Front and Back Covers, Volume 37, Number 4. August 2021

Abstract

Front and back cover caption, volume 37 issue 4Front coverTOXIC FLOWS: E‐WASTE RECYCLINGA worker starts a fire to burn off the insulation from electrical cables to extract copper at an informal e‐waste recycling site in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Open fire is one of the methods used here to mine metals from defunct electronics devices and their components.Electronic waste is one of the fastest‐growing types of waste worldwide. However, many countries lack the formalized infrastructures necessary to collect and handle e‐waste safely. The informal sector has stepped up to fill the gap. E‐waste attracts urban dwellers seeking to extract value from these discarded materials while releasing toxic compounds detrimental to health and the environment.In this special issue on toxic flows, Samwel Moses Ntapanta follows Dar es Salaam's informal e‐waste recyclers to find out how they understand the toxic nature of their work and what measures they take to minimize exposure. The number of informal e‐waste recycling workshops in Dar es Salaam has skyrocketed in recent years. High demand for metals, like copper, offers a stable livelihood for e‐waste recycling workers.Scavenging spare parts from the electronic afterlives is primarily driven by a vibrant Tanzanian local market, giving an impetus to repurpose certain materials. During these activities (mining, repurposing, restoring and reusing), workers are exposed to many toxic chemical compounds. With little or no knowledge about these, workers in informal e‐waste recycling face unknown risks of exposure as they make a dangerous living in urban environments.Back coverTOXIC FLOWS: GLYPHOSATELaunch of the #StopGlyphosate campaign supported by the European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) and 37 European organizations in front of the European Parliament, 8 February 2017.Across the globe, grass‐roots movements against glyphosate, the world's most used herbicide, have encouraged regulators to re‐examine its safety assessments. In Europe, a drawn‐out process is widely expected to conclude that glyphosate is harmful to health and should be banned across all 28 member states. If so, this would likely lead to similar decisions in other markets, representing a blow to the agrochemical industry.More than any other pesticide, efforts to ban glyphosate have become tied up with questions of national sovereignty. From Vietnam and Thailand to Colombia and Mexico, the US government has threatened ‘trade disruption’ should a ban go ahead. The message is clear: chemical regulation is an international, not a domestic, matter.Nevertheless, glyphosate has become a standard for emerging populism. In post‐war Sri Lanka, banning glyphosate became a mission of Buddhist nationalist movements seeking to purify the national body. In the UK, Brexit supporters argued an independent UK would have the freedom to stop glyphosate (another ‘Vote Leave’ promise quickly broken).As politics the world over has re‐engaged with questions of national identity and autonomy, halting the free flow of glyphosate has become a goal for those on the left and right of the political spectrum.