.
Despite claims of good intentions by the bill initiator and supporters that it will protect farmers from being taken advantage by millers and unscrupulous seed traders, farmers, rice millers, rice seed traders and exporters, as well as rice experts from the Thailand Development Research Institute, believe the bill will not benefit any stakeholders but, on the contrary, will undermine traditional rice trading practices.
Restricting the trading of rice seeds which have not been certified by the Rice Department will prevent farmers from developing their own rice strains.
There are currently more than 2,000 local rice strains which are not certified.
The controversial rice bill is due to be finalised this Wednesday by the NLA.
However, opposition against will likely drag on largely because it is a top-down piece of legislation which did not involve feedback from the stakeholders from the very beginning.