Health Canada regulation and Guelph’s Pesticide Bylaw
I recently recieved an email from a concerned citizen who wrote:
As a homeowner and taxpayer in your Ward, I feel strongly that the regulation of pesticides should remain the jurisdiction of the Federal and Provincial governments, and that it has no place on the municipal agenda. In my opinion, the City of Guelph has spent an inordinate amount of taxpayers money and Staff’s time in addressing this issue over the last number of years. Please leave pesticide regulation in the hands of the scientists at Health Canada, who have the expertise and the resources to regulate this issue from a scientific and not an emotional perspective.
In response:
Thank You very much for your email, pesticide use within the City of Guelph has indeed been a very long and expensive debate for our local government. This was one of the reasons (whether you agree with the direction or not) that I was firmly resolved that council clearly and definitively take a stand on the issue rather than drag out the debate for another 6 years.
However, you make an excellent point that policy must be based upon hard science from qualified experts rather than out of misguided emotion or political posturing. It was with this perspective that I have spent weeks going over the available literature from a wide range of fields before making an informed decision.
One of the first things I realised was that “scientific research” must be put into perspective with the ideology or political mandate of the sponsoring agency. As an example; anti-pesticide groups reference scientific literature against pesticides while pro-pesticide groups will reference neutral or supporting scientific research.
Health Canada’s mandate is to protect human health within the context of product regulation; “to minimize the risks associated with pest control products, while enabling access to pest management tools.”
This mandate is clearly about managing product regulation while ensuring a reasonable margin of safety rather than the sole purpose of protecting the health of Canadians and the ecosystem we live in. (This is the same Federal department that regulates cigarettes, a product that they admit on their website will kill over 37,000 people this year alone)
The other troubling aspect of Health Canada’s policy making procedure in this regard is its reliance on the ’scientific research’ conducted by the manufacturers of the products in question. While Health Canada purports to base its policy on sound scientific research, the regulatory agency does not specifically reference the scientific literature that it uses in making these recommendations.
By contrast, the College of Family Physicians of Canada mandate includes the maintenance of high standards of medical care, education and maintaining the reputation of excellence of family medicine in the face of an explosion of new clinical discoveries on an annual basis.
As a result of extensive, peer reviewed scientific studies conducted by respected health institutions; the CFPC and the Ontario Chapter have clearly expressed an opinion on the non-essential use of pesticides.
Our review has found evidence of serious harmful effects in several areas including cancer, reproductive effects and impacts on the nervous system. These effects are found in both occupational and home and garden exposures
We believe family physicians need to use a precautionary approach in informing patients about pesticide-related risks to health. This approach calls for precautionary measures to be taken where there is evidence of harm, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully understood.
We support efforts to reduce exposure to pesticides, such as the Toronto pesticide bylaw, and also support a comprehensive province-wide approach that could include education and legislation.
In the end, I must agree with the 127 other communities in Ontario that the use of pesticides represents a clear danger to the health of the citizens of our community and in particular to the very young… our next generation.
I believe that it is incumbent upon all elected officials, relying upon sound scientific research to act in the best interest of the citizens we represent and take action to protect our community.
References
- Declaration Backgrounder. 2005 April. Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition for Pesticide-Free Lawns. An overview of scientific studies supporting hazards of lawn pesticides.
- Sanborn, Margaret, et al. 2004 April. “Systematic Review of Pesticides Human Health Effects,” The Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP). Toronto, Ontario.
- Glickman, Lawrence, et al. 2004. “Herbicide exposure and the risk of transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary bladder in Scottish Terriers,” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 224(8): 1290-1297. (Press Release)
- Porter, Warren. 2004, Spring. “Do Pesticides Affect Learning and Behavior? The neuro-endocrine-immune connection,” Pesticides And You. Beyond Pesticides. 21(4):11-15. (Overview of Dr. Porter’s findings published in Environ Health Perspectives and Toxicology and Industrial Health.)
- Greenlee, Anne, et al. 2004.”Low-Dose Agrochemicals and Lawn-Care Pesticides Induce Developmental Toxicity in Murine Preimplantation Embryos,” Environ Health Perspectives. 112(6):703-709.
- Colt, Joanne, et al. 2004. “Comparison of pesticide levels in Carpet dust and self-reported pest treatment practices in four US sites.” J. of Exposure Analysis and Environ. Epidemiology, 14:74–83.
- Salam, MT, et al. 2004. “Early Life Environmental Risk Factors for Asthma: Findings from the Children’s Health Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(6): 760.
- Nishioka, Marcia G., et al. 2001.”Distribution of 2,4-D in Air and on Surfaces inside Residences after Lawn Applications: Comparing Exposure Estimates from Various Media for Young Children,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(11), November.
- Hardell, Lennart and Mikarl Eriksson. 1999.”A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides,” American Cancer Society.
- Zahm, S. “Mortality study of pesticide applicators and other employees of a lawn care service company.” National Cancer Institute. J. Occup Environ Med. 1997 Nov;39(11):1055-67.
- Nishioka, Marcia G., et al. 1996. “Measuring Transport of Lawn-Applied Herbicide Acids from Turf to Home: Correlation of Dislodgeable 2,4-D Turf Residues with Carpet Dust and Carpet Surface Residues,” Environmental Science & Technology, 30(11): 3313-3320.
- Hayes, Howard M., et al. 1991.”Case-Control Study of Canine Malignant Lymphoma: Positive Association With Dog Owner’s Use of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid Herbicides,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 83:1226-1231.
- Systematic Review of Pesticides Human Health Effects (The Ontario College of Family Physicians, April 23, 2004)
Websites of Interest
http://www.cape.ca/toxics/pesticides.html
http://www.ocfp.on.ca/English/OCFP/Communications/CurrentIssues/Pesticides/default.asp?s=1
March 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
“As an example; anti-pesticide groups reference scientific literature against pesticides while pro-pesticide groups will reference neutral or supporting scientific research”
What in hades does that mean? Anti-pesticide groups reference supporting research *often financially supported by organic industry* or *often supported by self-feeding parasitical self-proclaimed not for profit* organizations while pro-technology groups are obviously corrupt?
Nonesence.
First link: http://www.beyondpesticides.org
An organic sponsered site: big industry that stands to gain are the Organic Family of Foods, Whole Foods Market, Natural Lawn of America, Nisus Corporation (Borate Technology) amongst others. Anti-pesticide activists have argued for years that *industry* cannot be trusted with regards to scientific fact. Let their own critisism fall on their own industry.
Second link: http://www.ocfp.on.ca
This is not the CFPC – College of Family Physicians of Canada – though it’s acronym looks like it. Anecdotyl incidents do not make a pandemic and there is no co-relation in science with regards to their position. Most of the so-called victims were also subjected to far larger amounts of sugar or caffeine than lawn and garden pesticides. Why isn’t Red Rose or Tim Hortons being blamed for cancer? Both tea and coffee contain myriad natural and synthetic pesticides.
Link #3 – See Link #1 – Again sponsered by big bucks organic industry that wants you to pay three times the price for a bunch of broccoli *and* get “not for profit” tax benefits for it.
Link #4 – See Link #1 & #3
Link #5 – See Link #1,3,4 &5
Link #6 – *falls down in a faint*
Wow – has a NFP husband and wife team from Brazil as a partner… and a few people from the USA. I guess I’ll vote for the guy with the biggest swagger. 
Link #7 – yawn…. Lotsa numbers to crunch…. 1.6 asthma increase for exposure to soot and wood smoke …. exposed to cockroaches 2-fold higher risk of asthma…. children over 1 year old exposed to pesticides was not associated with increased risk of asthma… *yawns again and hopes the hippie campers aren’t blowing any healthy smoke towards their babies*
Link #8 – same group as link #7…. does this guy have …. uhm… third source information maybe from a government group not a NFP group? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.. *wink wink*
Okay… I’m getting tired of proving nitwits well…. complete nitwits. I’m off to the couch with my pesticide-encouraged malt and hops and barley and I’ll salute those that make my life so darn good.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:46 am
How to kill pests without killing yourself or the earth……
There are about 50 to 60 million insect species on earth – we have named only about 1 million and there are only about 1 thousand pest species – already over 50% of these thousand pests are already resistant to our volatile, dangerous, synthetic pesticide POISONS. We accidentally lose about 25,000 to 100,000 species of insects, plants and animals every year due to “man’s footprint”. But, after poisoning the entire world and contaminating every living thing for over 60 years with these dangerous and ineffective pesticide POISONS we have not even controlled much less eliminated even one pest species and every year we use/misuse more and more pesticide POISONS to try to “keep up”! Even with all of this expensive pollution – we lose more and more crops and lives to these thousand pests every year.
We are losing the war against these thousand pests mainly because we insist on using only synthetic pesticide POISONS and fertilizers There has been a severe “knowledge drought” – a worldwide decline in agricultural R&D, especially in production research and safe, more effective pest control since the advent of synthetic pesticide POISONS and fertilizers. Today we are like lemmings running to the sea insisting that is the “right way”. The greatest challenge facing humanity this century is the necessity for us to double our global food production with less land, less water, less nutrients, less science, frequent droughts, more and more contamination and ever-increasing pest damage.
National Poison Prevention Week, March 18-24,2007 was created to highlight the dangers of poisoning and how to prevent it. One study shows that about 70,000 children in the USA were involved in common household pesticide-related (acute) poisonings or exposures in 2004. It is estimated that 300,000 farm workers suffer acute pesticide poisoning each year in the United States – No one is checking chronic contamination.
In order to try to help “stem the tide”, I have just finished re-writing my IPM encyclopedia entitled: THE BEST CONTROL II, that contains over 2,800 safe and far more effective alternatives to pesticide POISONS. This latest copyrighted work is about 1,800 pages in length and is now being updated chapter by chapter at my new website at: http://www.stephentvedten.com/ .
This new website at http://www.stephentvedten.com/ has all of my original IPM encyclopedia in its original form and will continue to have more and more free, updated Chapters every week. So far we have electronically updated The Introduction, Chapter 11, 15, 16A, 16B, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,32 and the Glossary of Terms. All of these copyrighted items are free for you to read and/or download. There is simply no need to POISON yourself or your family or to have any pest problems.
Stephen L. Tvedten
2530 Hayes Street
Marne, Michigan 49435
1-616-677-1261
“All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.” – Martin Luther King Jr., civil rights leader
March 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Reply to Mr. Smith
You have reinforced my very point – each side on the argument will select science that is supportive of their position. Not that the science is inherently wrong or bad, just that each side of the argument is selective in what research they use to promote their position.
Research from groups like the College of Family Physicians of Canada, and the Ontario College of Family Physicians strike me as more objective or at least, have a bias that leans towards the protection of human health rather than a bias towards securing the sale and manufacture of the product in question.
April 1st, 2007 at 8:48 am
“One study shows that about 70,000 children in the USA were involved in common household pesticide-related (acute) poisonings or exposures in 2004. It is estimated that 300,000 farm workers suffer acute pesticide poisoning each year in the United States – No one is checking chronic contamination.”
Every single word of the above is utter fabrication.
Why do some anti-pesticide activists feel the need to lie to enforce their arguement? It’s pathetic, dangerous and needs to be exposed for the garbage it is.
Mr. Tvedten; I challenge you to prove your ridiculous, grossly exaggerated claims of acute pesticide poisonings.
April 4th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Revenge of the lawn, vanity thy name is grass, the weed most loved by North Americans.
I’m a crank: a human being with seventy-five trillion cells and symbiotic lifeforms in every one (used to be called organelles.) They breathe for me, metabolize my food for me. Call me stupid, call me uneducated, but I don’t think human beings know what they’re talking about when they defend the indiscriminant use of poisons. If it kills small forms of life, it’ll kill me, because without those zillions of symbionts floating around in my cytoplasm with their own DNA, I’m dead. And quite frankly if I die just so some people can keep spewing toxic stews to keep their anal lifestyles looking anal I’m going to come back and haunt you and your lawn.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
The use of pesticides on lawns is hardly indescriminate. And your overly emotional rant is almost frightening not in it’s content, but via your cult-like paranoia.
“If it kills small forms of life it will kill me” does not make you sound stupid or uneducated, it makes you sound like a raving lunatic.
Repetition does not make right – although it seems you’ve come to believe your own version of reality even though.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Mr. Tvedten – I’m still waiting.
Although your silence is interesting – perhaps you cannot prove your ridiculous statements is the most likely answer.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Wow…. pretty far out there, Jerry.
“If it kills small forms of life, it’ll kill me” is completely, utterly and positively false. The amound of pesticide it takes to kill a dandelion or a grub is entirely different than the amount of the same substance that it would take to harm a human.
Think of water – an absolutely necessary part of life. But *too much* can kill, as that woman in the “hold your wee for a wii” contest found out. *Anything* is poisonous in sufficient quantities… The iron in your multi-vitamin makes an adult healthy, but can *seriously* harm a small child.
The dose makes the poison, Jerry… That is a fact. I’m afraid emotional rants do not contribute to a intellectual dialogue.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:57 am
A note to all those posting comments
This is a highly emotional issue, however…
Please keep comments focused upon the
PRINCIPLES RATHER THAN PERSONALITIES
Thank You
October 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 am
Although a decision on pesticide use has been made by council, I feel compelled to add a comment. Although I dislike being regulated by “one size fits all laws”, I have seen so much misuse of herbicides and insecticides by trained and untrained people that it is a necessity to regulate. Even those professional weed control folks overuse herbicides to maintain the perfect lawn. These profeesional firms work on the basis of efficiency, not environmental responsibility. Generally, it is not necessary to broadcast herbicides over the whole lawn unless there is an initial treatment required. Yet, many residents including my neighbour have applied herbicide fertilizer even though his lawn is weed free. Such environmental insensitivity is why regulation is necessary. For insect infestation, a knowledge of insect pests and insect life cycles is necessry to maximize the effectiveness of application. A knowledge of the type of pesticide is also required to ensure the most envirnmentally(biodegradable) responsible choice is made. Most people don’t have the knowledge sophistication to be responsible users of pesticides….so regulation is a necessity.