HEALTH CANADA AGENCY STATES.... USED AS DIRECTED, PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE SAFE.
Pesticide Facts Versus Fiction For Profits
Click
Here to Add Comment Subject:
Letter To The Editor: Pesticide Facts Versus Fiction For Profits
Date:
Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:25:50 -0500
From:
Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of California, Department of Pesticide
Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman
whitman.christine@epa.gov
morningstarnews@bcnewsgroup.com
Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read a Vernon Lawn Care Company Ad and my response to them and you.
(Advertisement Submitted by Local Lawn Care Company to Vernon Newspaper. This company is the spraying contractor for playgrounds and schoolyards in Vernon. They presented similar information to the city council and school district which both voted this spring to continue applying pesticides on public lands.)
(Help us in Vernon!! Please comment in a "Letter to the Editor" at "morningstarnews@bcnewsgroup.com)
Facts About the Pesticide Issue (Advertisement)
HEALTH CANADA AGENCY STATES....USED AS DIRECTED, PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE SAFE.
"Before a pesticide is considered for registration in Canada, it must undergo extensive testing to determine the potential risk posed to human health and the environment and the pesticide value. Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency carefully reviews all detailed scientific tests and studies to determine if the product is acceptable for use in Canada." (Fact Sheet on the PMRA, Nov. 2001)
"I love my wonderful little grandchildren and would never harm them in any way. They play freely on our lawn as did our own children years early. My father is a healthy, ninety year old farmer and has used pesticides for many, many years." (Kay Coleman, employee of the Lawn Care Company)
"Child specific assessments include consideration of child specific characteristics, including unique activity patterns (e.g. increased hand to mouth activity over adults, more contact with treated surfaces than adults). In addition to a specific exposure assessment for children playing on treated turf, aggregate exposure, a summation of exposure from all sources (e.g. turf, food water) and all routes of exposure, is considered during evaluation." (PMRA)
According to Dr. Claire Franklin, executive director of the PMRA, May 2002, "Only products that posed no unacceptable risk to health or the environment of Canadians will be accepted for registration in Canada."
The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research released the most recent review of current evidence pertaining to the human health effects of the herbicide 2,4-D on September 26, 2002, published in the current edition of Critical Reviews in Toxicology. "Since 1986, more than a dozen government and independent expert panels, including the Canadian Center for Toxicology review conducted for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, World Health Organization and European Commission have concluded that 2,4-D does not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment when used according to label instructions."
"The decisions of regulatory agencies and several expert panel reviews simply do not support the allegations that 2,4-D causes cancer or poses an unreasonable risk to human health," stated Donald Page, Executive Direct of the Task Force. "It is unfortunate that those who wish to ban the use of pesticides continue to trade on fear and half truths to advance their interest and confuse the Canadian public."
WHAT MIGHT BE THE RISKS IN BANNING PESTICIDES?
What about farmers--food producers?
Pesticide sales by weight (according to Urban Pest Management Council of Canada--Sales Survey) shows that homeowners use only 0.8% of the pesticides sold. Urban professional applicators use is 3.2%. Agriculture use is 96%
Homeowners and urban professionals together use less than 4% of the pesticides sold in Canada, some of which are for cosmetic use. Activists are putting pressure on government officials to ban cosmetic use of pesticides. According to the Supreme Court of Canada ruling 2001, cosmetic use of pesticides is the use of pesticides for non-essential use. Non-essential use of pesticides refers to their use in certain situations where their application is purely for an aesthetic pursuit. Since less than 4% of pesticides are used for cosmetic use and 96% is used for the food we eat, etc., it stands to reason than for the activists this is just a starting point.
WHAT ABOUT ORGANIC GROWERS?
They also use pesticides such as dormant oil and many more products, such as soaps. "If insecticidal soap was used to control aphids, it would have required five or six applications," stated Mario Lanthier) "as opposed to one Pirimor application. The soap techmique would cost...about 25% more" (Penticton Western, December 15, 2001)
WHAT ABOUT FORESTRY?
Pesticides play an important role in maintaining Canada's food supply and the quality of life of Canadians, as well as supporting sectors of the economy such as forestry." (Fact Sheet on PMRA, Nov. 2001)
WHAT ABOUT TREE, SHRUB, AND LAWN CARE COMPANIES?
Most communities have decided not to impose cosmetic pesticide bans because it only affects commercial operators skilled at applying pesticides. The ban has been impossible to regulate for homeowners using pesticides themselves. (See recent decisions by State of New Jersey, City of Regina, City of Port Moody, City of Vancouver, and City of Ottawa).
Community leaders also have to consider Hon. Anne McLellan (Minisert of Health, Lib.) in House of Commons April 8 and 9, 2002 when she said, "To include this in legislation a ban of the use of pesticides for what people refer to as cosmetic use could be exposing individuals to criminal prosecution for engaging in an activity which has not been proven to constitute an unacceptable risk. Such a measure I would submit would be beyond the proper scope of the criminal law power.'"
WHAT ABOUT HOME GARDENERS AND LANDSCAPERS?
The activists have already asked Vernon City Council to pass a by-law to make it illegal to apply pesticides on residential and public property, even when Health Canada says the pesticides used are legal and are acceptable to human health.
The leaders of this community were wise to decide against this unnecessary and impossible to regulate by-law.
WHAT ABOUT TOURISM?
Safe uses of pesticides are an economic way to keep our city a beautiful and attractive place to live and to visit, at the same time saving the tax payers money.
WHAT ABOUT OUR SPORTS PROGRAMS?
Cities that have banned pesticides from playing fields can tell you of the extreme efforts and costs to rebuild play fields after the weeds have been allowed to take over.
WHAT ABOUT OUR HOMES AND HOSPITALS?
How far this pesticide ban might reach is hard to know, but even a mouse trap is referred to as a pest control product or a pesticide.
"Pesticides that fall under the Pest Control Products Act Include: Swimming pool algaecides, disinfectant and sanitizer cleaners, material preservatives, wood preservatives, animal, and insect repellents, electronic insect or rodent devices." Fact Sheet PMRA Nov. 2001
Can you imagine the health concerns in our hospitals without disinfectants and sanitizer cleaners? Can you imagine if we could not control the mosquito spreading West Nile Disease?
Terence Corcoran of the National Post May 24, 2001 writes: "The Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund are the two leading purveyors of distorted and fabricated claims about the dancers of herbicide use. The Sierra Club routinely produces claims that 2,4-D, the leading weed killer, is a proven cause of breast cancer and of cancer in animals. No such proof exists. Indeed, 2,4-D has been in use since 1947 and remains one of the most tested and safest chemicals in the world, approved by Ottawa and regulated by the provinces.
So why is the Sierra Club going to war to defend the rights of dandelions? The main reason is that, on the whole, dandelions are good, human beings such. It simply irritates Green Activists to their core that many people, maybe most, have a penchant for order and think green grass is aesthetically pleasing. It's a sign of human intelligence and achievement. Neat, tended, and orderly ground space is evidence of human beings enjoying themselves.'
Perhaps the last word should come from the Doctor that has studied toxicology for over 30 years. Dr. Keith Solomon, Professor in the Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph and Director of the Centre for Toxicology States: "Pesticides are one of many tools in the pest management tool box. They may be more efficient than other methods, but they are not absolutely necessary. As someone who does not live in Halifax, or in the other towns where bans have been proposed, I do not care one way or the other if they choose not to use pesticides. However, I do care when this is done in the name of science and concern for health effects when, realistically, these do not exist. If the town councils and the citizens do not want pesticides used in their home and gardens, then all I ask that they have the courage to admit that they do this for reasons of belief or politics, not on the basis of science".
Well Mr. Helliker, It is against the federal law in the USA, to state that even the labeled use of any of your "registered" POISONS is "safe", but the POISON "industry" does it all the time. Benjamin Disraeli once stated: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." I would like to start my comments to this POISON applicator and you, by using Disraeli's same response. I would like to note that I almost died from my personal exposures to your "safe, registered" POISONS e.g., cyclodiene chlorinated hydrocarbons. I would also like to note that the original intent of FIFRA was to "register" only those economic POISONS that were being used to "control" pest problems. Only the active POISON ingredient was to be considered, so up to 99% or more of the POISON formulation was and is still totally ignored and is obviously STILL untested! Many of the various unknown ingredients in this untested POISON formulation (called "inerts or other ingredients") are individually far more deadly to you and yours than the active "registered" ingredients. No one can honestly say how dangerous the total POISON "brew" is, especially when you fail to consider the various/myriad synergistic health effects, all of the untested "inerts", contaminants (like dioxin), all of the various untested metabolites, etc. will be to all of the various people (and their various health conditions), pets, animals and other non-target species who are even acutely (much less chronically and routinely) exposed to literally tens of thousands of different combinations of the many tens of thousands of your various "registered" POISONS and to the thousands of possible medications and other toxins. No small wonder that it is against the USA federal law to say that even the labeled use of any "registered" POISON is "safe". There are about 10 million insect species, we have named about one million, of this group, there are only about 1,000 insect species that are considered to be pests, of this group of pests, over half have already become resistant to DDT and all of your other "registered" pesticide POISONS. We now use 4.5 BILLION pounds of your "registered" POISONS every year in just the USA trying to "control" pest problems! Dr. Leaky has estimated that we also lose 50,000 to 100,000 species of plants, insects and animals every year because of man's "footprint". I would like to point out that in spite of waging an unbelievable chemical warfare for over 60 years until every living person has 500 to a 1,000 chemicals in them that were not in their Grandparents and the entire earth is now filled with and is suffering from all this needless contamination, we have never "controlled" much less eliminated even one pest species. We currently lose much more to insect damage than we did before we had any of your "registered" pesticide POISONS! In 1993, the USA EPA, USDA and FDA all agreed to find alternatives to their "registered" economic POISONS. Yet today, no one in any of these agencies can even define the word "alternative". Common sense should tell you that if something is not a POISON (like food-grade and/or GRAS materials) it can not and should not be considered to be a (registered or unregistered) pesticide POISON. I have developed, field tested, researched and/or formulated over 2500 safe and far more effective (food-grade and/or GRAS) alternatives that actually control even resistant pest problems. There are "some regulators" who STILL demand that only their dangerous "registered" POISON cocktails can be used/misused in ever increasing amounts to "control" the ever increasing pest problems. Your "registered" POISONS are not only dangerous; they are obviously not effective in "controlling" pest problems! If these terrible toxins actually "controlled" pest problems, there would be no pest problems. The continuous use/misuse of all of your "registered” pesticide POISONS and the resulting world-wide contamination they have caused would have or should have "solved" all of our pest problems. Until you and the governments of the world "legally" allow the use of safe and far more effective alternatives, no one can or will be able to "legally" control their pest problems. Rachel Carson noted in Silent Spring, 1962: "We should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look about and see what other course is open to us." I have posted a free pest control book on the web that uses safe and far more effective alternatives, it is entitled: THE BUG STOPS HERE. You can download it for free at: http://www.thebestcontrol.com.
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
It is time to get clean and sober. Obviously Common sense is not too common!
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.