Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Archived Article: 1992 Pesticide Bid Rigging Scheme relating to Bio-Pesticides

Are Suppliers of products like Corn Gluten, Sarritor, Nematodes with the consent of certain Ministry Of Ontario Officials cornering the market by selling the only available Dubious Alternative Products to replace Federally Registered and legal (so called toxic) products the Ontario Government has banned?

In 1992 two companies were caught cornering the market with Bt for Gypsy Moth Control. 

Pesticide firm faces collusion charge
[AM Edition]
Toronto Star - Toronto, Ont.
Author: CP
Date: Nov 4, 1992

OTTAWA (CP) - Federal lawyers laid charges against one Toronto- area company but granted immunity to another yesterday in an alleged bid-rigging scheme to sell insecticide to the Ontario and Quebec governments.
Francois Rioux, a federal lawyer, said Abbott has already made restitution to Ontario and Quebec of more than $2.1 million to cover proceeds of its involvement in bid rigging.

At issue were sales of bacillus thuringiensis, commonly known as Bt, a biological insecticide sold by Abbott under the brand name DiPel and by Chemagro under the name Futura XLV.

Insecticides (1993) - s. 45 & 46 - Guilty Pleas
Chemagro Limited and Sumitomo Canada Limited pleaded guilty under section 46 for implementing a foreign-directed conspiracy to share the chemical insecticide market in Canada from 1987 to 1988. The product was used by provincial forest agencies and private companies in Newfoundland and New Brunswick to control the spread of budworm and gypsy moth. The arrangement was between Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd. of Japan and Bayer AG of Germany, Chemagro's parent company. Chemagro also pleaded guilty under section 45 for a market-sharing conspiracy with Abbott Laboratories in effect in 1990, also involving insecticide. Abbott was granted immunity from prosecution for having brought these matters to the Bureau's attention, but consented to a prohibition order and to pay restitution totalling $2.122 million. Total fines in these two cases amounted to $3.25 million.


Lawn Care Industry Files Additional Charges Against the McGuinty Government

MONTREAL, Jan. 19 /CNW Telbec/ - Additional charges were filed today by Jeffrey Lowes, Director of Government Relations for M-REP Communications against the McGuinty Government.
Additional proceedings Under Section 504 of the Criminal Code were filed - against the Minister of the Environment, John Gerretsen and Senior Staff of the MOE - before a Justice of the Peace at the Kingston Provincial Court.
Mr. Lowes filed the additional charges upon a further review of the actions of the Province of Ontario in respect to the 2008 Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act and Ontario Regulations 63/09. These actions alleged to have resulted in offences contrary to the Federal Competition Act (R.S., 1985, c.C-34) section 45 subsection 1(d) and section 380 subsections 2 of the Criminal Code (R.S., 1985, c. C-46).The alleged charges are against: "John Gerretsen, Dale Henry, Geoff Cutten, Wanda Michalowicz, Lorna Poff, and Violet vanWassenaer.
February 17th has been set for a hearing to set a date for Pre-Enquete hearing on all three charges.
M-REP Communications has been working with the industry across Canada and is headed to BC and Alberta and the end of the month to review a course of action for their industry.
Mr. Lowes expects to file additional charges against activists and municipal councilors in Ontario before heading out West at the end of the month.
Mr. Lowes is also currently reviewing the actions of MOE's enforcement branch as it has come to his attention that they may be applying unwarranted pressure on members of the industry as a direct response to the filing of the first charge.

M-REP Communications is a consulting services firm that provides support through a network of companies in North America and the EU on environmental policy and communications.

For further information: Jeffrey Lowes, M-REP Communications Director of Government & Industrial Relations, direct (613) 483-7855, fax (514) 221-4176,

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Fruit Tree Owner Speaks out about Pesticides in Vernon Morning Star - Letters

Ron Pattermann runs a  successful 23-acre orchard in the Bella Vista area Vernon, BC.

With regards to the “Pesticide bans are necessary” letter. I would like to make some comments and state some facts with regards to this issue. There are more toxins that occur naturally in the environment than what pesticides contain. All of the products that are being discussed in these proposed bans are approved by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PRMA) which is the government body that all insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and other household products must go through to get registration for use. It does have several hundred staff members, many of whom are scientists. Quote below from their website:
“Scientific evaluations are conducted on all pesticides in Canada before becoming available on the market. We determine if they meet our strict health and safety standards and dictate the use instructions and safety precautions on every product label. Our role is to determine if proposed pesticides can be used safely when label directions are followed and will be effective for their intended use. If there is reasonable certainty from scientific evaluation that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result from exposure to or use of a pesticide, its registration for use in Canada will be approved.”
These products must undergo many scientific trials and tests to prove that they are safe to use, and this can sometimes take years and thousands of pages of documentation. This is documented information available to anyone. The label on any pesticide is a legal document and this information can be found on the PRMA website.
On the web, just by keying in the active ingredient of a product, and the words “MSDS sheet”, you will get the documents at your fingertips. The companies that manufacture the products also have the labels and MSDS forms available on their websites.
Some people dispute the information on the documents and I ask them, do you not think scientists, chemists, toxicologists, etc ,who spend years going through post secondary education , are not qualified to make the decisions they have made with regards to the safety of a product?
I think they are more qualified than most of the people who dispute their findings.
Pesticides and other products are only a problem when the instructions and guidelines that are set forth by the PRMA on a product label are not followed and this usually happens in the hands of non qualified people. Commercial applicators must undergo intensive training to be certified to apply these products in a safe manner as laid out on the label. Education is the key, not a pesticide ban. All the attention this subject has received lately seems to contain only one side of the story and we all know there are two.
I am not questioning the ability of the public to vent their concerns, nor am I an expert on this matter, but I would rather present the truth and separate fact from fiction.
I want a clean environment and cancer-free world just as much as the next person, but maybe we as a society need to look at a bigger picture. We need to enter into more discussion on this matter rather than take the knee-jerk and emotional approach that could cost people and some families their livelihoods.

Ron Pattermann

Kelowna BC Council gives OK to herbicides on Hwy medians

Council gives OK to herbicides on Hwy medians

Mon, 2010-03-29 20:06.
Local News
A bit of a battle of the sexes around Kelowna Council this week, as the members considered how to handle landscape medians on Highway 97.
Last year, WorkSafe BC deemed their maintenance practices unsafe for workers, and civic staff is currently working on a new median design to address those concerns.  In the meantime, staff suggested getting a licensed applicator to spray herbicides to control the weeds - a move that would be permitted under the City's Cosmetic Pesticide Bylaw.
But City Councillor Angela Reid was strongly opposed:
"There's no filtration on the roads for run-off.  It's going straight into our lake when it rains or when the streets are washed.  The water goes straight into our lakes without any real treatment."
City Councillor Michele Rule agrees:
"We want the boulevards to look nice, and we want our workers to be safe.  But we want our workers to stay safe.  Angela's exactly right - we're supposed to be the leaders in this."
Mayor Sharon Shepherd chimed in, saying, "I would not agree with the cosmetic use of herbicides on the medians.  We tell the community that they can't do that - we're encouraging them to not.  I agree with the Councillors that say we should be leaders in this."
But the male Council members defeated them with a 5-3 vote.
Denise Wong - Kelowna

Monday, March 29, 2010

Glyphosate (Roundup) Re:Evaluation Plan PMRA and EPA

The Canadian Government is Re Evaluating Glyphosate along with the USA EPA, a joint effort. The Re Evaluation is to be completed by 2014.

 The work plan discussed below outlines the anticipated risk assessment and data needs. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is re-evaluating glyphosate as part of its registration review program, and has published a final registration review work plan.1 The PMRA will be working cooperatively with the USEPA on the re-evaluation of glyphosate. The overall Canadian re-evaluation timelines will be closely aligned with those of the USEPA. Currently, the assessment is targeted for completion in 2014

Health Canada Information Note: 

On 25 May 2009, a member of the public requested that a special review be initiated, under Section 17 of the Next link will take you to another Web site Pest Control Product Act, for glyphosate herbicides containing the formulant polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA) on the grounds that they represent unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Twelve documents were provided as justification for the request.

The PMRA's response to this request based on health concerns

The PMRA reviewed the submitted documents and recognizes that the overall conclusion reported by these health studies is that the POEA formulants present in certain glyphosate formulations make the product more toxic than glyphosate alone. However, it is important to note that all the studies were performed in vitro using cell cultures in a solution containing a glyphosate formulation; such an exposure scenario is not representative of what occurs with in vivo exposure of living organisms to glyphosate and POEA. Although information from in vitro studies is considered in the overall assessment of a product, in vivo studies by various routes (oral, dermal or inhalation) are more representative of the hazard potential. The PMRA assessments such as those that were conducted for glyphosate products containing POEA are based primarily on in vivo studies.

In addition, the PMRA concluded that the data presented in a submitted epidemiology study do not provide strong evidence of an important relationship between glyphosate exposure and spontaneous abortions due to unvalidated self-reported exposure information and lack of control for potentially important confounding factors such as maternal age.

Therefore, the PMRA did not find new evidence in this material to support a special review of health effects.

If you have read some of my previous blogs  you will see that Health Canada is very serious about the safety of its Product Registration and Processes. If they [Health Canada] had a genuine health and or environmental concern, this product would not be on the market.

Health Canada's view on Glyphosate pesticide residues in Drinking Water:


Syngenta Offers Viewers a VIDEO on Pesticide Formulations and their Development

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Questions and Answers: Ontario College of Family Physicians Pesticide Report 2004

Many Activists and Organic Product suppliers quote information from the popular OCFP 2004 Literature Review on Epidemiology and Pesticides.

Updated Link: Feb2012

Jeffrey Lowes of Mrep Communications has stated several times over the last couple years that he has an email from one individual, Tye Arbuckle from Health Canada, she indicated she was not even aware of the report until it was published and denied reviewing the OCFP 2004 Report.

 Finally, we are deeply indebted to those who volunteered their time to provide reviews and editing of reference lists or chapters of the report. Our peer and expert reviewers and editors provided important comments and suggestions and new perspectives during writing of the report.

Peer reviewers were Alan Abelsohn, Neil Arya and Kathleen Finlay. Expert reviewers were Tye Arbuckle from Health Canada, Patricia Harper from Sick Childrens’ Hospital Toronto, Linn Holness from University of Toronto and Judith Kaur from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester.

The Project Team:

Margaret Sanborn, MD, CCFP, FCFP, McMaster University
Donald Cole, MD, FRCP(C), University of Toronto
Kathleen Kerr, MD, Dip. Env. Health, Environmental Health Clinic, Sunnybrook & Women’s
College Health Sciences Centre
Cathy Vakil, MD, CCFP, Queen’s University
Luz Helena Sanin, MD, MPH, ScD, University of Toronto, and Autonomous University of
Chihuahua, Mexico
Kate Bassil, MSc, PhD(c), University of Toronto
You may have also come across Dr. Alan Abelsohn who is listed as a reviewer.  He has been in the newspapers before:

TORONTO — I can't do it without you Dr Alan Abelsohn, a 52-year-old family practitioner in Toronto, has been charged with incompetence, professional misconduct and sexual abuse, and may lose his license if convicted. Dr Abelsohn's lawyer told a discipline committee that the female accuser couldn't be trusted. The accuser, who complained she wasn't able to achieve an org*sm, m*sturbat*d with Dr Abelsohn in the room, believing it would help her condition.

Alan Abelsohn's license was suspended for 12 months. Link


 On August 4, 2004 Health Canada (Federal Government) Issued an Information Report regarding the OCFP 2004 Literature Review.

On April 23, 2004, the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) released a literature review on epidemiology studies on pesticides. The review linked pesticides to various illnesses, and stated that children are especially vulnerable to pesticides. In light of the public interest in this report, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) prepared this document to help Canadians better understand how human health and the environment are considered by the pesticide regulatory system in Canada. PMRA is the federal regulatory body responsible for the regulation of pesticides in Canada.

Even in the UK experts have reviewed it and this is what they have said:

"Overall, the ACP has concluded that the report does not raise any new concerns about pesticide safety that were not already being addressed, and does not indicate any need for additional regulatory action in the UK."

The ACP reconsidered the Ontario report at its September 2004 meeting, along with the feedback from the invited experts.  This statement summarises the conclusions of ACP’s discussions to date.
For some years, the ACP Medical and Toxicology Panel has annually scrutinised the abstracts of published papers on pesticides and human health to check for findings that might have implications for pesticide regulation in the UK.  The material covered by the Ontario review overlaps substantially with that which has already been examined by the Panel, but with some differences (the review covers a somewhat longer time period and includes a few papers written in languages other than English, but is restricted to 16 specified health outcomes).
Some of the conclusions of the report accord with those reached by the Medical and Toxicology Panel.  Thus, the Panel has previously noted an apparent consistency of epidemiological reports linking Parkinson’s disease with pesticide exposure, and this led to the commissioning of a detailed review of the topic.  (See Sept 2001 minutes.)  Similarly, we have recently asked the Committee on Mutagenicity to review the literature on biomarkers of genotoxicity in pesticide-exposed workers, in which the frequent report of positive findings seems at odds with the absence of in vivo genotoxicity for almost all pesticides when tested individually for regulatory purposes.  Other conclusions differ markedly from those of the Panel.  For example, the report concludes that “large well-designed cohort studies consistently show statistically significant positive associations” between solid tumours and pesticide exposure, an assertion with which we strongly disagree.
These discrepancies arise from serious flaws in the methods employed in the review.  Most important are:
  • its failure to take account of all or even most of the relevant epidemiological evidence, and the biases inherent in the way in which material was picked out for inclusion;
  • inadequate attention to exposure characteristics and relevant toxicology when interpreting reported associations; and
  • its superficial synthesis of evidence, which inadequately explores the impact of the strengths and weaknesses of individual studies.
Overall, the ACP has concluded that the report does not raise any new concerns about pesticide safety that were not already being addressed, and does not indicate any need for additional regulatory action in the UK.

Advisory Committee on Pesticides:  Supplement to Previous Statement on the Pesticides Literature Review Published by the Ontario College of Family Physicians

At its meeting on 13 January 2005, the ACP agreed the following supplement to its earlier statement on the pesticides literature review published by the Ontario College of Family Physicians.
Supplementary statement
The above comments on the Ontario review and its implications for risk assessment and regulation of pesticides in the UK in no way detract from the unanimous view of the ACP that unnecessary exposure to pesticides should always be avoided.  Pesticides should be used only when the use is justified by potential benefits in pest control and better alternative methods of pest control are unavailable.  Moreover, when pesticides are used, they should always be applied in accordance with the instructions on the label, and in a way that minimises people's exposure as far as is reasonably practical.

Updated June 2010

Health Canada has a Frequently Asked Questions Section on their website

Health Canada Website Link to FAQ

Here is what they say:

What is Health Canada's response to suggestions that pesticides lead to illnesses like cancer and Parkinson's disease?

Health Canada will not register a pesticide that is known to cause cancer or other illnesses when used according to label directions.
Before a pesticide is allowed to be used or sold in Canada, it must undergo a rigorous scientific assessment process to ensure that no harm will occur when pesticides are used according to label directions. All pesticides registered in Canada, including for agricultural, forestry and domestic uses, undergo this level of scrutiny.
If there is strong evidence that exposure to a pesticide causes Parkinson's disease, cancer, other serious illness or negative environmental effects then regulatory action will be taken.

Has Health Canada reviewed the Ontario College of Family Physician's report on pesticides and, if so, what actions did PMRA take as a result?

Scientists within Health Canada and elsewhere have carefully reviewed the Ontario College of Family Physicians report. This report examined a small group of epidemiology studies, and reported potential associations between pesticides and certain cancers. The wider scientific community raised significant concerns with respect to how this literature study was conducted because it did not consider all of the relevant epidemiological evidence.
Epidemiology studies are typically designed to look for associations, rather than causes.
Epidemiological studies have value and are used by Health Canada in different evaluation scenarios where they are considered alongside toxicity studies which examine toxic effects over various dose levels.
Examining animal toxicity studies that analyze the absorption and break down of toxins, combined with exposure studies, is a preferred method for assessing risks to human health. Health Canada uses this approach, which is also supported by the international scientific community, in determining if a pesticide can be used safely.

Some groups indicate that there is a "growing body of evidence suggesting a connection between pesticides and cancer". What is Health Canada doing about this?

Health Canada does not register pesticides that are known to cause cancer or other illnesses when used according to the label directions.
Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency is responsible for administering the Pest Control Products Act on behalf of the Minister of Health. Before a pesticide is allowed to be used or sold in Canada, it must undergo a rigorous scientific assessment process which provides reasonable certainty that no harm, including chronic effects such as cancer, will occur when pesticides are used according to label directions.
Under this pre-market approval process, results from more than 200 types of scientific studies must be submitted to determine if the pesticide would cause any negative effects to people, animals, birds, insects, plants, as well as on the soil and in the water. This assessment takes into consideration sensitive sub-groups, such as pregnant and nursing women, infants, children and seniors.
Additionally, Health Canada scientists review the scientific literature for studies which refer to pesticides. Health Canada recognizes the value of epidemiology studies in risk assessment. The most useful and relevant epidemiological studies are those that properly characterize exposure in terms of how the product is used.

Are my pets safe if they walk on a lawn that has been treated with pesticides?

Potential exposure may occur if pets are allowed on the treated lawn before the pesticide residue has been allowed to dry. They may be exposed through contact with their paws, licking of their bodies, or through eating grass. In order to minimize exposure, after treating your lawn, it is important to follow the label instructions as well as the instructions given to you by your lawn care professional, and restrict pets from the treated lawn until it has dried. No harm is expected, but avoiding exposures whenever possible is recommended.

Is it safe to use the herbicide 2,4-D on my lawn?

Following extensive consultation and scientific review using the most current scientific methods, Health Canada has determined that 2,4-D meets Canada's strict health and safety standards, and as such can be used safely when label directions are followed. Health Canada's review concurs with the findings of regulators in other OECD countries, including the United States, European Union, New Zealand and the Word Health Organization.

Saturday, March 27, 2010


Here is a short clip of Paul Tukey and fellow co worker Scott Reil discussing the dangers of pesticides on WTIC Radio.

Tukeys story starts with a Golf Superintendent in the Wisconsin Audience who came up to him after the showing of the documentary.

"He was a Big Big Guy a Mans Man" whose Kid has had ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) and is battling many problems. 26 years ago this Golf Course Superintendent was "Elbow Deep in the Sauce" mixing the chemicals with his bare hands.
After viewing Tukeys Documentary he now knows he is to blame for his sons problems.

Tukey and Scott Reil talk about a fellow friend who died in 1991 of Cancer. Jim Wright of Prides Corner Farm kept telling Scott "You know and I know whats killing me." Wright used to tell them stories of back in the day when he would apply chemicals with no protection at all because it was the cool thing to do.

Tukey briefly comments on the threat of being "Banned from Canada".

Friday, March 26, 2010

Paul Tukey Talks to Portland Maine News WCSH6

Paul Tukey talks about his sensitivities to chemicals.

He does't have the greatest track record as he indicated in the previous posts audio clip below, spraying for a few years in Maine without a pesticide license could be part of the problem.  I wonder if reading the label really is that confusing.

Full Video Here:

Paul Tukey Short Audio Clip "I sprayed Unabatedly without a Pesticide License"

Here is an snipit of Paul Tukey talking about when he used to spray pesticides without a license. He was on the Faith Middleton Show March 5, 2010 promoting his movie "A Chemical Reaction"

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Vernon BC Star: Lawn Care Operator Speaks Out


Over the past few months, the topic of pesticide safety has been in the news quite regularly. Most newspaper articles seem to concern groups wishing to have "cosmetic" pesticides banned. These groups base these demands on scientific data claimed to support their case that these pesticides are problematic to humans, animals, and the environment. They also demand these bans be put in effect based on the precautionary principle, that they may, or they might cause cancer, or some other disease in humans.

I’d like to look at each of these purposes that these groups use for demanding a ban.

1. They claim that there is scientific data which supports the claim that cosmetic pesticide exposure has been linked to adult and childhood cancers. What should be done with these studies? What should you do if you had evidence of criminal intent? Where should you go with this information? The answer should be obvious. Any, and all data which conclusively shows a link to human harm, ought to be brought to the governing body (Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency) that regulates the material said to be toxic. The PMRA has 350 qualified scientists (not paid by the industry) to review such evidence. Has this been done? I am assuming it has. Was the evidence lacking? I’m assuming it was.
If any product has not been prohibited by the PMRA, then the evidence for harm is lacking. The medicine you take must also be approved by Health Canada. Why are so many willing to trust Health Canada has correctly reviewed the studies regarding the safely of their medicine, but not that for pesticides? Pesticides are the most regulated substances in Canada.

2. It appears that another step taken by those opposed to the use of "cosmetic" pesticides is to create fear in the Canadian public by stating that "cosmetic" pesticides may cause cancer, or any number of other illnesses. You will not be able to find a statement from a qualified scientist that says that they do. Repeat it often enough and it may begin to ring as true. Creating this anxiety, and then offering a solution such as banning "cosmetic pesticides" is insidious, particularly so when the pesticides can not proven to be at fault.

Those creating these fears claim to have the answer, a watered down version of the United Nations Precautionary Principle: “When the activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken ….” The UN version of the principle (the Rio Declaration of 1992) declares that the activity must create “serious and irreversible” harm to be considered under this principle.

This more sensible definition is not the one generally used by those using scare tactics. Simply paraphrased, the Principle states that if something threatens to do harm, eliminate it. Such an all encompassing statement, if taken literally, would have us ban ladders (you might fall off), and would never have allowed airplanes to get off the ground (you might crash).

It is the leading competent authority, the regulatory body of the PMRA (not unqualified, anti-pesticide groups), that should be in charge of deciding what products are safe enough when applied properly. The method of misleading the public in a debate based on fear is shameful, and bullying. Don’t lose your right on unfounded science (to date).

I don’t have all the answers. I follow the regulations (integrated pest management) put in front of me by those who are there to protect the health of the community. I do not like that I now have to lobby the government to not ban "cosmetic’" pesticides that have been registered by the proper authority and certified as safe to use.
I’m certain that there will be many opinions sent in to the B.C. government during the consultation process. I will send in mine with as little qualifications as I have, realizing that any decision on pesticides should be based on science, as defined by real scientists.

If you are opposed to a prohibition of the pesticides you use, fill in the short form at

Henry van der Molen,
Supergreen Lawn and Tree Care

Wichita, Kansas "Pesticde Free" Parks List

Pesticide Free/Limited Use Pesticide Parks by City Council District
District I
  • Chisholm Creek Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Fairmount Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Grove Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Henry Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Hyde Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • K-96 Lake - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Claude Lambe Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Lincoln Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Linwood Park - North - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Linwood Park - South - Limited Use Pesticide
  • McAdams Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Murdock Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Piatt Memorial Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Redbud Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Rivera Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Schweiter Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Skyline Park - Pesticide Free
  • Sleepy Hollow Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Spruce Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • A. Price Woodard Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Lynette Woodard - Limited Use Pesticide
District II
  • Boston Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • College Hill Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Cottonwood Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Cypress Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Eastview Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Edgemoor Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • W.B. Harrison Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Northeast Softball/Baseball Complex - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Stryker Soccer Complex - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Towne Park - Limited Use Pesticide

District III

  • Cessna Park - East - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Cessna Park - West - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Emery Memorial Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Friendship Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Garvey Park - Pesticide Free
  • Herman Hill Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Longview Neighborhood - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Planeview Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Rivera Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • O.J. Watson Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Whitney Village Park - Pesticide Free

District IV
  • Aley Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Glenn Village Park - Pesticide Free
  • Kiwanis Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Osage Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Palisade Park - Pesticide Free
  • Seneca Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • South Lakes Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Southview Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • West Douglas Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • West Side Athletic Field - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Wildwood Park - Limited Use Pesticide

District V
  • Air Capital Memorial Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Barrington Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Brownthrush Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Buffalo Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Country Acres Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Harvest Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Meadows Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Pawnee Prairie Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Redbarn Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Sunset Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Swanson Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • West Meadows Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • West Millbrook Park - Pesticide Free
  • Westlink Park - Limited Use Pesticide

District VI
  • Big Arkansas River Park - Pesticide Free
  • Botanica - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Bridgeport Soccer Field - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Columbine Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Delano Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Emporia Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Evergreen Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Pat Garcia Vet. Mem. Park - Pesticide Free
  • Hellers Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Heritage Square Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Hope Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Meridian Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Minisa Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Naftzger Memorial Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Oak Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Orchard Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Otis Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Prospect Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Reflection Square Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Riverside Park - Central - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Riverside Park - North - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Riverside Park - South - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Finlay Ross Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Schell Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Sim Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Sycamore Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Veterans Memorial Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Victoria Park - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Woodland Park - North - Limited Use Pesticide
  • Woodland Park - South - Limited Use Pesticide

Group that funded pesticide-free parks events has had budget shortfalls, program in Arbor Lodge park might have to be eliminated.

Arbor Lodge Neighborhood Association

General Meeting Minutes 01/21/10


Portland Parks & Recreation Presentation - Sue Glenn, Portland Parks and Recreation coordinator for the N/NE area; John Reed, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator and Alex Salazar from the Maintenance Department discussed budget cuts and concerns regarding Arbor Lodge park.   The group that funded the pesticide-free parks events has had budget shortfalls and thus the program in Arbor Lodge park might have to be eliminated.  Portland Parks Department uses a minimum amount of pesticides and is the only parks department in the country to be certified “salmon safe”.   Thus they don’t want to stop the pesticide-free program in Arbor Lodge, but they need help from neighborhood volunteers and a neighborhood volunteer coordinator.   Ginger Edwards said that she might be interested in being the coordinator.

Pesticide Free Park a Burdon on volunteers and CO2 unfriendly

Portland Parks and Recreation have previously evalutated and compiled a report of their Pesticide free park program since 2004.

Here are some key points in the report which can be downloaded here:

Larger image of the above:

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

New Trend? Pesticide Free Parks now using Pesticides.

Here is one example from 2005 to 2010 of Pesticide Free reverting back to Pesticide Usage.  It is becoming more popular as residents don't want to volunteer their time to a losing battle against weeds.


Cost considerations downscale pesticide-free park effort in Lawrence, KS

23 Jun, 2005 LM Week in Review

LAWRENCE, KS — On June 7, in response to pressure from environmental activists, the city commissioners of Lawrence, KS, voted unanimously to designate Watson Park as "pesticide-free." The seven-acre park adjacent to the downtown was part of the original town of Lawrence.
Watson Park will be a test case so that the community can see the results of a pesticide-free maintenance program. Fred DeVictor, director of Parks and Recreation, said his department would also use the park to find out how much pesticide-free management will actually cost the city.
Although the parks and recreation department showed it spends less than $10,000 a year for pesticides, activists had lobbied the city's commissioners to convert all of the city's 52 parks to pesticide-free maintenance by 2009. However, a cost analysis by the Parks and Recreation staff estimated that the city would have to spend $213,000 for equipment; $116,000, annually for staff; and $95,000, annually for materials to achieve that goal.
In a May 11 memo to the City Manager giving details of the budget requirements for a proposed pesticide-free maintenance program, Mark Hecker, Park & Maintenance Superintendent wrote:
"Most of our professional staff, and most of the horticultural industry, do not believe this is the most cost effective way to manage a park system. If requested, we could provide testimony from industry experts, articles and quotes from trade publications and research done by universities and professional organizations that would detail the proper and safe use of pesticides as a management tool. We have concerns that our inability to use pesticides may reduce the quality of our parks and could threaten the long-term health of the City's parks, trees, shrubs and flowers."
At its May 17 meeting (transcript), the city commissioners listened to testimony from Parks and Recreation employees, citizens and representatives of the GCSAA and USGA. After discussion, it was decided to designate a "signature" pesticide-free park and eventually compare the results to the city's other parks.
Related stories:
"Watson Park set to be pesticide free," Lawrence Journal-World, June 7, 2005.
"City Commission to consider plan to rid parks of pesticides," Lawrence Journal-World, May 29, 2005.
"Study: Pesticide-free parks would heap on costs for city," Lawrence Journal-World, May 17, 2005.
Many of the above links are now inactive.


On March 29, 2005, the City Commission, Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department and local citizens began
development of a pesticide reduction plan for the city’s parks. One high-profile park, Buford Watson, Jr. Park, was
selected for management as pesticide-free. In addition to this park, 33 other lower profile city parks were also classified as pesticide-free. Simultaneously, Category I and II pesticides were eliminated from the Parks and Recreation’s product list, allowing the purchase of only category III and IV pesticides. This product list of pesticides was consolidated throughout the department and made available to the public. A number of alternative products were also purchased and tracked for their effectiveness and comparative costs. In June 2007, a citizen group requested that the city commission make all remaining parks pesticide-free.

In the course of the pilot program with Buford Watson, Jr. Park, it has been found that immediately shifting parks to
pesticide-free is not a feasible solution when attempting to reduce pesticide use. While this program helped staff gain a better understanding of the increased workload it also highlighted necessary budget adjustments for maintaining park properties without the use of pesticides. Initially, local volunteers were used to assist with the added work load associated with the reduction of pesticides. Reliable volunteers can be a key component in assisting with an increased workload. A successful volunteer program requires volunteers to be available on a consistent basis. In the three years that Buford Watson, Jr. Park has been managed as pesticide-free, volunteer hours have diminished from 73 hours in 2005 to 20 hours in 2008. Continued management of this high-profile property as pesticide free without volunteers and budgetary assistance is challenging.

The City of Lawrence Parks and Recreation Department has developed an Integrated Pest Management Policy that
replicates programs from other municipalities to achieve the goals outlined by the Lawrence City Commission. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an ecological approach to pest management designed to prevent and control undesirable weeds, insects, fungi, and rodents. IPM relies on the use of site-specific information about environmental conditions and the dynamics of human characteristics and activities, as well as pest biology and behavior to prevent, resist, and control pests that interfere with the purpose and use of a particular site. When a pest has exceeded a predetermined threshold at a particular site, all appropriate pest control strategies are employed including cultural, biological, mechanical, and chemical controls as a last resort, within the guidelines of this policy. When staff monitoring of a site discovers a pest problem and determines it to be above the threshold level, IPM implements the use of biological and cultural control practices as a first response to a pest problem, and chemical control as a last resort.

Cultural control tactics are physical adjustments made to the landscape to alter pest activity, reproduction or survival. The adjustments can be made by hand or with mechanical devices. Cultural control tactics include, but are not limited to: mulching, pruning and removal of debris from landscape beds. This method has only limited effect on non target organisms and the environment. Biological control is managing pests by using their natural enemies – predators, parasites, and pathogens. Biological control is often natural and maintains pest populations at a tolerable level. If pests are not naturally maintained the habitat of the landscape may need to be altered to attract the natural enemies. Also, the predators, parasites or pathogens could be physically introduced into the landscape. These tactics can be effective in certain situations, but are more time consuming and subject to other environmental factors outside of staff control.

IPM offers park staff a system of managing parks without depending on pesticides. In turn, this provides a safer place for people to enjoy the outdoors, improves the health and vitality of the park’s ecosystem, and ultimately reduces maintenance needs and costs.

The pesticide information and policy in this document pertain to areas designated as parks, cemeteries and athletic complexes. It will exclude city right-of-way locations, city-owned public buildings, and other city maintained areas not designated as parks or future parks and Eagle Bend Golf Course.

Here are the products they are applying to their parks lawns now.

Notice that they have removed DIPEL as an alternative product as well.

Here is their pesticide usage for just 1 of 3 districts.

Find more information here:

California USA Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam offers pesticide overview

Director Mary-Ann Warmerdam provides an overview of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and how it fulfills its mission to protect human health and the environment by regulating pesticide sales and use, and by fostering reduced-risk pest management.

Kamloops Bylaw Information

Kamloops has the best information, options available to its residents and Industry Members compared to most other Citys and Provinces in Canada that I have come across in the last several years.  Although accreditation programs for Licensed Pesticide Operators seem to benefit the product suppliers the most, they offer an online resource locator for the public, viewable here:   PlantHealthBc

Uncle Adolph.

Uncle Adolph.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Talisman Resort Nominee Inc. permitted 16 million litres of water for snowmaking

With the new Ontario Environmental Registry its easy to see things you would not have seen previously.

Did you know it takes 16 Million litres of water over a 90 day period to create/maintain snow.

They also require 1/2 a Million litres of water for their Golf Course over a 100 day period.

Click on the Title/link above and see some of the stats. From Pesticides to Water Usage Permits.

Talisman Resort:

This is a Permit to Take Water 4770-6QHPT2 for golf course irrigation and snowmaking purposes. Water will be taken from one (1) river and one (1) pond. Details of the water taking are as follows:

Source of water: Beaver River
Purpose of taking: Commercial – Snowmaking
Period of taking: November 1 - February 29
Maximum rate per minute (Litres): 9,547
Maximum number of hours of taking per day: 24
Maximum volume per day (Litres): 13,747,104
Maximum number of days of taking per year: 90
Length of time: 10 years

Source of water: Beaver River
Purpose of taking: Commercial – Golf Course Irrigation
Period of taking: April 15 - October 15
Maximum rate per minute (Litres): 800
Maximum number of hours of taking per day: 24
Maximum volume per day (Litres): 500,000
Maximum number of days of taking per year: 100
Length of time: 10 years

Source of water: Talisman Spring
Purpose of taking: Commercial – Snowmaking
Period of taking: November 1 - February 29
Maximum rate per minute (Litres): 4,546
Maximum number of hours of taking per day: 24
Maximum volume per day (Litres): 3,000,000
Maximum number of days of taking per year: 90
Length of time: 10 years

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Amaizeingly Green Producers of Organic Corn Gluten in Collingwood Fined $325,000 by the Ontario Ministry of Environment

Amaizeingly Green from Collingwood Ontario was fined $325,000 for Odor Emmisions from their plant.

These people make ORGANIC Corn Gluten Meal.

It sounds like this company has spent a large amount of money so far trying to comply.
This proposal is for an amendment to existing Certificate of Approval (Air) No. 7216-78HMF8. The purpose of this proposal is to amend the existing Certificate to permit the modifications outlined in an odour abatement plan for Amaizeingly Green Products, L.P., a fuel grade ethanol and corn wet milling manufacturing facility located in Collingwood, Ontario.
The proposed modifications consist of: the decommissioning of the Gluten Silo Dust Collector; the removal of the Pellet Mill Exhaust; the re-routing of the Fibre Processing Exhaust and Yeast Centrifuge Exhaust to the Combined Scrubber; the combining of the Distillation Building Ventilation into one (1) new exhaust stack; the ducting of building air to the Boilers & Yeast Dryer Exhaust; the installation of a Cooling Tower; the installation of an exhaust serving the Flash Dryer; and the installation of two (2) Backup Boiler Exhausts.
Contaminants emitted to the atmosphere from the proposed equipment include nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, ethanol, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and isooctane.

Latest Update:

Amaizeingly Green given another deadline to stop odours
Posted 1 month ago

Amaizeingly Green has been given until March 26 to control its odours -- but the general manager of the plant says that's too tight a deadline to do something properly.

"It's next to impossible," said Martin Kazmir after Ministry of Environment representatives updated councillors on Monday on the latest control order issued to the plant. "The complexity of the situation... to do it right and meet the deadline (isn't realistic)."

Amaizeingly Green had proposed May 24 as a deadline date.

MOE district manager Cindy Hood said the plant was issued an amendment to the plant's control order on Friday after more complaints of noise and odour at the plant had been made to the ministry.

Hood said the plant's odour abatement plant approved last May has resulted in a "significant improvement"; however, "there continues to be adverse odours... and odours that would be considered offensive.

"Although they tend to be less intense than a year ago, there continues to be odours."

There be modifications to the abatement plan following the shutdown of the plant last summer, the most recent in December when plant management proposed taking a piece of abatement equipment from an area of the plant no longer being utilized and using it to reduce odours emanating from the plant's germ dryer.

Hood said that required an OK from the Ministry, and while using the equipment was fine, the ministry wanted to see it done sooner than later.

Plant management said May 24, but that was "not acceptable," she said, noting the ministry-required date of March 26, as identified in last Friday's order.

Hood said plant management also needs to come back to the ministry by March 15 with a contingency plan if the equipment isn't successful.

Hood said the plant has had nine confirmed 'adverse odours' since it reopened in July Hood's presentation inspired tough talk from Councillor Tim McNabb, who claimed the odour from the plant was so strong the other day while he was driving by the facility that it was causing his kids to choke.


COLLINGWOOD — On June 19, 2009 Amaizeingly Green Products GP Ltd. (formerly named Collingwood Ethanol GP Ltd.) pleaded guilty to two counts under the Environmental Protection Act and was fined a total of $325,000 plus victim fine surcharges. The first count was for discharging a contaminant, namely odour, into the environment that caused an adverse effect and the second count was for operating equipment without a Certificate of Approval.

The Court heard that the company operates a manufacturing plant in an industrial area of Collingwood. The plant processes corn into a number of agricultural and industrial products, including ethanol. Since 2007, the ministry and the company had received numerous complaints about odour and noise from residents in the surrounding area.

The company has been spending money on equipment and process improvements to address noise and odour and has been complying with the requirements of a ministry Control Order. On May 11, 2009, the company announced it would voluntarily cease operations on a temporary basis as of June 30, 2009 in order to implement further odour and noise abatement measures.

Prior to the restart of the plant, the company will provide a restart protocol and a detailed plan regarding an assessment of the effectiveness of the measures taken. The company is providing reports and updates to all interested parties.

The company was charged following an investigation by the Ministry of the Environment’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch.

Justice of the Peace G. Solursh heard the case in the Ontario Court of Justice in Collingwood, Ontario and imposed sentence on June 19, 2009. The company paid the fine immediately following the court appearance.

Organic Foods Fail Inspections Again

Think twice before spending extra money on Organic Products.
Uncle Adolph.

Oversight of the National Organic Program

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Office of Inspector General
DATE: March 9, 2010

This report presents the results of our audit of the National Organic Program. Your response to the official draft report, dated February 25, 2010, is included as exhibit B. Excerpts of your response and the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) position are incorporated into the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Based on your response, we have reached management decisions on all of the report’s 14 recommendations, and no further response to us is necessary. Please follow your agency’s internal procedures in forwarding documentation for final action to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during this audit.

Executive Summary
Results in Brief
We conducted this audit to assess the effectiveness of the Agricultural Marketing Service’s (AMS) corrective actions implemented in response to our prior audit
Audit Report 01601-03-Hy 1
1 of the National Organic Program (NOP). We also conducted this audit because of the size and growth of the organic industry as well as the public’s increased interest in purchasing organic products. In 2008, the organic industry had sales of $24.6 billion and had grown between 14 and 21 percent annually over the past decade. The NOP, created in October 2002, has the responsibility to assure consumers that organic products meet uniform standards and that they are appropriately labeled. NOP regulations require that agricultural products labeled as organic originate from farms or handling operations certified by a State or private entity that has been accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
In our prior audit, we reported that AMS had not (1) established protocols for working with the National Organic Standards Board2 (Board) or resolving conflicts with them, or (2) fully developed internal operating procedures, particularly for resolving complaints and investigations and for providing guidance to certifying agents and their organic operators to ensure consistency in implementing program requirements. We found that AMS officials made improvements to the program since our prior audit, and implemented corrective actions for 8 of the 10 recommendations issued in our prior audit report (see Exhibit A). Members of the Board stated that AMS’ implementation of the protocol for resolving conflicts with the Board had improved the relationship between the Board and AMS. In addition, during our audit, NOP officials completed restructuring their complaint handling process and established procedures for receiving, tracking, and processing complaints. These officials stated they secured additional funding which, in part, enabled them to implement the structural and operational changes to improve the program.
However, we believe that NOP officials need to further improve program administration and strengthen their management controls to ensure more effective enforcement of program requirements when serious violations, including operations that market product as organic while under suspension, are found. In addition, they need to strengthen their oversight of certifying agents and organic operations to ensure that organic products are consistently and uniformly meeting NOP standards.
We found that NOP officials need to improve their enforcement of program regulations and their resolution of complaints, as noted in our prior report. NOP officials did not have adequate procedures or a system for tracking the receipt, review, and disposition of complaints and any subsequent enforcement actions. We identified the following:
Between January 2006 and February 2008, AMS’ Compliance and Analysis Program provided the results of its investigations of five certified organic operations to NOP. Although AMS recommended that NOP officials take enforcement actions against these operations, we found that NOP did not respond to these in a timely or effective manner. In addition, in those cases where enforcement actions were issued, NOP did not monitor the organic operations to ensure compliance with those actions. As a result, NOP never issued the recommended enforcement action against one of the five organic operations, one that improperly marketed nonorganic mint under USDA’s organic label for 2 years; in the other four cases, the enforcement actions took between 7 and 32 months to issue. During this time the operations continued to improperly market their products as certified organic. One of these four, even after signing a compliance agreement
Audit Report 01601-03-Hy 2
3 that it would not apply for and receive organic certification for a period of 5 years, continued to market its product as organic without AMS’ knowledge.
NOP officials did not resolve 19 of 41 program complaints4 within a reasonable timeframe for cases opened since 2004. These 19 complaints went unresolved for an average of about 3 years. In January 2009 we brought this condition to the attention of management officials. They stated they were unaware of the status of the unresolved complaints. At this time they began to take action on the unresolved complaints. As of June 2009, we found that NOP had resolved 13 of the 19 complaints.
We also noted that NOP officials need to address ongoing issues with California’s State Organic Program (SOP). The Act allows any State to apply to the Secretary to implement a program for regulating organic products produced and handled within that State. The State must have compliance, mediation, and appeal procedures that meet NOP regulations to become an SOP. When officials of the California Department of Food and Agriculture applied to have an approved SOP, they did not have the required compliance and enforcement procedures in place. NOP officials approved California’s program because they wanted to allow California the opportunity to operate and develop procedures as they progressed. California has the most organic acreage in the country, with over 2,000 certified organic operations and organic product sales of over $1.8 billion in 2007. Although NOP officials believed that the State would address these issues following its initial approval, they discovered in a 2005 review that the California SOP continued to lack these required procedures. NOP officials have continued to work with California officials to comply with program requirements; however, as of November 2009, the procedures have yet to be finalized. As a result, the California SOP is not equipped to properly enforce the requirements of the NOP.
Although the Organic Foods Production Act5 of 1990 requires certifying agents to conduct periodic residue testing6 of organic products, we found that NOP officials did not incorporate these provisions into NOP regulations. None of the four certifying agents we visited conducted periodic residue testing of the approximately 5,000 certified operations for which they were responsible, and there is no assurance that certifying agents performed regular periodic testing at any of the approximately 28,000 certified organic operations worldwide. Without such testing,
A compliance agreement is an enforcement action accepted by all parties that brings an operation into compliance with NOP regulations.
NOP-related complaints can result in enforcement actions against certifying agents and/or organic operations.
Section 2107(a) (6).
This testing determines whether agricultural products contain any residues of pesticides, or of nonorganic or natural toxicants.

Get the Full Results Here:

Friday, March 19, 2010

Child dies after being administered neem oil

TNN, Mar 20, 2010, 06.52am IST
CHENNAI: One-and-a-half year old Dilip,who was administered neem oil to wean him off breast milk,died on Thursday after nearly six days of intensive care at the Institute of Child Health (ICH).

Doctors suspect that the oil could have contained a poisonous alkaloid,strychnine.In fact,the ICH has reported 50 such deaths in the past year.

Minutes after he was given the neem oil at his residence in Adambakkam,Dilip swooned.His sister,Devi (4),who was also given the oil for deworming,also collapsed.Their parents,Geetha and Lingam,daily wage labourers,rushed them to the ICH in Egmore on Saturday.

It is the most common scene we see in the hospital these days.At least 50 children have died due to strychnine poisoning in the past year.Strychnine is used as a pesticide to kill rodents and birds.We found that some shops sell neem oil which is either adulterated or contains strychnine, said Dr Saradha Suresh,ICH director.

Lorne Hepworth replies to Columnist Paul Hanley Saskatoon

Pesticide ban unwarranted
By Lorne Hepworth, The StarPhoenixMarch 19, 2010 Columnist Paul Hanley neglected to provide readers with some important information when he proposed that Saskatoon re-examine its pesticide use policy.

Well-maintained public and private landscapes make for happier, healthier communities. Sometimes, however, even the best-tended properties face threats from insects, weeds or disease. Pest control products exist to protect valuable green spaces.

As Canadians, we can rest assured that before any pesticide can be sold, it must undergo a comprehensive scientific review and risk assessment by Health Canada that includes a review of any scientifically credible studies available. Unlike the activist groups pushing to ban these highly scientific products, Health Canada cannot cherry-pick to achieve the results it wants.

Canada's plant science industry is committed to safety, and we demonstrate this continually by investing in research and development to create newer, safer and more environmentally friendly ways to control pests that harm people, property and crops.

Arbitrary pesticide bans do nothing to protect citizens; they merely create a situation where homeowners and municipalities are unable to use Health Canada-approved products to properly protect their investments in urban landscaping.

Our industry welcomes the opportunity to talk about the benefits our products provide and to answer questions people have. However it would be irresponsible of us not to set the record straight when there is misinformation about our products, particularly given the critical role these tools play in contributing to people's health and well-being by providing an abundant, varied and safe food supply.

Lorne Hepworth

President, CropLife Canada

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

RISE on the Road with DeBug The Myths

RISE on the Road with DeBug The Myths

Debug the Myths, a consumer education program sponsored by RISE, is hitting the road to help people understand the benefits of pesticide and fertilizer products.


WASHINGTON - Debug the Myths, a consumer education program sponsored by RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment), is hitting the road to help people understand the benefits of pesticide and fertilizer products. The Debug the Myths branded RV will be making stops all along the East coast, starting in Tampa, Fla. and ending in Buffalo, NY, featuring interactive opportunities for both kids and adults to engage in.

Participants at the road show stops will experience the following:

• The chance to star in their own Honey, I Shrunk the Kids moment by taking a picture in front of a green screen and choosing a "pest's eye view" background to add to the image.
• Learn what invasive pest matches their personality by taking the What Pest Are You?
• Help with a community clean-up to demonstrate how pest management and plant health products protect and beautify green areas.
• Discover where pests might be hiding in their home by taking a virtual house tour to uncover unexpected house guests.

The Debug the Myths RV can be tracked on the Debug the Myths Web site ( Photos, videos and response from tour participants will be posted on the site throughout the tour. The tour will include the following stops:

• Tampa (March 17-21): Debug the Myths will sponsor a Toronto Blue Jays spring training game and swarm Florida’s Largest Home & Garden Show. DeBug the Myths also is teaming up to clean up by working with the Boys and Girls Club of Tampa to makeover the green space adjacent to their facility.

• White Plains, New York (March 26-28): Homeowners in Westchester County are known for beautiful homes and landscaping. Debug the Myths is partnering with the White Plains Parks and Recreation Department on Saturday, March 27, for a Family Fun Day at Delfino Park.

Future stops and activities will be announced in the coming weeks on

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Monica Campbell: Science Required and Precautionary Principle from boths sides of Mouth.

Monica Campbell indicated in may places on the internet that the precautionary principal should be applied when it comes to safety. From lawn chemicals to air pollution.

Here is one of her statements just recently:

Ross McKitrick has turned his sights on the health effects of smog, concluding in a new study that pollution has no impact on the number of hospital admissions for respiratory illness.

Monica Campbell, a toxicologist and manager of the Toronto health department's environmental health office, said the majority of research - literally hundreds of studies - have found a link between pollution and health. She called some aspects of the professor's method "troubling," noting he failed to consider cardiovascular and other diseases linked to pollution.

"We rely on the wealth of evidence in the scientific community, particularly from epidemiologists, who have demonstrated for many years - and repeatedly - the significant correlation between ambient pollution and health," she said. "We'd be remiss and, quite frankly, irresponsible to ignore that."

What is troubling about her statement is that when it comes to PESTICIDES it seems we are remiss of quite frankly, irresponsibly ignoring the Scientific Evidence and applying the Precautionary Principle.

Here she says:

”When we place
children’s health at
the centre of our
concern about
government policy
makers and
regulators will need
to re-examine their
standards, risk
and exposure
calculations for
contaminants in the
environment, based
on the greater
vulnerability of
our children.”
Monica Campbell,
Toronto Public Health

Has the PMRA (Health Canada) not taken this into consideration?

They said they have:

Can Approved Uses of 2,4-D Affect Human Health?
2,4-D is unlikely to affect your health when used according to the revised label directions.
When assessing health risks, two key factors are considered: The levels at which no health effects occur and the levels to which people may be exposed. The dose levels used to assess risks are established to protect the most sensitive human population (e.g., children and nursing mothers). Only those uses for which the exposure is well below levels that cause no effects in animal testing are considered acceptable for registration.
Reference doses define levels to which an individual can be exposed over a single day (acute) or lifetime (chronic) and expect no adverse health effects. Generally, dietary exposure from food and water is acceptable if it is less than 100% of the acute reference dose or chronic reference dose (acceptable daily intake). An acceptable daily intake is an estimate of the level of daily exposure to a pesticide residue that, over a lifetime, is believed to have no significant harmful effects. Human exposure to 2,4-D was estimated from residues in treated crops and drinking water, including the most highly exposed sub-population (e.g., children 1-6 years old).

This info was posted on the Blog previously. "The Lawn is Safe" Excerpts from the PMRA Re-Evaluation of 2,4-D.

The PMRA (Health Canada) has also commented on the Precautionary Principal:

The PMRA is supportive of the Precautionary Principle. Under both the existing and new PCPA, a pesticide can not be or remain registered for use in Canada unless any associated risks to health or the environment have been determined to be acceptable. Risks are acceptable if, on the basis of extensive scientific data, it has been determined that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result when the pesticide is used as directed. This standard of acceptability applies to both the pre-market evaluation of pesticides proposed for registration and the re-evaluation of registered pesticides for continued registration. It provides a high level of protection from risk of harm by addressing risks in general, not restricted to threats of "serious or irreversible damage".

Info has been posted previously on the Blog. "Allan Taylor Petition"

Is it possible that Monica Campbell and Tyrone Hayes are one in the same when it comes to using their job position to promote their Environmental beliefs. The truth comes second?

Mark Mackenzie of the Green Party is on the board of directors for Prevent Cancer Now and runs an organic Lawn Care Business. Will he use politics to promote his beliefs?

Some 2009 info on Mark:

Uncle Adolph

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The Lawn is Safe National Post 2008 article

The National Post printed several articles on the safety of 2,4-D. Here is just one of them 1 month after the Health Canada PMRA release of their latest Re-Evaluation of 2,4-D in 2008.

Uncle Adolph

The lawn is safe
Posted: June 16, 2008, 7:14 PM by NP Editor
Junk Science, Health Canada, 2, 4-D, pesticides
On Friday, May 16, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PEMA) released its final reevaluation of 2,4-D, the leading pesticide in use in Canada. It was one of the most comprehensive science reviews in Canadian history, carried out exclusively by Health Canada scientists. Below are excerpts adapted from the PEMA report.

After a thorough reevaluation of the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D), Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has decided to allow continued registration for the sale and use in Canada of certain products containing 2,4-D.
Products containing 2,4-D do not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. They also have value for lawn and turf, agriculture, forestry and industrial uses when used according to the label directions proposed in previous consultation documents.

What Does Health Canada Consider When Making a Re-evaluation Decision?
The key objective of the Pest Control Products Act is to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products. Health or environmental risk is considered acceptable if there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result from use or exposure to the product under its conditions or proposed conditions of registration. The act also requires that products have value when used according to the label directions.

What is 2,4-D?
2,4-D is a selective systemic phenoxy herbicide that mimics the plant growth regulator indole-3-acetic acid (also known as auxin). It is registered for the control of broadleaf weeds, weedy trees and brush and aquatic weeds after they emerge. Use is permitted on fine turf, aquaculture (oyster farms), aquatic non-food sites, forests and woodlots (conifer release and forest site preparation), terrestrial feed and feed crops and industrial non-food sites (non-cropland).

Can Approved Uses of 2,4-D Affect Human Health?
2,4-D is unlikely to affect your health when used according to the revised label directions.
When assessing health risks, two key factors are considered: The levels at which no health effects occur and the levels to which people may be exposed. The dose levels used to assess risks are established to protect the most sensitive human population (e.g., children and nursing mothers). Only those uses for which the exposure is well below levels that cause no effects in animal testing are considered acceptable for registration.
Reference doses define levels to which an individual can be exposed over a single day (acute) or lifetime (chronic) and expect no adverse health effects. Generally, dietary exposure from food and water is acceptable if it is less than 100% of the acute reference dose or chronic reference dose (acceptable daily intake). An acceptable daily intake is an estimate of the level of daily exposure to a pesticide residue that, over a lifetime, is believed to have no significant harmful effects. Human exposure to 2,4-D was estimated from residues in treated crops and drinking water, including the most highly exposed sub-population (e.g., children 1-6 years old).

What Is the Value of 2,4-D?
Today, 2,4-D is the third most widely used herbicide in Canada based on the amount of active ingredient applied. The use of 2,4-D reduces a portion of the economic losses incurred annually by weeds across Canada. Over the past 40 years, 2,4-D has played an important role in maintaining turf. Without it, the number of broadleaf weed control products presently available to homeowners would be severely limited.
Most of the domestic class products used to control broadleaf weeds on lawns contain 2,4-D; there are few registered alternatives in Canada. 2,4-D also controls a wide variety of broadleaf weeds in non-turf sites. It has long been recognized as being a superior tank mixing partner with other herbicides. These tank mixes control a broader range of weeds compared to products containing only a single active ingredient, resulting in fewer applications, less soil compaction and reduced costs for growers.
2,4-D is essential for managing groups of weeds resistant to other types of herbicides. After decades of use, there is little evidence of weeds developing resistance to this product.

Has the PMRA considered the ban of 2,4-D in Sweden and the associated decline in non-Hodgkins lymphoma (Hardell et al. 2003)?
2,4-D is no longer used in Sweden or Norway, and its use is severely restricted in Denmark. Environmental effects are cited as the primary reason for these actions as 2,4-D has the potential to enter groundwater, the primary source of drinking water in these countries. However, subsequent to these actions, the European Commission, upon completion of its re-evaluation of 2,4-D in October, 2001, concluded that 2,4-D was acceptable for continued registration.
A number of other epidemiology studies (both independent and industry-funded) from the U.S., New Zealand and Australia report no association between 2,4-D and soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or Hodgkin’s lymphoma (Smith et al. 1983, Hoar et al. 1986, Woods et al. 1987), and more recent studies have not shown an association between 2,4-D and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers (e.g. Asp et al. 1994, Lynge 1998, Burns et al. 2001). Several major scientific panels have evaluated this body of research and have described the evidence for cancer effect in humans as limited, inconclusive, inconsistent and weak.

Various studies report an association between 2,4-D use and breast cancer. Did the PMRA consider these studies in their assessment?
The PMRA examined relevant health-related studies during its evaluation of 2,4-D and reviewed the references provided with this comment. Mills et al. (2005) is an epidemiological case-control study for breast cancer in Hispanic agricultural workers in California. Study results indicate there is no associated increase in breast cancer incidence when all potential chemical exposures were combined. In fact, an increase in chemical uses was actually associated with a decreased incidence of breast cancer. Also, confounding factors such as smoking, previous residence, drinking, diet and family history were not taken into consideration.

How is 2,4-D related to Agent Orange?
Agent Orange was a mixture of 2,4-D and a second herbicide, 2,4,5-T. However, the chemicals used for Agent Orange, and their contaminant levels, were not the same as those commercially available at the time, or since. With the refined manufacturing processes that have been imposed by federal regulatory bodies over the years, contamination of 2,4-D with dioxin levels of concern is not expected. 2,4,5-T was found to be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) at levels much higher than ever seen in 2,4-D. 2,4,5-T was withdrawn from the market in the early 1980s, in part, because of concerns with dioxins.
There is no indication of widespread neurological effects in the extensive 2,4-D toxicology database. While certain pesticides, such as specific carbamate and organophosphate insecticides, inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE), this is not a typical endpoint of concern associated with herbicides such as 2,4-D.

Renu Gandhi, of Cornell University’s Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors program, recanted the position that 2,4-D is not known to cause cancer in a 2001 Fact Sheet entitled Pesticides and Breast Cancer Risk: An Evaluation of 2,4-D.
There is no indication that Gandhi recanted his position on 2,4-D and cancer in the 2001 update of his paper. As in 1998, Gandhi states, “There are no reports that indicate a direct link between 2,4-D exposure and cancer in humans.” While there is concern with respect to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, “results from different studies are not consistent. While one half of the studies indicated higher rates of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among populations exposed to 2,4-D, the other half did not.”

Japanese researchers reported in 2005 that 2,4-D exerts both estrogenic and androgenic effects in rainbow trout. These effects may lead to health outcomes as diverse as precocious puberty, obesity and diabetes, and cancers.
The concentrations used in the Japanese study are extremely high and not relevant to concentrations typically found in the environment. Based on present-day standards, no evidence for effects on the endocrine system were noted in the 2,4-D toxicology database.

We should not trust industry-sponsored studies.
All pesticide applicants are required to develop a comprehensive database of information that is critically assessed by the PMRA’s scientists to determine if and under what conditions of use a pesticid2-4e will pose no harm to environmental and human health. The studies the applicants submit must be conducted in compliance with internationally accepted study protocols. Scientists and regulators design these protocols to produce scientifically valid data. Countries including Canada, the United States, European Union and other members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have harmonized data requirements and study protocols. These studies are conducted by industry or in industry-contracted laboratories and they must be in compliance with good laboratory practice. This ensures in-depth documentation of study conduct and the results produced. Compliance with good laboratory practice gives regulators the ability to audit laboratories, data and study samples to ensure their reliability.
The PMRA scientists can and do reject studies that are deemed to be deficient, that unjustifiably deviate from established study protocols or for scientific issues that affect the ability to interpret the data. The studies industry submits to the PMRA are generally of very high quality. In contrast to published scientific studies, which the PMRA also examines, industry-sponsored studies often include raw data. This translates into thousands of pages of data for a given compound, which undergo thorough analyses and cross-checking between studies to ensure data consistency. As a result of the evaluation of data industry submitted to the PMRA, the PMRA can also request additional data to address concerns arising from the evaluation.

Financial Post
Excerpted from Health Canada’s Re-evaluation Decision, (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) acetic Acid [2,4-D], May 16, 2008.

Photo: National Post file photo