Virtual Paperboy
Navigation
User login
Health organizations launch anti-pesticide campaign
by Contributor on 05 Feb 2012
Leading health organizations today launched BC’s first ever anti-pesticide advertising campaign – a major newspaper blitz that urges all British Columbians to support a lawn and garden pesticide ban.
Health organizations endorsing the campaign include the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the Lung Association, the Public Health Association of BC and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
“Respected Canadian health organizations have come together in an unprecedented campaign to prohibit toxic lawn products,” said Kathryn Seely, Director of Public Issues at the Canadian Cancer Society, BC and Yukon. “This is the first time in BC history that such an initiative has been undertaken. Health experts are hopeful that BC can follow Eastern Canada’s suit with a province-wide pesticide ban.”
The advertisements – which will run in major outlets for eight weeks – urge British Columbians to call or e-mail Premier Christy Clark with a simple message: “I support a lawn and garden pesticide ban!”
“Children across Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia are all protected from these poisons, but the same can’t be said of children in BC,” explained Gideon Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. “We think that’s outrageous and this unique campaign is designed to rectify it.”
A province-wide pesticide ban is supported not only by health experts but also local residents and BC municipalities. Recent polling shows over 70% of British Columbians favour a pesticide phase-out on private and public properties.
Scientific research shows people exposed to pesticides are at greater risk for cancer, reproductive problems and neurological illness.
Other News Stories
-
by Erin Perkins on May 13 2012 -
by Contributor on May 13 2012 -
by Nelson Daily staff on May 13 2012 -
by Contributor on May 12 2012 -
by Dr. Brenda Gill on May 10 2012
Comments
Industry Hack
It's almost comical to hear Mr Gatherole make statements that like the Canadian Cancer Society is " NOT a health, science, or research organization". I suppose NORAHG is? And the others that support the ban, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, the Lung Association, the Public Health Association of BC and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment are also a bunch of other non health, science or research organizations as well? I have to ask the question, what makes you think we would believe you and this shadowy organization known as NORAHG? I am certain few do.
So Mr Gatherole what are your qualifications? You say NORAHG is a non profit organization. Is that because the people it hires (like Mr Gatherole) are paid all the money it takes in? Where can we see the financial documents and management info for this mysterious organization? Who provides the financial support for the "organization"? Where are you located? How much are you paid for these rants?
I am a scientist (PhD) and for you to state there is no scientific evidence of the harm pesticides does to humans is ludicrous. You obviously haven't read the literature. There are tons of articles linking pesticides to cancer, birth defects, and other ailments. They may not be 100% conclusive but they are there unless you have the blinders on or don't know how to do a simple literature search. People see the parallel with smoking, Tobacco companies and their hacks were making the same arguments you are making against the cigarette cancer link for decades. We've heard it all before.
Outrage Over Money That Could Help the Sick
Health Care Observers have expressed outrage over the misuse of donation money by Canadian Cancer Society.
The society’s 8-week anti-pesticide advertising campaign in newspapers across British Columbia will cost an estimated $250,000.
In total, Canadian Cancer Society has spent between $2,500,000 to $5,000,000 on this campaign.
Canadian Cancer Society claims it fundraises for only one reason ― to raise critical funds for its mission of eradicating cancer and improving the quality of life for those living with it.
Health Care Observers are concerned that the society is not living up to its mission, and the campaign money could have otherwise been used to save lives, prevent cancer, and help those who are living with the disease.
A province-wide pesticide ban is not supported by health and policy experts, and is not supported by local residents.
According to Dr. Len Ritter, the nation’s leading expert in the field of toxicology and pesticide safety, pesticides do not cause cancer, and there is no increase in cancer deaths in Canada when you consider that the population is aging and increasing.
The Fraser Institute, one of the top 25 leading think-tanks in the world, has said that the proposed BC ban is ill-conceived, and does not accurately reflect the current state of scientific knowledge.
A recent poll conducted by Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association showed that the vast majority of BC residents are opposed to a pesticide ban, and they actually favour the continued use of these products around their homes and in public green spaces.
Scientific research shows, as reported through Health Canada’s vast toxicology database, that no harm will occur when pesticides are used according to label directions.
Children across Canada, even in those jurisdictions with no pesticide bans, are all protected since these products are applied at very low doses and represent no threat to children.
The safety assessment of pesticides by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Heath Canada ( PMRA ) takes into consideration children’s physiology, behaviours, and habits while playing on treated grass.
According to Dr. Ritter, Health Canada is a good system that is very thorough before it approves any pesticides.
"There are lots of unqualified people out there trying to undermine the efforts of the PMRA," said Dr. Ritter.
For more information, go to the following web-pages ...
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/the-wisdom-of-canadian-consumer-specialty-products-association/
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/the-wisdom-of-the-fraser-institute/
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/children-are-not-at-risk/
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/cancer/
William H. Gathercole and Norah G
NORAHG is the national organization responding against huje that seek to harm the green space industry.
http://pesticidetruths.com/
SANDERS ONLY HAS UNVERIFIABLE CONSPIRACY THEORIES
It is truly amazing how Anti-Pesticide Activists like Steve Sanders CONCOCT IMAGINARY DANGER with conventional pest control products.
Sanders is merely INVENTING UNVERIFIABLE CONSPIRACY THEORIES ... and he knows it.
Sanders also SCAMS and DECEIVES the public by blurting out HOLLOW and DESPICABLY-ALARMIST expressions like « Agent Orange » and « DDT » !
This is WRONG !
The issues concerning Agent Orange are IRRELEVANT, except for those activists like Sanders who wish to SPREAD FEAR AND TERROR !
The most infamous herbicide combination used in the Vietnam War ( 1955-1975 ) was Herbicide Orange, otherwise known as Agent Orange.
This product contained a 50 : 50 mixture of n-butyl esters of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.
Herbicide Orange was NEVER a registered product in either the United States or Canada.
The controversy surrounding the use of Herbicide Orange was associated with a contaminant in the 2,4,5-T component, and NOT 2,4-D.
2,4-D has been used for the control of broad-leaved weeds in the Urban Landscape SINCE 1946.
2,4-D has a 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health.
In 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada issued a ruling that 2,4-D IS NOT CANCER-CAUSING IN HUMANS.
2,4-D is probably THE MOST studied and best understood of ANY chemical ... not just pesticide ... in existence.
2,4-D has been the subject of over 40,000 studies.
2,4-D Herbicide DOES NOT contain harmful dioxins.
2,4-D is NOT Herbicide Orange.
2,4-D is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE !
What studies does Sanders have ?!?!?
SQUAT ! He only has CONSPIRACY THEORIES and HEARSAY !
For more information, go to the following links ...
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/24-d/
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/ddt-and-our-world-politicized-science/
WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G
NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm the Green space industry.
NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON PROFIT NON PARTISAN organization that is dedicated to reporting the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.
http://pesticidetruths.com/
Hey Kyra, are we allowing auto-bot attacks now?
Awesome, an autobot attack. Really like my name in all CAPITALS.
Interesting it zeroed in on 2,4 - D (industry favorite) and ignored my comments about Phorate and Paraquat.
Since it mentioned 2,4 D, here is another consipracy info page presented by the highly questionable Sierra Club of Canada:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/health-environment/pesticides/2-4-d.html
From the editor: Hey, Steve
Hey Steve.
What's your suggestion ... that I delete any commentary that argues against yours? I happen to agree with you on this one, but I'm prepared to let my position speak for itself, rather than deleting opposing views.
I don't deign to decide which commentary is worthy of deletion, and my policy is simple: I delete anything that is defamatory or which contains vulgar language or images.
I, perhaps better than most, understand that taking a public position on a hot-button issue often incites ire among our opponents - but I don't delete commentary that's nasty to me, either.
Regards,
Kyra Hoggan
Editor
Fair enough
Agreed, but I am not sure if it is even a real person. As Leperman noted, this is an industry hack. If you search around you'll find this commenter attacking anyone, anywhere about curbing pesticide use.
I don't have any problem with an opposing point of view and have had meainingful discussions on pesticide use with city officials.
His commentary seems to be a form letter, perhaps akin to a Nigerian Prince seeking help. Although I do love the text "anti-pesticide prohibition".
Is a perfect lawn really worth the risk?
Despite all the yelling and “proof” from WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE (comment below - not a local by the way), I urge everyone to consider the implication of the article above and decide whether a perfect lawn is really worth the risk.
While many products are indeed registered for use by Health Canada through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), this does little to assure me. Having sat on a PMRA advisory committee on behalf of the Canadian Horticulture Council I am well aware how the PMRA is easily swayed by corporate and industry influence.
For instance, the insecticide phorate - the active ingredient in Thimet is still registered for use by the PMRA despite being specifically named in the 2003 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons as a "Pesticide (that) poses extremely high environmental risks, risks that may not have been assessed when it was first registered: one granule can kill a small bird or mammal"
So, as you can see, I don't have a lot of faith in Health Canada and the PMRA when it comes to protecting public interest. Someone, somewhere once deemed DDT, Agent Orange and Paraquat (still in use today) as safe. Cigarettes are registered and legal for use in Canada, but obviously they are not deemed safe.
Steve Sanders, Castlegar BC
PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS CAUSE NO HARM
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS that could be used to care for those STRICKEN WITH CANCER are being DIVERTED to CAMPAIGNS to ban products that have been deemed SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE by Health Canada.
The Canadian Cancer Society’s 8-week Anti-Pesticide ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN in newspapers across British Columbia, costing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, is yet another example of the MISAPPROPRIATION and SQUANDERING of donations that could, otherwise, be used to SAVE LIVES and CARE FOR THOSE STRICKEN WITH CANCER.
According to Kathryn Seely of Canadian Cancer Society ...
« Respected Canadian HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS have come together in an unprecedented campaign to prohibit TOXIC lawn products. » [ ?!?! ]
Which HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS ?!?!
Canadian Cancer Society is NOT a health, science, or research organization.
Canadian Cancer Society is a mere FUND-RAISING ORGANIZATION.
How did Seely arrive at the conclusion that products used in Professional Lawn Care are somehow « toxic » ?!?!
Was her ASSESSMENT based upon her vast scientific knowledge of pest control products ?!?! [ No ! ]
Did Seely ASSESS these products after spending time and money carefully studying their effects on health and environment ?!?! [ No ! ]
Is Seely, who is a MERE FUND-RAISER for an Anti-Pesticide Organization, COMPETENT to give ANY advice concerning these issues ?!?! [ No ! ]
In fact, Seely is WRONG and CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.
Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
Also, according to Kathryn Seely ...
« HEALTH EXPERTS are hopeful that British Columbia can follow Eastern Canada’s suit with a province-wide pesticide ban. » [ ?!?! ]
Which HEALTH EXPERTS ?!?!
There is NOT A SINGLE LEGITIMATE HEALTH EXPERT who demands Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION.
Not surprisingly, NO ONE at Canadian Cancer Society, including Seely, has ANY recognized background, training, or experience in matters concerning pest control products, making their opinions FLAWED, DISTORTED, VALUELESS and WORTHLESS.
Canadian Cancer Society has NOT SPENT A SINGLE PENNY to research pest control products.
Seely and her buddies DID NOT conduct a serious scientific study ... evidently because they are NOT COMPETENT OR MOTIVATED to do so.
Neither Seely, nor anyone else at Canadian Cancer Society, COULD EVEN BE BOTHERED to have used the EXTENSIVE TOXICOLOGY DATABASE that is available from Health Canada.
They are not only SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT, but also LAZY and OBTUSE.
It is a MYTH to believe that pest control products somehow cause cancer.
Health Canada’s EXTENSIVE TOXICOLOGY DATABASE CLEARLY PROVES that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE since they have been scrutinized and approved by the HUNDREDS of expert scientists at Health Canada !
Health Canada requires each new pest control product to go through about TWO-HUNDRED SEPARATE TESTS to examine health and environmental impacts as well as value, and costing about 250 MILLION DOLLARS.
Consequently, when pest control products are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
Canadian Cancer Society is WASTING ITS MONEY AND RESOURCES because pest control products are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
For some SELF-SERVING REASON, Canadian Cancer Society has SPENT OVER 2,500,000 DOLLARS on SUBVERSIVE Anti-Pesticide CONSPIRACIES.
ALLEGATIONS from Kathryn Seely about the IMAGINARY DANGER of pest control products are TOTALLY FALSE, and are UNTRUE MIS-REPRESENTATIONS designed to alarm and enrage the public and enhance the BUSINESS, CASH-FLOW and PROFIT of Canadian Cancer Society.
Seely has NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF that pest control products cause cancer.
There is NOT ONE KNOWN ILLNESS or DEATH from the proper use of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
There is NO direct link between pest control products and cancer.
Pest control products CAUSE NO HARM, including chronic effects such as CANCER.
For more information, go to the following web-pages ...
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/cancer/
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/canadian-cancer-society/
http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/seely-kathryn/
WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G
NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm the Green space industry.
http://pesticidetruths.com/