Other News Stories
-
by Avi Silberstein on May 21 2013
-
by Contributor on May 21 2013
-
by Nelson Daily Sports on May 20 2013
-
by Contributor on May 17 2013
-
by Contributor on May 17 2013
-
by Kyra Hoggan on Tuesday May 07 2013
-
by Contributor on Sunday Apr 28 2013
-
by Bruce Fuhr on Thursday May 02 2013
-
by Boundary Sentinel on Thursday May 02 2013
-
by Miranda Holmes on Friday May 10 2013
Opinions
-
by Kyra Hoggan on Monday May 20 2013 -
by John King on Thursday May 16 2013 -
by Andre Carrel on Tuesday May 14 2013 -
by Charles Jeanes on Tuesday May 14 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on Sunday May 12 2013
Virtual Paperboy
User login
Classified Ads
LETTER: Health before lawns, says BC Cancer Society
To the Editor:
The BC Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides released its report in May which contained 17 recommendations to the government.
Although these recommendations did not include an outright ban on lawn and garden pesticides, it’s important to note that the BC Government has not made a decision (and the Special Committee itself did not have consensus in arriving at these recommendations).
It’s also noteworthy that of the 7300 e-questionnaires submitted by British Columbians during the Committee’s e-consultation, almost 5000 supported a ban on the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides.
The Canadian Cancer Society maintains that health should take precedence over lawns. It's important to note that pesticide registration by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada does not mean that a pesticide is safe or without risk.
When the PMRA registers a pesticide it means that risk to both human health and the environment is minimized—but not eliminated—if the product is used for its intended purpose and according to label directions.
In its assessments, the PMRA does not differentiate between cosmetic use and non-cosmetic use.
While a definitive cause and effect relationship between pesticides and cancer has not been established, the Canadian Cancer Society is very concerned about the growing body of evidence suggesting pesticides may increase the risk of several types of cancers, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate, kidney and lung cancers.
Studies on pesticides and childhood cancer also show a possible connection with leukemia, brain tumours and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Enough is known to be prudent and prevent exposure, especially when the use of these chemicals is unnecessary, exposure to them is irreversible and there are effective alternatives and practices.
The Canadian Cancer Society is not alone in its concern.
This week, the Ontario College of Family Physicians issued a statement strongly recommending that the public reduce their exposure to pesticides, based on the findings of their second comprehensive review.
Their review demonstrates that children are particularly vulnerable and shows associations between pesticides and various neurological and respiratory diseases, and reproductive problems.
Prohibiting the use of cosmetic pesticides is both responsible and respectful of the state of the scientific evidence.
We thank the 40 municipalities throughout BC who have shown leadership by adopting cosmetic pesticide by-laws, and we hope BC municipalities will continue to adopt cosmetic pesticide bylaws.
For our part, we will continue to urge the BC government to pass strong province-wide cosmetic pesticide legislation.
Through action, information and policies we can take steps to reduce the risk of cancer and promote health.
Sincerely,
Patti Moore
Team Leader, Health Promotion
Canadian Cancer Society, Southern Interior Region
Comments
The new and improved OCFP study came out on June 19, 2012
Health Canada's PMRA had no time to examine the new and improved OCFP study because it came out only on June 19, 2012. Is Wm H. Gathercole unaware of this? Which study is he talking about? Is he still dwelling on the initial study that came out in 2004? To suggest that pest control products are non-toxic is to be hopelessly misinformed. Also, the over-capitalizing accomplishes the opposite to what is intended, as it usually annoys the reader. Gathercole is a member of a group of narrow-minded old men who live in the past and include pornographical images of rather stupid looking young girls in their so-called newsletter which is forced upon a group of promiment Canadians. The newsletter is full of offensive references to opponents of the "pesticides are all safe" point of view and is intended to discredit opponents of the Gospel according to Gathercole et al.
OCFP discredited and refuted by Health Canada: Impossible!
How can Health Canada refute OCFP? Health Canada is notoriously weak in epidemiology (examining human data) and the OCFP study is strictly epidemiological, i.e. deals with humans rather than rats. OCFP is a credible medical organization, whereas Health Canada, or strictly speaking Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada, is a federal government body which is partially funded by the chemical industry and therefore very much in that industry's corner. The PMRA has no labs of its own and merely reviews rat data submitted by the industry. Inconvenient results may be withheld from the PMRA by the industry. Moreover, cumulative and combined exposures to various chemicals are not taken into account by the PMRA. Also largely ignored are so-called "inerts", i.e. additives that may be highly toxic and linked to cancer, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reporting to the World Health Organization (WHO). These untested additives may comprise as much as 90% of a single chemical or chemical mixtures. Dr. Meg Sears is a prominent independent biochemist in Ottawa. She found the 2008 review of the omnipresent herbicide 2,4-D by the PMRA completely inadequate. Dr. Sears pointed out that in re-registering this herbicide its estrogenic activity promoting breast cancer and androgenic activity promoting prostate cancer. "were ... neither referenced nor considered by the PMRA." (Notice of Objection to a Registration Decision of 2,4-D, 2008.) What the OCFP examines is credible human studies by independent academics, i.e. academics that are not on the payroll of the chemical industry. To suggest that if applied properly pesticides are harmless is to suggest that if cigarettes were smoked properly then smoking them would be harmless. We are talking about inherent qualities of products that are unaffected by the way they are applied, i.e. pesticides applied properly are safer for the applicator but are always toxic to third parties.
OCFP has been DISCREDITED and REFUTED by Health Canada
Ontario College of Family Physicians ( OCFP ) and its Literature Review has been DISCREDITED, DEBUNKED, and REFUTED by Health Canada and by The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. OCFP is RIDICULOUSLY IMPLYING that its NON-EXPERT ASSESSMENT is somehow being withheld from Health Canada and EVERY other regulatory agency in the world. INDISPUTABLE and CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH shows that, as reported through Health Canada’s VAST TOXICOLOGY DATABASE, NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products are used according to label directions. The RISK ASSESSMENT of pest control products indicates that they are PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC. There is NOT ONE KNOWN ILLNESS or DEATH from the proper use of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape. Even Canadian Cancer Society has STATED REPEATEDLY that scientific research does NOT provide a conclusive link between pest control products and cancer. http://wp.me/P1jq40-4qC OCFP DID NOT conduct a serious scientific study ... it conducted a mere Literature Review, and could only use those references found in the OPEN PUBLIC LITERATURE. What did OCFP use as its reference sources ? GOOGLE and WIKIPEDIA. In other words, the OCFP Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was conducted with a standard that was NO BETTER THAN A GRADE SCHOOL PROJECT PREPARED BY A 10-YEAR-OLD STUDENT. The authors and reviewers of the BOGUS-OCFP-Review were not only SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT, they were LAZY and OBTUSE. http://wp.me/P1jq40-37C