Pesticide Law Reform In Canada 

....new legislation, in addition to requiring new assessments of old pesticides, will:

• Make more information available to the public about what chemicals are in pesticides and what risks they pose.

• Require chemical companies to report adverse effects of their pesticides, which in turn can trigger re-evaluations.

• Invoke the precautionary principle either in the preamble or the legislation itself; the principle suggests action should be
  taken against a substance believed to be harmful before conclusive evidence is available.

Subject:   Pesticide Law Reform In Canada Ahead----
Date:        Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:14:16 -0500
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

To:     Lyndon Hawkins <hawkins@empm.cdpr.ca.gov>
          State of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
          Integrated Pest Management

Dear Lyndon, I thought you might be interested in an article from several newspapers on the upcoming Canadian pesticide law reforms:

Reply-To: Co-Cure-Mod@listserv.nodak.edu
Sender: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia
Information Exchange
<CO-CURE@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU>
From: "Judith Spence <eisc@eisc.ca> via Co-Cure
Moderators"
<co-cure-mod@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU>
Subject: ACT: Canadian pesticide law reform ahead
Date: Monday, February 21, 2000 2:09 PM
Subject: Pesticide law reform ahead, Rock promises

 

PUBLICATION The Ottawa Citizen
DATE Fri. 18 Feb. 2000
SECTION/CATEGORY News
PAGE NUMBER A6
BYLINE Andrew Duffy

HEADLINE: Law will weed out old pesticides: Rock promises new legislation puts old chemicals (POISONS) under new scrutiny

Health Minister Allan Rock has vowed to introduce a new pesticide law that will trigger a reassessment of farm and garden chemicals first approved ("registered") when he was a boy.

The 52-year-old minister conceded yesterday that more needs to be done to protect the health of pregnant women and children whose sensitivities are not always considered by the current pesticide licensing system.

Mr. Rock made the comments during an appearance before the Commons environment committee, which has heard a litany of complaints during its six-month study of the government's pesticide management regime.

``If we had the money we needed, we could have tackled these things long before now,'' Mr. Rock told the committee.

``And many of them are urgent, particularly the re-evaluation of some pesticides that have been on the market since I was born.''

Canada's current pesticide law has not been substantially changed in 30 years. In that time, few chemicals have ever been reassessed based on current science.

Last year, a report found the vast majority of the 500 active ingredients in Canadian pesticides were approved at least 19 years ago; 150 were approved before 1960. (OBVIOUSLY, NONE OF THE DANGEROUS "INERTS" IN THE POISON FORMULA HAVE EVER BEEN "APPROVED" OR TESTED!)

The Ontario College of Family Physicians has warned that current pesticide use poses ``undeniable risks'' to some children.

Those facing the highest level of risk, the doctors said, are children living near farms where fields are treated with pesticides; Inuit children who regularly ingest large quantities of pesticide-laced meat; and inner city children whose apartments are treated with highly toxic cockroach sprays.

Liberal MP Marlene Catterall complained that pesticides are now assessed based on the average adult's exposure and sensitivity to a product -- a system that can overlook the vulnerability of some people.

Mr. Rock said the new legislation, to be introduced later this year, will address that concern.

``We plan to talk about sensitive populations," he said. ``What we have is to calibrate our criteria to people who are less hearty than the norm and that would include children.''

In the United States, heavy pesticide exposure has been linked to higher cancer rates and lower sperm levels among farmers and gardeners and cognitive difficulty among their children.

In response, the U.S. government has introduced rules that require federal authorities to re-examine pesticides by looking at their effects on children and fetuses.

Mr. Rock told the committee his new legislation, in addition to requiring new assessments of old pesticides, will:

- Make more information available to the public about what chemicals are in pesticides and what risks they pose.

- Require chemical companies to report adverse effects of their pesticides, which in turn can trigger re-evaluations.

- Invoke the precautionary principle either in the preamble or the legislation itself; the principle suggests action should be taken against a substance believed to be harmful before conclusive evidence is available.

Canadians buy an estimated $1 billion worth of pesticides each year to kill unwanted insects, weeds and fungi; a single apple can be sprayed with as many as 16 different pesticides during its life cycle.

Several members of the committee expressed concern about what they called the ``dual mandate'' of the the government's pesticide management agency to protect human health and the environment while at the same time serving industry's need for timely, cost-effective approvals.

Liberal MP Clifford Lincoln suggested the new legislation should make health and environmental responsibilities paramount.

But Mr. Rock said the agency has to balance the needs of industry and farmers with the health and environmental risks of applying pesticides.

``We can't eliminate risk,'' he said. ``We have to understand it, minimize it, and bear in mind our objectives which is to allow people to grow food, bring it to market and compete with others.

``It's not easy. It's very difficult, but we do the best we can.''

Canadians buy an estimated $1 billion worth of pesticides each year to kill unwanted insects, weeds and fungi; a single apple can be sprayed with as many as 16 different pesticides during its life cycle. This article also appeared in:

PUBLICATION The Calgary Herald
DATE Fri. 18 Feb. 2000
SECTION/CATEGORY News
PAGE NUMBER A8
BYLINE Andrew Duffy, Herald News Services
 
PUBLICATION The Edmonton Journal
DATE Fri. 18 Feb. 2000
SECTION/CATEGORY Canada
PAGE NUMBER A15

Well Lyndon, how about you, when will you finally require the POISON people to prove your old "registered" POISONS will not kill/harm pregnant women and/or children here? When will you ever apply the precautionary principle? When will you ever allow the use of safe and effective alternatives to actually control California pest problems?

Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten

 

TOP