Judie Steeves - Kelowna Capital News Published: January 28, 2010 6:00 PM
Environmental activists will have to answer in a court of law, where conjecture and hearsay are not admissible, says Jeffrey Lowes, who Tuesday filed 115 charges against 23 individuals, groups and the province of Ontario, for its ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides. He claims that the province’s legislation, enacted last year, is based on fraudulent information as far as the health and environmental risks associated with the use of chemicals to maintain lawns and landscapes, is concerned. Lowes is guest speaker at the Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association’s 14th annual conference being held in Kelowna this week.
Kelowna enacted a similar bylaw last year, and Lowes said he will be investigating the basis of that legislation as well. The crux of it is whether there is an issue or whether there is just the perception of an issue, he explained. If legislation is enacted based on extensive testing, field trials, toxicology and epidemiology, that’s one thing, but if it’s based on medical reports supplied by environmental activists—or on a public opinion poll—that’s another, he said. “We’re not questioning the authority of a municipality to enact a bylaw, but they need justification,” he said. Todd Cashin and Michelle Kam from the City of Kelowna said the city’s bylaw was the result of a grassroots movement’s concerns about pesticide use. Kam pointed out it only affects non-essential pesticides; those used for esthetic purposes. “We have no concerns,” commented Cashin. He said the city hasn’t had to enforce the city’s new bylaw yet.
Lloyd Manchester of Canadian EarthCare in Kelowna, which was active in promoting the bylaw, said, “The case on pesticides is well known and the province has the right to ban any pesticide it so desires. “His (Lowes’) actions do not concern me and are likely funded by the pro-pesticide industry.” Lowes also plans a submission to the province of B.C., which is proposing a similar ban on pesticides used for cosmetic purposes. It concludes its public consultation period Feb. 15 on the proposed new legislation.
“The lawn care industry is being told to lower their standards; to use less effective products to do their job,” Lowes said. “And, the industry is losing customers,” he said, while turf is becoming infested with weeds and insects. By banning useful products for use by the lawn care industry, its members are prevented from properly maintaining sports fields, parks, rights-of-ways, and other landscapes, he said. It has cost the industry 30 per cent of its business, or $350 million in Ontario, he claims. “We’re assessing the monetary damage done to the industry now and will sue to recover,” he commented. Lowes admits he has no background as a pesticide applicator or a scientist, and says there’s nothing personal about this campaign against such bans on pesticide use. He said he is not representing chemical companies. He was asked to help out a group of lawn care companies in Kingston, Ontario and it grew from there. Although he filed the charges personally, there is a Feb. 17 hearing with the Crown prosecutor and a judge to set a date for a pre-enquete hearing on the charges.
That will result in a decision on whether the Crown will proceed with the charges under the Criminal Code of Canada. Allegations include that false and misleading information regarding the health and environmental risks of pesticide products regulated by the federal government influenced the decision to ban pesticides for cosmetic use in Ontario. As well, activists pretended to use “peer-reviewed studies” and endorsements by the Canadian Pediatric Society to defraud the lawn care industry of access to products; and impeded access to Health Canada-approved pesticides by fraud, which directly affected the Ontario lawn industry’s $1.3 billion market, he alleges. The Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon, is a proponent of B.C. legislation to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides, and is lobbying to have people participate in the online consultation process at www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/ipmp/regs/cosmetic-pesticides/consultation.htm
8 comments:
what if a company offers a "green" option as well as chemical pesticide/herbicide options.
Are their customers paying for something that doesn't work?
Are their customers advised that "green" options are not as effective and therefore a waste of money?
Lloyd Manchester throws out a lot of "information" for a guy who "has no background as a pesticide applicator or a scientist". He also walks the line of libel accusing Lowes of being "funded by the pro-pesticide industry.”
Buffy and her eco-nut supporters should pay attention to what happens when you think you're an expert and know-it-all as she could leave Vernon exposed to lawsuits.
google:
pesticide
herbicide
right of ways cancer
you can't spin science
would the pro-spray people fund a hot-line so concerned citizens can report applicators who over-spray, spray when the conditions are ill-advised or dangerous or drift onto organic farms?
Remember the lowly farmer sued by Monsanto?
It works both ways.
Gee, I guess us eco-nuts are crazy because our parents were exposed to un-regulated pesticide.
the Canadian Cancer Society not known for extreme postions asks for a "phase-out of cosmetic pesticides"
Eco-nuts are fanatics who will never admit to being wrong about their information. As if one should rely on Google for scientific facts.
The same eco-nuts that hide behind "science" in this argument are the same ones who accuse others of being global warming deniers even when faced with data falsehoods, manipulations and lies from their beloved UN.
In regards to food labeling, Kathryn Seely, a spokesperson for the Canadian Cancer Society: “We’d like an easily recognized label, such as a ‘C’, if it has a cancer-causing substance in it.”
Yup, doesn't sound too extreme to me...
Cancer Risk Assessments
Assessment of cancer risks involves challenges that warrant special consideration. The PMRA's approach to cancer risk assessment is based on the weight of the scientific evidence obtained through the evaluation of the entire data package.
The PMRA's assessment includes an examination of scientific studies to determine if the pesticide causes adverse effects in laboratory animals. One of the effects that is looked for is whether the pesticide causes cancer in animals. The majority of pesticides registered for use in Canada do not cause cancer in laboratory animals. If there is evidence that a proposed pesticide causes cancer in laboratory animals, a special type of assessment called a quantitative risk assessment is conducted to determine if the use of the pesticide would result in an unacceptable risk of cancer in humans. All potential exposures (eg. food, water, workplace) that may occur over a lifetime are considered in the assessment.
Detailed risk assessments and very large margins of safety are built into the human health evaluations that the PMRA carries out on proposed pesticides so that Canadians will be protected from risks such as cancer. Only pesticides which do not pose an unacceptable risk of cancer in humans are registered for use in Canada.
More information on health and cancer risk assessments are describe in "A Decision Framework for Risk Assessment and Risk Management in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency" http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/spn/spn2000-01-e.pdf
The PMRA's human health risk assessments address the Canadian population in general and sensitive sub-populations such as women of child-bearing age, pregnant and nursing women, infants and children.
Infants and children have been a special consideration in our risk assessments for many years. Recent advances in scientific understanding reaffirm that children are not "little adults" and must be considered as a discrete subgroup. In all cases where the use of a pesticide could result in exposure of children, the PMRA considers the unique biological characteristics and exposure patterns of children in its risk assessments.
The PMRA takes into account the fact that children's diets are different and that their activities vary from those of adults. The Agency considers all potential pathways of children's exposure, including dietary, drinking water, and residential exposures, in its health assessments. Internationally accepted guidelines for conducting these exposure studies and deriving exposure estimates for infants and children are followed. Dietary risk assessments take into account the different eating patterns of infants, toddlers, children, adolescents and adults, and therefore include a detailed evaluation of the foods and drinks that infants and children consume in quantity, such as fruits and fruit juices, milk and soya products. The Agency will consider registration of a pesticide for food uses only when child-specific assessments are found to be acceptable. Scientists at the PMRA also factor in the differences in children's development and metabolism when toxicology tests are assessed.
More information on PMRA and children's health can be found at: http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/spn/spn2002-01-e.pdf
Uncle Adolph
Spier's conveniently doesn't publish comments that shows up to Buffy and her eco-nut group but allows a pure cut-and-paste post above... very shoddy and one sided.
Bottom line: no one should have to endure second hand anything.
Post a Comment