WhiteMoose

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Thu 16 Aug 2007

The Ottawa Citizen

Lack of coverage

I am very disappointed with the lack of in-depth media coverage of the SPP meetings scheduled for next week in Montebello. Media references to the SPP are rare; the few stories that have appeared are rushed and insubstantial, with sources mostly limited to representatives from government agencies and big business.

In particular, CBC, as a public institution, has an obligation to provide balanced, detailed coverage of these meetings and their implications for Canadians.

The meetings at Montebello will further strengthen the far-reaching, unscrutinized SPP. A stronger SPP will erase many of the fundamental protections of the Canadian system by harmonizing crucial areas of public policy with that of the U.S. and Mexico. Under the SPP even bulk water exports from Canada are on the agenda, as is further guaranteed access to Canadian energy resources for the U.S.

A major winner will be big business, which will find it much cheaper to do business in Canada if the SPP is adopted. A major loser, unfortunately, is the Canadian citizen.

Today we can see a concrete result of this process at our dinner table. The first SPP-harmonized regulation now allows higher levels of pesticide residues to remain on food imports in line with U.S. standards, which benefits American produce growers and importers, while jeopardizing the safety of our food supply further.

Mark Girvan,
Ottawa

http://tinyurl.com/2gqa6q


=========================

Thursday, August 16, 2007

The Ottawa Citizen

Too much silence, secrecy on SPP talks

Next week, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Harper are meeting in Montebello to ratify a North American agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

This arrangement will result in "deep integration" among the three countries on economic and trade issues, environmental protection measures, energy and security concerns, foreign affairs and defence policies. Worst of all, it ties Canada closer to a militaristic U.S. government.

The only Canadian group with any input was the big-business Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which drafted most of the SPP's 300 initiatives. Mr. Harper chose 10 members to form the North American Competitiveness Council, a high-level advisory board to drive change toward the "New World Order," which the likes of Mr. Bush, Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger fondly label as the Project for a New American Century. The public -- and most of our elected officials -- have no input into the SPP.

Why the silence and secrecy on these talks so that the majority of Canadians aren't even aware their immediate future will change drastically with ratification of the agreement, affecting the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the human rights and liberties we enjoy?

The majority of Canadians are against this style of integration with the U.S. A large percentage wish to see Canada forge an independent foreign and defence policy, a partnership with the U.S. that protects Canada's energy and water, and lastly, an agreement that addresses real security concerns rather than the delusional paranoia exhibited by our closest neighbours.

Jeanette Campbell,
Pender Island, B.C.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

http://tinyurl.com/2zgrpu
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Thu 16 Aug 2007

Kingston Whig-Standard

Restrict pesticide use, but don't ban it

Re: the story "Pesticide fines could be steep" (Aug. 7)

The city's reaction to this controversial topic is knee-jerk. City employees are hurrying to draft a bylaw banning pesticides and scaring us with a maximum $100,000 fine for offences. While the bylaw will be aimed at the taxpaying homeowner, it grants exemptions to golf courses and lawn bowling clubs until 2017 - and to the city itself. The city can use pesticides because it "needs the flexibility to be able to protect municipal infrastructure" - yet the homeowner won't be allowed to protect his infrastructure.

But wait: the city would allow homeowners to purchase a permit so they could get rid of infestations on their property. Can you say "cash grab?"

Pesticides are not applied in concentrated form but are diluted in water, so when you see someone spraying it's not as bad as it seems. Salt is toxic, so why don't we ban that as well? Instead we're told to eat salt in moderation, and the same should go for our use of pesticides. Allow homeowners to spray their lawns twice a year and don't make them wait until there are infestations, which would take more than one spraying to eradicate. Then there would also be the cost of replacing the sod or reseeding in many cases.

The city's building and licensing department has said it will need more bylaw officers to enforce a pesticide ban. And how could they tell when a pesticide had been applied? Unless someone was caught in the act, it could have been applied yesterday or two years ago. Pesticides can remain in the soil for various amounts of time.

The draft bylaw says bylaw officers could enter any property at any time if they felt the owner had violated the rules. What about citizens' right to privacy? Any frivolous complaint from a neighbour could result in bylaw officers intruding on a citizen's privacy.

The city should implement a pesticide management plan that reduces pesticide use but doesn't ban it. I've seen lawns that have been destroyed by chinch bugs and the larvae of the June beetle, white grubs. It's horrible to see and my lawn doesn't deserve that.

Stand up, people. Contact your city councillor and use your voice.

Ted Faucher

Kingston
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Aug 17, 2007

Hamilton Spectator

Company's due dilligence still doesn't indicate all toxins
Craig Campbell, Dundas

Ten different types of hazardous wastes, in addition to pesticides and their toxic chemical ingredients, are stored at the Head Street plant that burned last month.

Toxic fire water runoff carrying an unknown mix of chemicals, and potentially hazardous waste, was allowed to flow into a storm sewer and Spencer Creek, killing thousands of fish and other organisms on July 26.

Ministry of Environment officials are still trying to piece together a list of chemicals stored at Biedermann Packaging Inc. and used to manufacture pesticides, but no one has released information about the hazardous wastes created in the manufacturing process. It's unclear whether any of the hazardous waste was included in the toxic runoff.

Because of a lack of regulations for pesticide manufacturers, no complete list of chemicals and pesticides stored in the Biedermann building is available. Firefighters responded with only limited unofficial information of what was stored there.

By registering with the ministry only the pesticides, and ingredient chemicals, it produces for use in Ontario, Biedermann meets all current requirements. But those products represent less than half the chemicals and waste stored there.

Environmental databases

A search by EcoLog Eris, a private company that conducts searches of several environmental databases for a fee, discovered Biedermann is approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to produce four classes of hazardous waste.

Those four classes include 10 primary characteristics, ranging from acutely hazardous waste, toxic leachate and hazardous industrial waste in both solid and liquid states.

The company, under the name Wilson Laboratories or Biedermann Packaging, has had permission to produce and store hazardous waste for over 20 years.

Ministry of the Environment officials did not respond by deadline with details on the nature of the hazardous waste stored at the plant, its potential impact on the environment, or any of the other details uncovered by the EcoLog Eris search of government records.

Ministry spokesperson Kate Jordan said last week it would take a long time for staff to get details on the hazardous waste and previous spills on the property.

The EcoLog Eris search, conducted for free on request by the Dundas Star News, also found five spills at the 36 Head St. pesticide manufacturer reported to the environment ministry between 1991 and 1999.

Of note is a Feb. 7, 1991 incident where a container overflow resulted in a spill of insecticide the ministry confirmed had a environmental impact on human health.

No further details were available from the ministry.

On Feb. 11, 1993, over 10 tonnes of ammonium nitratre spilled into a creek after an equipment failure.

The ministry reported a possible environmental impact on a water course or lake, but no further detail on that impact was available. It's not clear whether this spill was into Spencer Creek, and whether it resulted in a fish kill.

From 1995 to 1997, Biedermann Packaging - using the name Wilson Laboratories - released enough pollution to require annual reporting to the National Pollutant Release Inventory.

The pesticide manufacturer released four different examples of what are considered common industrial pollutants. They were taken to Mississauga and incinerated.

No pollutant release figures have been reported by Biedermann since 1997.

Francois Lavallee, manager of the NPRI, said a facility that has more than 10 employees and manufacture s or uses more than 10 tonnes of these chemicals must report to the inventory. A change in the total amount of staff, or the amount or type of pollutants, would explain the lack of reporting in the past 10 years.

Three pesticide products produced at Biedermann are registered with the Ministry of the Environment, along with their three ingredient chemicals, because they are licensed for sale and use in Ontario.

However, at least nine other pesticides manufactured at the 36 Head St. building, along with a minimum of eight chemical ingredients, are not registered with the Ontario government because they are not licensed for sale or use in this province.

They may potentially be sold in other provinces or individual American states.

Details of the composition and storage of the nine other pesticides and ingredient chemicals sold outside Ontario were only available through the company itself.

So firefighters responding to the structure fire, and government officials of all levels, could not possibly have known the full extent of chemicals and hazardous waste inside the building.

Outside Ontario

Biedermann staff provided a list of pesticides, and ingredient chemicals, manufactured for sale outside of Ontario to the environment ministry after the fire.

Eight chemicals, all of which are toxic to fish, were stored in the section of Biedermann Packaging that burned on July 26 , were consumed by the fire and may have been contained in douse water sprayed on the building by firefighters.

Those chemicals, including diazinon, metaldehyde, malathion, zinab, folpet and copper sulphate, are used to manufacture pesticides not licensed in Ontario, so they are not registered with any level of government.

Three other chemicals, used as ingredients in three additional pesticides manufactured in the Biedermann plant, were apparently stored in the section of the building that was not affected by the fire. But ministry officials said douse water did enter that part of the building.

Those three pesticides, and their ingredients, are registered with the Ministry of the Environment because they are licensed for sale and use in Ontario.

King Pesticides Ltd. and Biedermann Packaging Ltd. were both established at 36 Head St. in 1918.

The names King Pesticides and King Calcium Products were incorporated in 1954. Glenn Frederick Biedermann of Campbellville was the president of both companies as of 1966. King Pesticides was dissolved in 2006.

The name Wilson Pesticides was incorporated in 1973. It was amalgamated with the company Nu-Grow in 2007.

Biedermann Packaging was incorporated in 1999, and Glenn Frederick Biedermann is named as president of the company.

Despite the various corporate names, the same president has operated the pesticide plant on Head Street for the past 41 years. A pesticide plant has been incorporated at the site for 53 years and - according to Scott's Manufacturing Directory - has been operating for a total of 89 years there.

http://www.dundasstarnews.com/dsn/news/news_856807.html
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

N.S. environment minister considers request to rescind herbicide spraying permit (NS-Woodlot-Spraying)
Source: The Canadian Press
Aug 13, 2007 15:40

HALIFAX (CP) _ Opponents of herbicide spraying in Nova Scotia's Pictou County are hoping a last-minute appeal will prompt the province's environment minister to rescind a go-ahead issued last week.

Two companies, Wagner Forest Management Ltd. and Century Forestry Consultants Ltd., were granted approval to conduct aerial and ground-based spraying on 20 parcels of private land in Pictou and Cumberland counties.

The spraying permits for the use of herbicide glyphosates, known as Vision and Vision Max, were requested by private woodlot owners to kill hardwood trees, preventing them from crowding out softwoods.

But Environment Minister Mark Parent confirmed Monday that he was waiting to be briefed on a letter from Pictou County council.

The municipal body is unanimously against the spraying.

``I understand that they are asking that there be some sort of moratorium on spraying in the Pictou area,'' said Parent.

``I'm going to be getting the briefing, seeing the letter and seeing what they are calling for and any additional information that they want to pass on to me would be welcomed as well.''

Parent said he would make a decision on whether to allow the spraying to proceed on Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest.

Michelle Jamieson of the citizen's group Stop the Spray said she hoped Parent would give the letter due consideration.

``We're hopeful he's going to pull through,'' said Jamieson.

``Our municipality does not want the spraying and there's about 47,000 people here in Pictou County.''

Jamieson has been a vocal opponent since finding out in early July that a woodlot across the street from her Sundridge home was among the areas to be sprayed.

She believes the province needs to reconsider the use of herbicides that are banned in some countries and on Crown lands in Quebec.

Jamieson added that before receiving official notification, she had presumed that herbicide spraying was illegal.

``You're protected from cigarette smoke in a restaurant and you're protected in the office against aftershave and perfume, but still they're legally allowed to spray poison to kill things near peoples homes and wells,'' she said.

Parent said the province relies on Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency to determine whether or not a herbicide is safe.

``Our policy has always been, as a province of limited size, to depend upon the (agency) ... and in this case they approve it. They don't approve it with qualifications, they don't disapprove it, they approve it,'' he said.

The minister said that as an added safety precaution his department adds ``stringent controls'' as to how the herbicide is applied.

Provinical rules stipulate that buffer zones be set up around wells and watercourses and that spraying only take place at certain wind speeds to limit drift.

Regardless, New Democrat Charlie Parker believes it's time the province banned the practice of spraying.

Parker said there are examples within the forestry sector of companies willing to use alternatives.

``Stora Industries have over a million acres under lease and they haven't done spraying in almost 10 years,'' said Parker.

``They are planting larger seedlings so they get a head start and they are doing manual thinning.''

The member for Pictou West said the recent decision to allow the spraying, along with long-standing blights like clearcutting, illustrate the need to change provincial policy regarding forestry practices.

© 2007 The Canadian Press
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

21-Aug-07

City of Guelph - Press Release

Guelph residents support phasing out pesticides
Poll indicates strong support for pesticide by-law

The results of a recent telephone survey indicate that 76 per cent of Guelph residents support a phase-out of the cosmetic or non-essential use of pesticides.

Four hundred randomly selected Guelph residents participated in the pesticide use survey in May. The poll was conducted by Oraclepoll Research Ltd., a research firm that has carried out pesticide-use surveys in several communities across Canada, including Ottawa, London and Calgary.

Findings reveal Guelph residents largely support the direction Council took when it approved the Pesticide Use By-law earlier this year. Guelph’s Pesticide Use By-law will come into effect on April 1, 2008 and will prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic or non-essential purposes.

Findings from the survey will be used to develop an education program to inform residents about pesticide alternatives. The City has already begun to share information about healthy landscaping with residents through a number of seminars, featuring Dr. Eric Lyons, Assistant Professor with the University of Guelph’s Department of Plant Agriculture. In addition, the spring/summer edition of Insight Guelph, distributed to Guelph households in June, provided a number of tips and additional resources for maintaining a healthy, naturally “green” lawn.

To view the Pesticide Use By-law or the Pesticide Usage in Guelph Executive Summary, which includes the survey results, visit guelph.ca and select the “pesticides” quick link.

For information contact:

Janet Laird, PhD

Director, Environmental Services

519-822-1260 ext. 2237

janet.laird@guelph.ca
-
http://guelph.ca/newsroom_display.cfm?itemID=72674

=========================

Aug 24, 2008

Guelph Tribune

Pesticide Phone Survey Results Will Be Part of Future Education

A recent telephone survey shows a high level of public support for the direction taken by city council in passing a pesticide bylaw earlier this year, city hall says.

The survey done in May indicates that 76 per cent of Guelph residents support a phase-out of the cosmetic or non-essential use of pesticides, said a city hall news release on Tuesday.

The poll of 400 randomly selected Guelph residents was conducted by Oraclepoll Research Ltd., a research firm that has carried out pesticide-use surveys in several communities across Canada, including Ottawa, London and Calgary.

The pesticide use bylaw approved by council will come into effect on April 1, 2008, and will prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic or non-essential purposes. The city, which paid for the phone survey, plans to use it to develop an education program to inform residents about pesticide alternatives. The survey was also intended to provide benchmark information that the city can use later to judge the success of a pesticide education program and a pesticide bylaw.

The city has already begun to provide information about healthy landscaping to residents through a number of seminars featuring assistant professor Eric Lyons of the University of Guelph's Department of Plant Agriculture. In addition, the spring/summer edition of Insight Guelph, distributed to Guelph households in June, provided a number of tips and additional resources for maintaining a healthy, naturally "green" lawn, the release said.

http://www.guelphtribune.ca/trib/news/news_863067.html

=========================
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Aug 21, 2007

York Region.com

Are pesticides new second-hand smoke?

What Do You Think

Environmental activists suggest chemical pesticides are akin to second-hand smoke. What do you think?

I totally agree, except that everyone is affected and, unlike second-hand smoke, we usually have little or no warning of what we're being exposed to or how it can affect us. My 31-year-old daughter has severe environmental illness; she belongs to a web group of well over 300 people who know firsthand the negative effects of chemicals. At one time, the dangers of second-hand smoke were minimized. Let's not make the same mistake about this.
Kathryn Lloyd
Aurora

I agree. Both chemicals are highly toxic. I feel like I live in a highly polluted environment now. Early Sunday morning offers only temporary relief.
Johann Ingarra
Vaughan

I agree wholeheartedly. Actually I think they are worse. I get terribly sick from pesticides, herbicides and most of the carriers used with them. I can stop breathing. If neighbours spray, I have to have my windows closed for days afterward.
Lily O'Brien
Aurora

I can't imagine why people insist on using all these chemicals. I'd rather see a lawn with a few weeds. If it is cut, it is hard to tell the difference. Sad that as a society we are more concerned with the presentation of our properties than our health. I don't think we need to spend a lot of money on studies, common sense should tell us breathing in these assorted chemicals is not healthy on any level. It is ridiculous to think they are not causing harm to our bodies.
Sandra MacKenzie
Richmond Hill

I agree with environmental activists that chemical pesticides are akin to second-hand smoke. Pesticides are extremely harmful to ingest and when our children are walking home from school, playing in parks and exploring nature, it is inevitable they will ingest these pesticides at some point. Worrisome is the fact the Town of East Gwillimbury recently used pesticides on their grounds. Their grounds are large and beautiful and I frequently see children walking through the area. The town is setting a terrible example by choosing manicured perfection over our children's health.
Emma Carver
Newmarket

Yes, most definitely. As a sufferer of MCS, everytime my neighbors have their lawns treated I am sick for the day, if not several days. I cannot leave my windows open for fear one of the many will be having their lawns treated. The price I pay for their lawns to look only marginally better than mine is high.
Tammy Bonifacio
Thornhill

I disagree. I believe there is a legitimate requirement for pesticide use, but more education on topics such as responsible use, signage, etc. is required.
Suzette Leeming
Georgina

http://www.yorkregion.com/article/43850
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Fri 24 Aug 2007

Dundas Star News

Loophole allows chemical mixing for other firms

by Craig Campbell

None of the pesticides Biedermann Packaging says was stored in its Head Street plant the night of a fire that consumed them and sent toxins pouring into Spencer Creek are registered with the province or federal government by the company. And Biedermann's registration for several pesticides containing a chemical Ministry of Environment testing confirmed entered Spencer Creek during the fire, and subsequent spill on July 26, expired at least four years ago.
But the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency allows pesticide manufacturers like Biedermann Packaging to produce pesticides for other companies or individuals who hold the registration without reporting that to any public or government organization. Stephen Belliveau, spokesperson for the PMRA, said that means it is impossible to actually determine what chemicals and pesticides were stored in the plant at the time of last month's fire.
"They could be manufacturing for other companies," Mr. Belliveau said. "There is no way to find out what they're manufacturing for someone else."
He said all current pesticide regulations are met, because all the ingredient chemicals - including Diazinon - in a list provided by Biedermann are registered by someone else for use in Canada.
Mr. Belliveau said a company which holds a registration for a particular pesticide may want to keep secret from competitors the identity of the product's actual manufacturer.
A company producing pesticides for someone else does not have to register with any government department or agency.
Ministry of Environment testing confirmed Diazinon was included in the toxic soup that entered Spencer Creek, where thousands of fish and other organisms were killed within hours of the fire starting.
Five pesticides containing Diazinon were registered for production by Biedermann Packaging - or Wilson Laboratories - with Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency. Of those, two expired on Dec. 31, 2000, while the other three expired on Dec. 31, 2003.
None have been renewed by the company.
But Biedermann Packaging can produce any pesticide containing Diazinon for any other company that has registered the product with the PMRA, a division of Health Canada.
Biedermann Packaging provided the Ontario Ministry of the Environment with a preliminary list of chemicals it reported were "consumed" in the fire about a week after the blaze.
As of this week, ministry officials say they still don't know all the chemicals that were stored in the plant.
None of those pesticides are currently registered in the PMRA or Ontario database by Biedermann Packaging or Wilson Laboratories, a name the company also uses.
Eight other pesticides are registered by Biedermann or Wilson with the federal organization, and three of those are registered by the company with the province.
But the registration does not mean those pesticides are produced there. The plant is allowed to produce hundreds of other pesticides without reporting that or the toxic chemical ingredients used to make them.
A total of 92 pesticides have been registered with the federal government by a pesticide plant at 36 Head St. in Dundas and eight of those have not yet expired, but Mr. Belliveau said this might only be a fraction of the pesticides actually manufactured at the site. And holding an active registration does not mean the company actually produces that pesticide.
Toxic chemical i
The partial list provided to the environment ministry by Biedermann Packaging contains nine additional pesticides, with a total of eight toxic chemical ingredients.
One of those chemical ingredients, Zineb, does show up in a product registered by Biedermann Packaging. But the list provided by the company does not include the name of the product Zineb is used for.
According to the ministry, these nine pesticides were stored in a section of the building that burned on July 26 and were consumed by the fire and possibly entered douse water sprayed on the building by firefighters which ran off into a storm sewer and Spencer Creek.
Ministry staff are still waiting for a list of pesticides and ingredient chemicals stored in the side of the building that was not directly affected by the fire, but get sprayed with douse water.
Meanwhile, the Ontario environment ministry has not provided any further details on the 10 types of hazardous waste Biedermann has permission to store at the Head Street site, or five previous chemical spills that occurred at the plant.
One of those spills is confirmed to have entered Spencer Creek, while another had an impact on human health.
Ministry staff said they need more time to track down the "historic" records. The spills occurred in 1991 and 1993. The Dundas Star News requested details on the two spills and hazardous waste stored at at 36 Head St. two weeks ago.
© 2007 Torstar Corporation
http://www.dundasstarnews.com/dsn/news/news_861611.html
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Sun 26 Aug 2007

The Halifax Daily News

Can't see the forest for the trees

by Stephen Kimber

See you later ...

What if they staged an anti-spray protest and no one sprayed? That's what happened Monday when a dozen protesters, some carrying signs and wearing gas masks, occupied a planned pesticide spray site near Roslin, Cumberland Co.

The North Nova Forest Owners Co-op had planned to begin aerial spraying of Vision in the area that day.

The province's Pest Management Regulatory Agency says the controversial pesticide is safe, but the protesters dispute that.

Rick Cheeseman, a local organic farmer, says that if you ask the manufacturers, "'Is this product safe for people?' they will say, 'Glyphosate is safe.' They will never tell you and never talk to you about the inert ingredients ... Isn't it time we started asking what the whole product is and start testing for it?"

In the end, the forest owners "postponed" spraying and the protesters, who'd vowed to remain on the property as human shields for as long as it takes, went home.

Until next time.

======================

Mon 21/08/07

Amherst Daily News

Waiting for the leaves to change
Protesters willing to stay as long as it takes

by JUSTIN DICKIE

ROSLIN – A group of residents in this small rural community don’t want aerial herbicide spraying done here and they’re willing to occupy the potential spray zone around the clock to make sure they have their way.

The group of around a dozen Roslin residents started protesting at the potential spray site on Monday afternoon in an effort to stop the North Nova Forest Owners Co-op from spraying the herbicide Vision near their property. The spray was supposed to take place today, but the protesters were informed yesterday that it’s going to be rescheduled.

They’re willing to wait out the meantime.

"If we wait long enough, after the leaves change, apparently (the spray) is not effective. So if we can get in ‘til fall…" said concerned citizen Holly Gordon yesterday at the site. "I would hope they wouldn’t dump chemicals down on us. You’re not supposed to ingest them, you’re not supposed to inhale them. I don’t want to wear it either."

The group is following the lead of similar groups in Pictou and Colchester counties that were successful in stopping aerial spraying recently.

While the Pest Management Regulatory Agency insists Vision is safe, many studies suggest quite the opposite.

Rick Cheeseman, a local organic farmer, said according to research he’s seen, 59 per cent of the Vision formula is made up of "inert" ingredients. When herbicide companies release their research results, they name the long-term affects of the active ingredient, but only name the short-term affects of the whole formula.

"The companies themselves, if you ask them ‘Is this product safe for people?’ they will say ‘glyphosate is safe.’ They will never tell you and never talk to you about the inert ingredients," Cheeseman said. "When we know so little about the product, and we’re applying it in such a wide-spread fashion, and we have 50 per cent of Canadians are going to get cancer in their lifetime, isn’t it time we started asking what the whole product is and start testing for it?"

About a dozen protesters were on hand at a potential aerial herbicide spray zone in Roslin yesterday in an attempt to keep the spray away. <i>Sheila Little - Amherst Daily News</i>

jdickie@amherstdaily.com

http://www.amherstdaily.com/index.cfm?sid=55665&sc=58

Comments:
This Conversation is Semi-Moderated. What is moderation?
What does moderation mean?
The Amherst Daily News is committed to encouraging intelligent discourse among our readers and to creating a forum where diverse views and opinions on a wide range of topics can be aired. The forum you are in now is a result of our continuing efforts to facilitate a dynamic online conversation among our readers.

This is a semi-moderated or reactively moderated conversation. Once a reader follows the steps to register and submit his or her comment it goes directly to the website. A comment may be edited or deleted for reasons of content or language.

All readers wishing to join a conversation must first sign in and agree to the Terms of Usage, which explain the rules of acceptable content.
(Post a comment)

1.
Freddy from Nova Scotia writes: Do these people not realize that they live in blueberry country where more pesticides are likely sprayed than in forestry!
Posted 21/08/2007 at 2:51 pm

2.
Alice from Roslin, Nova scotia writes: Amen Freddy amen.
Posted 21/08/2007 at 3:42 pm |


3.
hardy woods from nova scotia writes: Just because chemical pesticides are used by some blueberry producers, doesn’t mean that we should spray our Acadian forests. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Do the jobs manually, put local people to work!
Posted 21/08/2007 at 5:27 pm

======================

16/08/07

The Amherst Daily News

Questioning the safety of the herbicide glyphosate

This is regarding the story, Herbicide spray poses no risk to public, by Justin Dickie, published in The Amherst Daily News on Aug. 9, 2007.

A retired intelligence analyst, I am Canadian honorary observer with the Pesticide Working Group in Washington.

District Manager of the Department of Environment and Labour, Brad Skinner, says, regarding herbicide glyphosate, a common weed killer: “However, the product is registered for use by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency [PMRA] of Health Canada and they require a tremendous amount of study and it’s reviewed in detail before a product is registered and they’ve determined that it is quite safe to use.”

Obviously, Mr. Skinner is misinformed. In fact, this regulatory agency is also known as “pesticide manufacturers’ rubber-stamping agency.” Scientists at the PMRA merely evaluate rat-testing, secret studies conducted in industry sponsored and financed labs. Rats have detoxification genes missing in humans.

There is not a single medical doctor on staff, but a prominent industry lobbyist sits on the advisory committee of the PMRA.

The PMRA is completely at the mercy of the industry. What they require and what they get may not coincide. Strictly speaking, spokesmen for the agency are not allowed to use the word “safe.” The formula to be used is “presents not an unacceptable risk,” a totally subjective criterion.

To be effective, a herbicide is toxic precisely when used according to the label.

The active ingredient of this herbicide is glyphosate. What about the untested ‘inert’ element? The ‘inerts,’ also known as ‘formulants’ are considered probable, possible or actual carcinogens by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reporting to the World Health Organization. The untested formulants may amount to 50 to 90 per cent of the final product.

Therefore, unlike Mr. Skinner, this writer is unconvinced that “the product has a very low toxicity and isn’t harmful to animals or humans.”

K. Jean Cottam, PhD, Nepean, Ont.

http://www.amherstdaily.com/index.cfm?sid=54447&sc=62

======================
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Saturday, August 25, 2007

The Kingston Whig-Standard

Call for pesticides ban is based on misinformation

Letters to the Editor - I cannot believe a debate over the use of lawn-care products is raging in Kingston. Lawn-care products are not harmful to the health of people. Health Canada has proclaimed the use of these products to be safe. These are the same people who proclaim that cigarettes are dangerous and refuse to allow UV-light tattoo ink because they have not certified it as safe. I do not hear these special-interest groups denying the latter findings, so why ignore the former one?

Do these special-interest groups pick and choose what hard science they wish to believe? Of course, and they do so because they cannot overcome their tendency to force their views upon their neighbours about what they think is a proper way to live. They are ignorant and misinformed.

The campaign to ban lawn- care products is based upon self-indulgence and is supported by dubious statistical "information." The sad part is the encouragement Kingston's city councillors give to these zealots.

I salute the companies and individuals that stand up for themselves. I thought that a Kingston bylaw was still in the debate stage and not a foregone conclusion, as the people who want lawn-care products banned would have you believe.

I implore the people of Kingston to contact their city councillor. They should stand up for themselves and their right to choose. Don't let the zealots interfere with your lifestyle anymore.

Ultimately, it is up to the councillors and public input. I trust that councillors have the wisdom to evaluate the hard science available from Health Canada versus the pamphlets given them by the supporters of a ban. I don't think that they could collectively be deceived by the misinformation.

John Bell
Napanee

© 2007 , Osprey Media. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.thewhig.com&contentid=668186&annewspapername=The+Kingston+Whig%2DStandard

============================

Sat 25 Aug 2007

Kingston Whig-Standard

Let's see some statistics

It must be true: I read it in the paper.

In his letter "Pesticide ban must apply to all" (Aug. 23), Charles Henry wrote, in regard to a proposed pesticides ban in Kingston, that "it would appear that golf courses may be allowed to continue to use the nasty pesticides, which can cause illness, deformity or death to anyone who plays golf, lives close to golf courses (within two miles, according to some sources) or walks or drives past such a place."

I checked a map of Kingston to see what area that two-mile limit would cover. Anyone spraying their lawns at Bath Road and Princess Street would wipe out the population of all of downtown Kingston along the waterfront to the Little Cataraqui Creek, and north to Highway 401.

Anyone living up the hill from the Cataraqui Golf and Country Club would not stand a chance of survival. As for the golfers, I am surprised if there are any still alive.

I would not want to suggest that Henry was fear-mongering or stretched the truth about the harm caused by these nasty, highly toxic and poisonous chemicals but I would dearly like to see statistics to back up his claim. To be more specific, what compound is he referring to that is so highly toxic yet is used just to kill a few broad-leaf weeds?

We need such information now because Kingston city council will soon be making important decisions based on information such as this.

Steve Manders
Kingston

© 2007 Osprey Media Group Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.thewhig.com&contentid=668187&annewspapername=The+Kingston+Whig%2DStandard


============================
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Mon 27 Aug 2007

The Toronto Star

Chemical allergies are real, not imagined

RE: New house will kill me, woman says - Aug. 23

While reading about Linda Sepp's problems regarding chemical allergies, I was dismayed to read that the medical community appears to be split on whether the illness is purely psychological. Within my small group of family and friends, I am aware of three people who suffer from severe sensitivities to chemicals and perfumes.

Then I read that a number of health groups, including the Ontario Medical Association, are warning of the potential hazards of chemicals in our environment.

How long will it take before government agencies recognize what pesticides and cleaning solutions are doing to those people with weakened immune systems and ban these substances? Believe me, the canary has died.

Turney Wong, Port Hope, Ont.

© 2007 Torstar Corporation

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/250058

==============================

August 27, 2007

Toronto Star

The environment doesn't rest

Dion challenges PM on clean air - Aug. 24

When I saw that a spokesperson for federal Environment Minister John Baird criticized Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion for doing politics on a day when "our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the fallen," I was puzzled. On such a solemn day, shouldn't the thoughts of our environment minister be not only with the children of our fallen soldiers, but also with his duty to them and their future?

If Baird is prevented from advancing the struggle for our environment every time a soldier falls, then sadly I fear the cause has lost nearly 2 1/2 months already and that it will lose more. The Van Doos don't throw down their arms when they lose a comrade in battle; they grit their teeth and fight on.

It is heartening to know that Dion will not be deterred from his fight.

Richard K. McLay, Toronto

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/250064

==============================
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Mon 27 Aug 2007

The Ottawa Citizen

Compensation at any cost

Veterans and civilians who've lived on and near the Canadian Forces Base at Gagetown, N. B., have waited a long time to be compensated for illnesses they link to herbicide exposure there.
A fact-finder named by the federal government has been investigating the magnitude of the problem. Dr. Dennis Furlong, a physician and former New Brunswick health minister, is finding facts that suggest they'll be disappointed.
The federal Conservatives have painted themselves into an unfortunate corner on this file. Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, a New Brunswicker whose riding includes the Gagetown base, has already pledged a compensation program for veterans who served there. That decision, at least partly meant to differentiate the Tories from the Liberals, who wouldn't make any such promise, has seemed less and less prudent as more and more information has emerged about the dangers at the base.
Despite conspiracists convinced that the military used Agent Orange to clear plants off the Gagetown firing range during the period between the 1950s and the 1980s, the Department of National Defence insists it was tested there briefly in two periods in 1966 and 1967.
Agent Orange was bad stuff, laden with dioxin and responsible for birth defects where the U.S. military used it as a defoliant in the Vietnam War. It may indeed have hurt people, and so might have direct exposure to other herbicides the military used at the base. But the studies commissioned by Dr. Furlong have found that group after group -- people involved in the testing, people who served at Gagetown in the years after the herbicide was used, and so on -- have exhibited no significant elevated risk of disease. The latest findings seem to narrow the group that deserves compensation to those who were personally coated in the stuff: According to Dr. Furlong and the experts he hired to examine the numbers as far back as 1980, no more people connected to the base died or contracted cancer than you'd expect, in comparison to the broader New Brunswick population.
One-third of Canadian men die of heart disease or strokes. One out of four Canadians dies of cancer, according to the Canadian Cancer Society, and 44 per cent of men get the disease at some point. Thousands of troops and civilians have rotated through CFB Gagetown over the decades. Any population that large will have health problems, including its share of freakishly rare ones. Perhaps Mr. Thompson's compensation will end up going only to the handful of veterans already receiving disability pensions for illnesses strongly linked to direct Agent Orange exposure.
That might be difficult to accept for those who've spent years fighting to be paid for the connections they see between the spraying at CFB Gagetown and ailments they and their family members have suffered. They certainly won't take it easily from a government they expected to champion their cause. The easy thing for Mr. Thompson to do will likely be to pay them off anyway.
He mustn't. There can be valid arguments for compensating people based on a strong possibility they've suffered harm from government actions, where proving a definitive link would be impossible. But the evidence is mounting toward the opposite conclusion for most of the people who've spent time at Gagetown.


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=e613ab2d-dbde-4c95-bcd3-e01c26c2fe25
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Enter the “David Suzuki Digs My Garden” Photo Contest
We want to find Canada’s best pesticide-free lawn and gardens.

Grab your camera!

Send us the best snapshot of your pesticide-free garden or lawn, and the story of how you make your yard beautiful without chemicals.

Your photos and stories will be posted on our website. Our judges will choose finalists, then visitors to our site will vote for a winner.

Contest winners will receive a prize package that includes some exciting prizes--including a “David Suzuki Digs My Garden” T-Shirt and a gift certificate for heritage seeds from Salt Spring Seeds.

There are four ways that you can win :
• Luscious Lawns -- Best lawns or lawn alternatives (i.e. xeriscaping)
• Voluminous Vegetables -- Best food-producing gardens
• Outstanding Ornamentals -- Best flower garden
• Balcony Bliss -- Best limited-space garden

For contest rules and instructions on how to submit your winning photo, visit this web site: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/photo_contest/

Submission Deadline September 14th, 2007.
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Tue 28 Aug 2007

Kingston Whig-Standard

No discrimination on pesticides

Re: Steve Manders' letter "Let's see some statistics" (Aug. 25).

It would appear that the point of my earlier letter about pesticides was misunderstood by Manders, or perhaps tongue-in-cheek writing is no longer acceptable. It has become obvious to me that golf courses and city parks require pesticides, and it is extremely unlikely they will be denied the use of pesticides even if city council passes a bylaw banning homeowners from using pesticides for cosmetic purposes. By making a fuss about discrimination and by commenting that for every person my lawn kills, golf courses and parks will kill thousands, I was hoping the result would be pressure for the equal treatment of all taxpayers.

City Hall is unlikely to ban the use of pesticides by golf courses (a powerful lobby). Raising the issue of discrimination between different groups of taxpayers highlights dangerous ground that, at the least, could cost votes for everyone currently in office.

There is also the possibility of lawsuits. After all, if our parliamentary representatives in Ottawa say pesticides are legal (which they do), maybe taxpayers will file lawsuits if council passes a ban.

Charles Henry
Kingston

http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/printable.asp?paper=www.thewhig.com&contentid=671089&annewspapername=The+Kingston+Whig%2DStandard
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

New Study Links Parental Pesticide Exposure to Leukemia

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2007) In a new study published in the August 2007 issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health (Vol. 33, No. 4), researchers from the Central American Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances (IRET) in Costa Rica find parental exposure to pesticides linked to the increased risk of leukemia. IRET researchers, based at the National University of Costa Rica in Heredia, identified cases of childhood leukemia (N=334), in 1995-2000, on the Cancer Registry and the Children’s Hospital. Population controls (N=579) were drawn from the National Birth Registry. Interviews of parents were conducted using conventional and icon-based calendar forms. An exposure model was constructed for 25 pesticides in five time periods.

Mothers’ exposures to any pesticides during the year before conception and during the first and second trimesters are associated with the risk [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.0-5.9; OR 22, 95% CI 2.8-171.5; OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.4-14.7, respectively] and during anytime (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.. An association is found for fathers’ exposures to any pesticides during the second trimester (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.3).

An increased risk with respect to organophosphates is found for mothers during the first trimester (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0-12.2) and for fathers during the year before conception and the first trimester (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2 and OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6, respectively), and benzimidazoles during the first, second, and third trimesters of pregnancy (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.4; OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-5.0; OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-5.2, respectively).

There is a suggestion of an exposure-response gradient for fathers as regards picloram, benomyl, and paraquat. Age at diagnosis was positively associated with fathers’ exposures and inversely associated with mothers’ exposures.

Leukemias are the most common childhood cancers, accounting for 25-35% of the incidence of all childhood cancer in most populations. Costa Rica ranks among the highest incidence of childhood leukemia in the world. Agriculture is a major economic activity in Costa Rica and is characterized by intensive use of pesticides.

Previous studies have also linked parental exposure to leukemia. A 2006 French study published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, “Household Exposure to Pesticides and Risk of Childhood Acute Leukemia,” indicates that acute leukemia is observed to be significantly associated with maternal home pesticide use during pregnancy along with lawn chemical use and fungicide use during childhood. Research findings also show insecticidal shampoo treatment of pediculosis to be associated with childhood acute leukemia. Leukemia has also been linked to parental exposure to Agent Orange in children of Vietnam veterans.

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca

[Joel@WhiteMoose.Ca]

Tue 28 Aug 2007

CP Wire

NW Ont. plans to seek $1B compensation for herbicide spraying

THUNDER BAY, Ont. (CP) _ The chief of the Saugeen Nation north of Ignace, Ont., is not happy with herbicide spraying in area forests and plans to seek $1 billion in compensation.
``We are against the spraying ... (and) plan to go ahead with a study on the health effects of our people,'' Chief Edward Machimity said Tuesday from the First Nation community near Savant Lake.
Chemical spraying impacts the long-term health of wildlife and humans living in the boreal forest, Machimity said, adding he has sent a letter to Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay outlining the band's concerns with spraying in Bowater's Caribou Forest management area.
``We'll be asking for $1 billion in compensation (due to aerial spraying) affecting the health of animals and people'' in the band's traditional area, Machimity said.
Other band members have voiced concerns about the spray harming blueberries and trapping in the area.
The ministry maintains that aerial spraying with herbicide, to kill or slow the growth of competing vegetation, is an acceptable forest management practice across the province.
Ministry spokesman Bob Patterson said the ministry's Sioux Lookout office is ``certainly willing to talk about areas of concern (the band has). ''
``We're willing to work with them on not spraying specific areas,'' he said. But, he said, ``if they don't want spraying at all (in the Caribou Forest), then there's where we have problems.''
Forest spraying is not the only issue rattling Saugeen band members.
A small group of residents, upset with a lack of housing, jobs and band governance, has called for ``a traditional gathering'' to discuss outstanding concerns.
They held a rally last week at the band office to protest the forest spraying and what they called a lack of communication by band leaders.
``We'd like to see more honesty and fairness'' from band leaders, group spokeswoman Darlene Necan said.
Machimity, who has been chief over the past 30 years, said the band's office has been closed temporarily due to ongoing threats to band administration and council.
``I want (the group) to calm down so we can talk to them peacefully,'' he said.
(Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal)
_________________
Read my profile... Or better.. watch it on video or see it in the pics...
www.airivanhoe.ca