PREVENT CANCER NOW: BAN PESTICIDES IN YOUR COMMUNITY!

Support a Pesticide Bylaw

Over 150 municipalities, including Vancouver, Toronto, Maple Ridge, Nelson, and Invermere as well as the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick have passed legislation banning or regulating the use of cosmetic pesticides. This means that over half of Canadians are protected from cosmetic pesticides.


What you can do NOW to help eliminate carcinogens in your life. . . The following resources will help your community get a pesticide bylaw in place before Spring 2011!

  





                                                                                     COMMUNITY TOOLKIT

 ●  RESOURCES FOR COMMUNITY  
       ACTION
 ●  PESTICIDE RESEARCH
 ●  PESTICIDE FACTSHEET
 ●  MODEL PESTICIDE-USE BYLAW
 ●  ONLINE TOOLS & ACTION


 MODEL PESTICIDE-USE BYLAW

• Adapt the following Model Bylaw to your community!

  
ONLINE TOOLS & ACTION

• Petition for a Pesticide By-Law (Download it!)
• Tell your retailer to stop selling pesticides (Thanks to the David Suzuki Foundation)
• Let the NS Government know where you stand on cosmetic pesticides! (Thanks to the Ecology Action Centre)
• Stop the use of cosmetic pesticides in Alberta!
• Send an online letter to your Premier (Thanks to the David Suzuki Foundation)
• Planet Natural: Tips for a Healthy Lawn

 PESTICIDE FACTSHEET
   WHAT IS A PESTICIDE?

• Pesticides are substances intended to kill or otherwise control weeds, insects, fungi or pests. They can be over-the-counter products, or special chemicals not easily available to the public. Examples include herbicides that kill weeds or insecticides that kill bugs.

   WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM ‘COSMETIC USE OF PESTICIDES’?

• Also known as the ‘ornamental’ or ‘non-essential’ use of pesticides, this means pesticides which are being used to enhance the appearance of private gardens and lawns, as well as parks, recreational facilities and golf courses, by controlling unwanted weeds, pests, and plants or to prevent blemishes and other imperfections.

   WHY GO PESTICIDE FREE?

• Increasing evidence links pesticide exposure to serious health and environmental problems.
• Young children and babies are at a greater risk from the effects of pesticides because of their small size, their rapid development and immature immune systems, as well as their behaviour including playing on lawns and floors and putting their hands in their mouth. Exposure to pesticides is linked to childhood cancers, kidney and liver damage, and birth defects.
• In adults, pesticides have been linked to Parkinson’s disease, reproductive problems, and cancers.
  Pesticides don’t stop at the fence or garden gate and they pollute waterways and the air, landing in our yards, gardens and homes.
• Risks to pets include increased aggression and thyroid enlargement in cats and increased rates of cancer in dogs. Also vulnerable are many wildlife species, including fish, frogs, turtles, and of course the beneficial insects, earthworms, and pollinating bees.

   HOW TO REDUCE YOUR EXPOSURE

• Use healthy alternatives - there are numerous alternatives to using pesticides;
• Check labels on garden products and ask questions;
• Use non-toxic solutions such as herbicidal or insecticidal soap, borax, acetic acid (vinegar) or corn gluten;
• Adopt healthy lawn practices such as pulling weeds by hand, over-seeding, mowing high and watering infrequently; and
• Spread the Word and Speak Out! Let your local government and others in the community know that you support making your community pesticide-free. Email, fax or hand-write a letter to your local Mayor and Council and/or the local newspaper to voice your support for a pesticide-free community. See the resources section for model legislation and more.

       DOWNLOAD FACTSHEET






Our Mission:
• To build a Canada-wide movement to eliminate the preventable causes of cancer.

Our Purpose:
• To make the primary prevention of cancer a priority through education, legislation and policy changes.


Our Goals:
• To create a broadly based national movement for cancer prevention and environmental health promotion.
• To promote the use of the precautionary principle.
• To promote improved regulations and policies that protect the public’s health and the health of workers exposed to carcinogens on the job.
• To eradicate environmental and workplace exposures to carcinogens and other health hazards.
• To educate the public on actions that individuals, communities, businesses, and governments can take to reduce or eliminate cancer-causing exposures.

Toxic Free Canada is calling on the provincial government to ban cosmetic pesticides. Without provincial legislation retailers continue to sell dangerous pesticides even in municipalities where bylaws prevent use of those products.

“Until the province enacts cosmetic pesticide legislation, stores like Canadian Tire will continue to sell products that negatively impact human and environmental health,” says Toxic Free Canada campaigner Emily-Anne Paul. “Even though many municipalities have bylaws preventing the use of these products, without provincial laws against it retailers can continue to sell them.”

Over thirty municipalities across British Columbia have already acted to ban cosmetic pesticides. They join two Canadian provinces, Ontario and Quebec, in recognizing the negative impact of these products and are acting to protect their communities and the environment. However, without provincial legislation in BC aimed at preventing the sale of these cosmetic pesticides municipal bylaws have little effect.

Cosmetic pesticides, those used to kill unwanted plants such as dandelions and other weeds, contain many active ingredients that are classified as human carcinogens, reproductive toxins, neurotoxins or endocrine-disrupting chemicals. These chemicals have negative impacts on the environment when they travel through groundwater and storm drains into rivers and oceans, and on human health, especially children who are the most venerable to exposure.

“Toxic Free Canada is calling on the provincial government enact a legal prohibition on the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides as soon as possible,” concludes Paul. She also encourages the public to learn more about what Toxic Free Canada is doing to raise awareness about cosmetic pesticides to visit the website at: www.toxicfreecanada.ca.

More than two years of alliance-building around pesticide reduction paid a major dividend as municipal representatives around the province voted overwhelmingly to call on the provincial government to pass legislation restricting cosmetic pesticides.

The 200 delegates to the Union of B.C. Municipalities (UBCM) convention in Penticton voted Sept. 25 to endorse a motion submitted by Kamloops city council urging the provincial government to enact legislation to ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides province-wide. A similar resolution from Comox, calling on the province to give municipalities the authority to set bylaws on the use of pesticides on all private lands, also passed.

The vote on the resolutions capped months of campaigning by an alliance of Toxic Free Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society(CCS) and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), which have been staging forums around the province alerting British Columbians to the health and environmental effects of pesticides and encouraging municipal councils to enact bylaws curbing pesticide use.

CCS, CAPE and Toxic Free Canada were first together on a forum in Kamloops in 2006 called Chemical Trespass and Preventing Cancer: The Pesticide Connection that was organized by Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association and the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

At the UBCM convention both Kamloops mayor Terry Lake and Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan, as well as Burnaby councillor Dan Johnstone, spoke forcefully in favour of the pesticide resolution.
The Kamloops resolution, listed as B81 in the delegates' book, states:

“WHEREAS residents of the Province of British Columbia are increasingly requesting their local governments to ban the use of cosmetic pesticides within their boundaries in order to mitigate concerns that these pesticides present a threat to the environment, children, pets and personal health.

“As these bylaws are being implemented in some municipalities, it has been found that community bans have little effect on overall pesticide sales. This is in sharp contrast to the Province of Quebec which has seen a fifty percent drop in pesticide use since their legislated ban in 1994;

“AND WHEREAS the Community Charter does not give communities the legislative authority to ban the sale of pesticides, only to regulate their use:

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Province of British Columbia enact provincial legislation that will ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides province-wide.”

The Comox resolution, number B82, states:

“WHEREAS the application of pesticides contributes to the cumulative chemical load absor by the natural environment;

“AND WHEREAS pesticides cannot be necessarily confined to a single location, but move through the environment in the air, land and water and may have an impact on non-target organisms and plants;

“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the provincial government be urged to control pesticide use by mandating sales and retail display restrictions across BC;

“AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provincial government be urged to amend the Spheres of Concurrent Jurisdictions Environmental and Wildlife Regulation to allow local governments to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to the use of cosmetic pesticides on all private lands.”

* * *  

Source: PreventCancerNow.ca, ToxicFreeCanada.ca, Leas.ca

Winnipeg City Election 2010: Candidate Opinions on Pesticides for Mosquito Control & Lawn Care

We are a group of citizens known as Beyond ToxiCity and are working to educate  Winnipegers about the hazards of pesticide use.

Our group sent a survey (below) to all municipal candidates and invited them to appear live on the CKUW 95.9 FM radio program Wooden Spoons hosted by Mary Jane Eason to discuss  their responses on Friday October 22 at 8:00 AM.

Mayoral Candidate Brad Gross and City Council Candidates Trevor Mueller (Mynarski Ward) and Deanne Crothers (St. James - Brooklands Ward) participated in the "live to air" broadcast this morning.  

Cosmetic Use of Pesticides

Doctors Manitoba position statement:
In keeping with relevant policy resolutions of the Canadian Medical Association, Doctors Manitoba:

•     encourages all levels of government to promote safe and rational pesticide use by using the precautionary principle in determining the impact of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides and fungicidides.

•     urges all levels of government to undertake a public education program to increase awareness of the potential risks associated with the cosmetic use of pesticides and promote safer alternatives to the use of chemicals.

•     urges all levels of government to show leadership by refraining from the cosmetic use of pesticides and aggressively employing safer alternatives to the use of chemicals.

SURVEY QUESTIONS FOR CANDIDATES OF WINNIPEG CITY ELECTION 2010

ON THE USE OF PESTICIDES FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL AND LAWN CARE

1.    On what do you base your opinions on the subject of pesticide use? Are you open to learning more about the issue?

Nelson Sanderson - Elmwood - The truth is that I know very little about pesticides other then I use some pesticide around my home in the summer to kill weeds and ants.

Gordon Warren - Elmwood - I base my opinion on a cost-benefit analysis compared to other forms of mosquito control (zappers).

Dean Koshelanyk - Point Douglas - Growing up on a certified organic farm gave me great insight into the alternative forms of pesticides and herbicides that do not use harsh or harmful chemical additives. My opinions are based on the education I received growing up as well as the many articles I read on the subject on the internet.  There is always room for everyone to learn more.

Mike Pagtakhan - Point Douglas - I am a supporter of utilizing organic pesticides and natural biological controls. I am absolutely open to learning more about the issue.

Shane Nestruck - Fort Rouge - I have asthma and have been aware and been aware of the potential contribution chemical pesticides have on health for decades.  I'm always looking for more and more precise information.

Jenny Gerbasi - Fort Rouge - I have heard the advice of the Canadian Cancer Society and medical experts.  I am always open to learning more.

Harvey Smith - Daniel Mac - I was the councilor who moved a motion when I was on the standing committee of Protection and Community Service to form a sub committee to look at eliminating non-essential pesticide use.  However, my fellow councilors put me on another standing committee and it was left to Councillor Gerbasi to carry the fight.  However, I was not happy with the decision of the sub committee.  I would support a by-law similar to the one in Toronto.  Not one councillor supported my position for a stronger by-law.  I hope that will change with this election. 

My opinion was formed from reading information put out by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Livio Ciaralli - Charleswood-Tuxedo - Media Reports. 


Brian Olynik - North Kildonan - I am always wanting to learn more about issues that impact our residents not only in North Kildonan, but also the City of Winnipeg.  This includes the subject of pesticide use.


Ross Eadie - Mynarski - There is always more to learn about pesticides.  So, yes I am open to that education.  My opinion about pesticides has a few parts:
    A) I quit smoking almost ten years ago because my lungs needed the break, and my kids did not need to learn the bad habit from me.  I find it very hard to breathe when the cosmetic fertilizer and pesticide releases into the air during and after a rain. Must be something bad for us in that release.
    B) Pesticides and other toxins get into our food causing problems like an inability to concentrate.  We eat organic food whenever possible in our household. Cancer is always a threat to humans from toxins.
    C) My wife constantly warns our kids, steers the dogs away and will not go near our lawn where cosmetic pesticides are being used by our neighbours. I am with her on this avoidance of possible contamination.
On an opposite side:
    D) Insects can be hazardous to our health in contrast to the pesticides.  We had to use a pesticide to kill a severe wasp problem with our house before we could deal with the main issue of a new roof.  Therefore, some kind of balance needs to be found to protect humans from both sides.


Trevor Mueller - Mynarski *  - On the potential of carrying disease, the level of nuisance/concern for the citizen, and the effectiveness and potential level and range of side effects with use.  Learning is an ongoing process and I would be open to hearing more.


Fred Morris St James-Brooklands - I am open to learning more. I will base my decisions on expert opinion and public consultation

Deanne Crothers - St. James Brooklands * - In all honesty, I would say I base my opinions on personal beliefs. In my home, we consume organic products, almost entirely, so I'm likely more biased towards pesticides than against them. However, I'm always open to hearing another view point and taking from it what I may.  

Scott Fielding - St. James - Brooklands - I have heard from many residents about issues pertaining to fogging for mosquitoes and the unsightly look of dandelions in neighboring properties.  I believe until a cost effective alternative is found that the status quo for fogging and dandelion control must be sustained. 


Vlad Kowalyk - Transcona - My opinions are based on personal research as well as information relayed by the media and I am open to learning more about the issue.

 2.    Are you prepared to consider alternatives to the use of pesticides for lawn care and mosquito control in terms of health, environment and cost effectiveness?

Nelson Sanderson: Elmwood - I would prepared to use alternative such as Dragon fly and bat to kill mosquitoes. Pesticides i am not to familiar with.
  
Gordon Warren - Elmwood - Absolutely!
  
Dean Koshelanyk - Point Douglas - I am not only prepared to consider alternatives I am prepared to offer alternatives and lead the effort to change our ways where it is actually possible and reasonable to do so.
  
Mike Pagtakhan - Point Douglas - I have a perennial garden in my front yard because I believe in a diversified eco-yard. I mulch and use leaf mold to mulch around my garden. As for mosquito control, really do hate mosquitoes and am not opposed to fogging when population levels become uncomfortable. I believe the city needs to be doing more in the way of biological control for certain.
  
Shane Nestruck    Fort Rouge - Cosmetic use of pesticides must be banned...made illegal! Mosquito abatement like filling in breeding places around town and larvaciding need to get higher attention.  And I think everybody could use a lot more information about alternatives.  P.S. I had a gazebo with geo-disc type design over my deck from 1988-2003. Now that is a real solution to mosquitoes!
  
Jenny Gerbasi - Fort Rouge - Yes.
  
Harvey Smith - Daniel Mac - Definitely.
    
Livio Ciaralli - Charleswood-Tuxedo - Yes, of course.
  
Brian Olynik - North Kildonan - Yes.
    
Ross Eadie - Mynarski - Yes.  In our yard, we do not use cosmetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers.  We have the greenest grass on our block without using that stuff.  Mulching the grass and some of the leafs with some compost sprinkled around does wonders.  Thank goodness we have not had to use chemical to deal with elm disease given we band our trees when needed.  Of course aerating is needed.
    We decided to lift our buffer zone to deal with already hatched mosquitoes despite a real concern for human health. We do lock all windows and doors to prevent exposure.  We lifted the buffer when hearing reports that the chemical dissipates shortly after fogging.
    Fixing our roof and installing much better eavestroughing will get rid of standing water used by those mosquitoes.  We also brush off or rake off any water on the ground in our yard.  Wish others would be as careful.
    Our family is not against using other more effective means to deal with mosquitoes.  Release of dragon flies and other methods like maybe BLT is it called?
    
Trevor Mueller - Mynarski - Yes
    
Fred Morris - St James - Brooklands - We should review all mosquito and lawn care policies every winter and make changes for the following summer.
    
Deanne Crothers - St. James - Brooklands - Absolutely.
    
Scott Fielding - St. James - Brooklands - Yes, as long as the alternatives are cost effective for the taxpayers.
    
Vlad Kowalyk - Transcona - Yes, the incidence of respiratory related health problems and allergies are on the rise and we need to investigate natural alternatives to pesticides.
 

3.    How do you see Winnipeg handling the pesticide issue going forward?

 

Nelson Sanderson - Elmwood - I would have to what has been tried and worked and not work when it come to buffer zones.
   
Gordon Warren - Elmwood - I don't really have much to offer in the way of expertise in this area. All I know is that the zapper at our family's cabin does an adequate job after the grass is cut.  It must have killed 100,000 in one weekend; the pile was so high!
   
Dean Koshelanyk - Point Douglas - Your question makes no sense. You don’t stipulate what you think “the pesticide issue” is and I am left wondering what you could possibly mean considering the many things that are referenced above. I will not make assumptions into your meaning and therefore will not supply an answer that could at best be a guess.
   
Mike Pagtakhan - Point Douglas - We tried a few years back to ban cosmetic lawn pesticide. Instead an education campaign was undertaken. The Province of MB, I think needs to demonstrate leadership to ban cosmetic pesticide use on lawns. I think organic pesticide use on lawns would be okay, such as corn gluten.
   
Shane Nestruck - Fort Rouge - We really need LEADERSHIP from the medical community! If we can get the whole nation taking flue shots we can educate the population about the bad effects of pesticides.
   
Jenny Gerbasi - Fort Rouge - I believe we should move forward with a ban on cosmetic pesticides.  The best approach would be a provincial ban.  Right now there is a lack of political will at the provincial and the city level and the leadership on this issue has been lacking.  I believe there needs to be an extensive public education/consultative process leading up to the ban.
     
Harvey Smith - Daniel MacIntyre - I will try to get back on the Protection and Community Service Committee and restructure the sub-committee to address the issue.
   
Livio Ciaralli - Charleswood-Tuxedo - We must find a solution that stops pitting neighbors against each other . We must find a solution that takes into consideration the health risks some people are more susceptible to. We must invest tin Research and Development at the university level to find a Made in Manitoba solution to deal with the skeeter issue. As far as lawn care is concerned, I would like to see an end to chemical fertilizers so people can have a lush lawn. Nothing wrong with a rock garden and Prairie flora.
   
Brian Olynik - North Kildonan - I believe we have to continue to research the area of pesticide use to see if there are safer alternatives that can be used that will have the same outcome.
   
Ross Eadie - Mynarski - I am hoping we can bring enough people together in this city to educate the population on the hazards of cosmetic pesticide use. There are organic nontoxic ways of creating that beautiful lawn, and we should seriously consider banning this use in Winnipeg.  The toxins can run off into our rivers which I would like to use for more recreation.  Have we actually explored all the ways of dealing with pests?  The City of Winnipeg has experts.
    
P.S. - the little lawn sign warning us really does nothing when a wind moves the fumes along in the air.
   
Trevor Mueller - Mynarski - Winnipeg should always be informed on the latest methods and side effects and proceed with the best method for the city and its citizens.
   
Fred Morris St James-Brookland - Hopefully with common sense and annual off season reviews. It makes no sense to try and change any procedures during the summer
     
Deanne Crothers - St. James Brooklands - We've had the same approach for quite some time. It works to some degree, of course, but at what cost? I don't think we should be angered by looking at alternatives. If there is something out there that would be just as effective, or similar in effect, it doesn't hurt to investigate and consider our options.
   
Scott Fielding - St. James - Brookland - As you know the issue of buffer zones and fogging with malathion was a hot button issue this past summer.  I believe that in future years there will be more debate about other alternatives and current practices.
   
Vlad Kowalyk - Transcona - City Council must make it a priority to investigate/develop safe alternatives to pesticides. More emphasis on planning and foresight in pest control is needed so that conditions are not allowed to escalate to a level where it becomes a public safety hazard ie. mosquitoes whereby we are forced to use pesticides as a quick and easy interim fix. A safe alternative to pesticides is needed that will continuously control pests to an acceptable level.
   

MAYORAL CANDIDATES

   
Brad Gross * 
No pesticides ban them in city limits, for Mosquitoes the use of dragon fly s, and bats will be used for more effective, safer alternative.
   
Sam Katz 
On behalf of Sam and the entire Re-elect Sam Katz Campaign Team, I would like to thank you for raising your concerns about mosquito control in Winnipeg. Our summers are never long enough and mosquitoes prevent all of us from enjoying our parks, playing sports and participating in outdoor activities. And at the same time, many citizens have also expressed concerns regarding exposure to pesticide use to control the population.
    
For this reason, Sam has taken steps to ensure that the City of Winnipeg’s Insect Control Branch is able to more quickly and efficiently conduct mosquito fogging activities, to provide for the best coverage possible and help citizens enjoy all that a Winnipeg summer has to offer with a goal to significantly reduce the use of pesticides and move to a 100% biological larvaciding program by 2012. He has always held an open opinion for the city to explore alternatives to pesticides to control the adult mosquito population and always looks forward to new and innovative alternative ideas from experts and concerned citizens alike.
    
On July 21, 2010, as a result of a motion the Mayor brought forward to address the mosquito problem, Council voted in favour of requesting the Province of Manitoba to make changes to the Pesticide Use Permit to:

1.    reduce the mandatory size of buffer zones
2.    allow the City’s annual fogging program to begin after only two consecutive days of 25 or more nuisance mosquitoes to ensure that fogging crews can commence their work earlier in the mosquito season; and
3.    reduce the initial notice time to commence the City’s fogging program from 48 hours to 24 hours, which allows the Insect Control Branch to be more responsive when the adult nuisance mosquito population is high.
    
The Province of Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg are currently working together to gather the data required to implement these requested changes. In fact, the City has already been advised that the Province has granted the request to reduce the initial notice time from 48 hours to 24 hours, which will commence in the summer of 2011.

    In addition, the City of Winnipeg’s Insect Control Branch is undertaking the following activities to ensure the Mosquito Control Program addresses the needs of Winnipeggers:
   
4.    reviewing and updating the outdated Anti-Pesticide Registrant Process to minimize potential abuses of the system and ensure that the City requires at least as much information from a citizen who wishes to register for a buffer zone as Blockbuster requires to rent a movie;
5.    increasing the service level to ensure that the entire City can be fogged in 2-3 days, instead of the current 4-5 day cycle; and
6.    transitioning to a 100% biological larviciding program by 2012 (two years earlier than originally planned)
   
Judy Wasylycia-Leis
   
1.    On what do you base your opinions on the subject of pesticide use? Are you open to learning more about the issue?
    
I base my opinions regarding pesticide use on two factors: First, the available research that tells us that cosmetic and other unnecessary uses of environmental chemicals have a direct and measurable impact on both human health and the health of our environment, and secondly, I base my decisions on what I would want for my own family. Our families and children deserve to have their air, water and soil protected.
   
2.    Are you prepared to consider alternatives to the use of pesticides for lawn care and mosquito control in terms of health, environment and cost effectiveness?
    
Yes. Other cities are beginning to adopt more responsible policies when it comes to the use of pesticides and Winnipeg must keep pace.
   
3.    How do you see Winnipeg handling the pesticide issue going forward?
    
 This has never been an easy issue in Winnipeg. It's clear that the recent approach at City Hall around addressing the issue is to simply avoid it, and as Mayor I want to see that changed. It doesn't serve anyone's interest to have neighbours pitted against neighbours each year during mosquito season. We need to have a transparent discussion on this issue in Winnipeg. I've said that repeatedly during this campaign. People know our summers are short, and they want to enjoy being outdoors. I support that view. But I consider concerns raised around the use of chemical pesticides as legitimate. I believe the discussion must be guided by science and fact, and we need to be much more open at City Hall around exploring effective alternatives. We need to be unafraid to have an open discussion as a community, and I believe all residents will be ultimately better served in the process.

* * *  

For City of Winnipeg Council Meeting (July 21, 2010) Malathion Fogging Debate 2010 videoclips visit the Pesticides Playlist on our Beyond ToXiCiTi YouTube Channel: http://youtube.com/BeyondToXiCiti

To join Beyond ToxiCity and keep abreast of upcoming meetings and the latest "breaking news" please visit the Beyond-ToxiCity Google Groups Page to become a member. Sign into Google Groups (you will need to sign up for a Google Account) and then you can forward all mail from that Gmail account to your regular address or go into the Groups settings and change which address is signed up, etc. http://groups.google.ca/group/beyond-toxicity 

Pesticides and Your Health — A Family Physician's Perspective

British Columbia and Nova Scotia are considering potential bans on lawn and garden pesticides. "Cosmetic" pesticides are already prohibited in Quebec and Ontario and new restrictions will be in effect this summer in New Brunswick and PEI, too.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding pesticide use comes down to health — if these chemicals are harmful, they should be banned; if they are safe they can be used widely and freely without restriction. However, determining whether a chemical is harmful or not is not always easy or straightforward. The studies that can be done on pesticides are mostly population studies looking at whether people with increased exposure to multiple pesticides develop illnesses more than the average. The studies have some limitations, and cannot always draw unequivocal conclusions.

In 2004, Dr. Vakil co-authored a scientific review of published research examining the human health effects of pesticides for the Ontario College of Family Physicians. They searched commonly used medical databases and reviewed 265 studies on cancer, and neurological, dermatological, reproductive and immunological/genotoxic disorders that met our strict criteria for methodological quality.

Unfortunately most studies examined occupational exposure of only adult males, with a paucity of studies looking at women and children. Yet the few studies available suggested that pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable. Dr. Vakil and her colleagues concluded that there was enough evidence of the harmful effects of these chemicals that doctors should advise their patients to avoid all possible exposure. Here's a look at what they found.

There were 104 studies looking at a number of different cancers. Most of these found a link between pesticide exposure and cancer, many of them reaching statistical significance (meaning the associations found were unlikely to be by chance). Increases in Non-Hodgkin lymphoma were found in farmers, pesticide production workers and golf course superintendents, and one study in children found elevated rates of the cancer when pesticides were used in the home and when parents had occupational exposure.

One study found an increase in childhood leukemia with home exposure and prenatal exposure to pesticides. In this study children with a "poor metabolizer" genetic mutation increased the risk of leukemia with exposure to pesticides, indicating a possible genetic predisposition. Other studies showed that exposure to pesticides in early childhood, prenatally and even pre-conception may increase risk of leukemia.

All the studies on brain and kidney cancer showed increased risk with pesticide exposure even in the children of exposed workers. One study found a decreased risk of breast cancer in farming women, though risk was elevated for those women who reported being in the field during or shortly after pesticide application, as well as for those who reported not using protective clothing.

All eight papers on prostate cancer showed elevated incidence in workers who were exposed to pesticides, with one showing higher rates in exposed workers with a family history of prostate cancer.

Skin is the primary route of exposure to pesticides for workers. A few high-quality studies showed increases in rashes in agricultural labourers and pet groomers.

Thirty-nine of 41 studies on neurotoxicity found an association between pesticide exposure and one or more neurologic abnormalities such as mild cognitive dysfunction, neurobehavioural changes, depression, and even suicide. Only two studies examined children, finding significant neurodevelopmental effects in preschool children with pervasive agricultural exposure in Mexico. Previous pesticide poisonings were found to be related to impaired neurobehavioural function, and 15 out of 26 studies found associations between pesticide exposure and Parkinson's disease.

Fifteen studies from nine countries found increases in birth defects (limb, urogenital, central nervous system, orofacial and heart anomalies) with pesticide exposure of the mother. Results of the studies on fertility were mixed but several did find reduced fertility, sperm abnormalities and erectile dysfunction with increased pesticide exposure. Some studies showed that preconception and prenatal exposure to pesticides may increase low birth weight, prematurity, stillbirth, miscarriage and neonatal death.

Chromosome aberrations (genetic damage to cells which could present as miscarriage, birth defects, sperm abnormalities or cancer) were found in 11 of 14 studies, though other factors such as smoking, radiation, diet and alcohol consumption were not always accounted for.

Overall, this review on the health effects of pesticides provides clear evidence that pesticide exposure increases risk to human health. As a doctor, it's my role as health advocate to advise my patients to reduce exposure to all pesticides whenever possible, and to promote the passage of legislation banning non-essential pesticide use and sale. This would protect especially vulnerable populations such as women and men considering pregnancy, pregnant women, infants and children.

Cathy Vakil is a family doctor at the Department of Family Medicine at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario and has an interest in health and the environment. She is on the Environmental Health Committee of the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Board of Directors of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). Her interests include the health effects of pesticides, urban sprawl, climate change, air pollution and nuclear energy.

* * *  

Source: DavidSuzuki.org

Jury Awards Millions For Pesticide Exposure

Jessica Pieklo of Care2.com reports that 14 years after Todd and Cynthia Ebling sued Prestwick Square Apartments and its management company alleging that pesticides used in their apartment caused sever neurological problems in two of their children, a southern Indiana jury awarded the couple $23.5 million in connection with the claim.  According to the lawsuit, the children suffered from seizures after coming in contact with the spray.

Shortly after moving into an apartment in 1994 the children were hospitalized with seizures and other neurological problems.  The family moved about a year later.

According to their attorney, the children’s health problems were caused by exposure to Creal-O, a chemical based on the pesticide Diazinon.  The pesticide was eventually banned for residential use in 2004 by the Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the suit, the chemical was applied in the wrong fashion, even though at the time it was legal to use in a residential context.  More was applied than should have been and it was applied in a careless manner.  The result was pesticide on the base boards, carpeting, and wall coverings.

Exposure resulted in tragic health effects on the children.  Their now 20 year old daughter is  developmentally stalled at two years old.  The other child, while not as severely injured as his sister, struggles academically and socially.  The family unit has been disrupted as a result.  Todd and Cynthia are now divorced and had been struggling to provide for the cost of care for their daughter.

The tragedy of the Ebling case is that it took so long for both the judicial system and the regulatory system to remedy the obvious wrong -- exposure to a toxic chemical.

* * * 

Environmental Links to Cancer [Pesticides]

"The cumulative effects of being exposed to many different pesticides over a lifetime represent an unquantified and unacceptable risk to all Canadian children." That unequivocal statement comes from the Environmental Standard Setting and Children's Health Report, released in 2000 by the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Canadian Environmental Law Association part of the Children's Environmental Health Project.

CALGARY URGED TO BAN PESTICIDES

By The Calgary Herald May 23, 2008

The Canadian Cancer Society said that Calgary should move ahead with a ban on pesticides, arguing exposure to chemicals in the products are linked with leukemia and several other cancers. "The society says studies have linked pesticide exposure to several types of cancer, including leukemia, lung cancer, brain cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and pancreatic cancer."
Source: CalgaryHerald

* * *

THE TRUTH ABOUT PESTICIDES
The Quebec Poison Control Centre and the Quebec Ministry of Environment and Wildlife released statistics on pesticide poisoning in 1996. They reported a staggering 1,650 poisoning cases. 79.4% of the cases were in private homes, and 46.1% of the victims were children under age five. 31% of these cases were due to oral ingestion, and 34.9% followed a pesticide application (1) (Sierra Club.ca)

On June 28, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a landmark decision, upheld the town of Hudson, Quebec’s bylaw 207, which bans pesticide use on public and private property for aesthetic purposes. The bylaw had been challenged in the Quebec courts and then at the Supreme Court by lawn pesticide companies after they were charged with violating the ban. The court’s decision goes farther than simply upholding Hudson's bylaws. It points out that the relevant pieces of legislation in other provinces have wording that is comparable. Correctly worded bylaws in other parts of Canada could enjoy the same interpretation as the Hudson bylaw. The Sierra Club of Canada has drafted regionally specific bylaws that citizens can take to their local councils to ban or restrict pesticides.

Forty-eight communities across Canada have already established bylaws banning the use of cosmetic pesticides on public and private greenspaces. Parks in the resort municipality of Whistler are now "pesticide free". RMOW parks have long been pesticide free, what’s new is that the "high maintenance" planting boxes in the village are now also pesticide free. BC Rail will also respect Whistler as a "pesticide free" zone, due in large part to the efforts of the RMOW Engineering Department. A growing group of physicians, scientists and environmentalists worldwide have been emphatic in their warnings to governments and the public. Their warnings suggest that the vast majority of these chemicals are linked to a host of childhood and adult cancers as well as numerous other diseases and developmental problems. The Ontario College of Family Physicians, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, members of the Canada Health Advisory Council, Dr. David Suzuki and countless environmental groups are among the Canadians who support this position. If your community is not one of those that has banned the cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns, school grounds and parks, join with other like-minded folk and urge them to do so as soon as possible. The report Poisoned Schools: Invisible Threats, Visible Actions was released by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice in March 2001. It is available at Chej.org. Unthinkable Risk: How Children are Exposed and Harmed When Pesticides are Used at School released in April 2000 is available from the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) at Pesticide.org.

* * *

EPA HED Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) A Consultation on the EPA Health Effect Division's Proposed Classification of the Human Carcinogenic Potential of Malathion "...classified the organophosphate pesticide malathion as "suggestive" (Page 6 of this report). This is the final report from the August 2000 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting"
HEDS is the Human Exposure Database System, an integrated database system that contains chemical measurements, questionnaire responses, documents, and other information related to EPA research studies of the exposure of people to Environmental contaminants.

* * *

HealthyLegacy.org reports that according to the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 95% of the pesticides used on lawns are classified as possible or probable carcinogens. Pesticide use has also been tied to brain tumors and fatal non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. Studies have shown that children raised in homes where pesticides are used regularly are six times more likely to develop childhood cancer than children who are not exposed.1 Pesticides are poisons and can harm organisms other than those targeted, including your children. By their very nature, pesticides are not safe; and it is illegal for a company to tell you otherwise.

NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA
ZeroWaste.ca reports that in 1999 European researchers found that Swedish sufferers of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were 2.7 times more likely to have been exposed to the herbicide MCPA (found in weed and feed type products) and 2.3 times more likely to have been exposed to the herbicide glyphosate (Round-Up).

* * *

PESTICIDE-INDUCED DISEASE DATABASE

The common diseases affecting the public’s health are all too well-known in the 21st century: asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and several types of cancer. Their connection to pesticide exposure continues to strengthen despite efforts to restrict individual chemical exposure, or mitigate chemical risks, using risk assessment-based policy. Visit BeyondPeesticides.org for more information.

WHAT TO DO IN A PESTICIDE EMERGENCY -- PESTICIDE DRIFT AND INJURY
1. The first step is to notify people who might be spraying in your area that you are concerned about exposure to pesticides. Tell them you don't want to be exposed to pesticides through drift, runoff, or vaporization. You might tell people about any disabilities (chemical sensitivities, allergies, and asthma, for example) that might cause their spraying to deny you access to your own property and the use of public facilities. If you have a farm that is certified organic where the certification is in danger, some people respond to lost money. Similarly, bees are vulnerable to insecticides.

For more tips that could save your life in a pesticide exposure emergency visit BeyondPesticides.org


* * *

Blogpost by Olga Krywyj

Environmental Links to Cancer & Environmental Human Rights

The U.S. EPA classifies chemicals into five categories -- A through E -- to identify their carcinogenicity to humans, with A being known carcinogens, B the probable human carcinogens, C the possible, D the unknown due to lack of data, and E the noncarcinogens. "The fact that numerous chemicals with long-standing membership in Groups A through C are still allowed to be manufactured, sold, released, dumped, imported, exported, or otherwise used comes as a surprise to many knowledgeable people," states ecologist and cancer survivor Sandra Steingraber, an internationally recognized expert on the environmental links to cancer.

There are 60 possible carcinogens in the air we breath.

There are 66 possible carcinogens in the food we eat.

There are 40 possible carcinogens in the water we drink.

Its not just the dose that makes the poison and its not just the timing that makes the poison, its who you are that makes the poison.

The disconnect between what the scientific community know about carcinogens and what cancer patients are told is huge.

"We should become carcinogen abolitionists. These chemicals simply need to be phased out." says Steingraber. "When carcinogens are released into the environment some number of vulnerable persons are consigned to death. I don't have time to put a happy face on cancer. Cancer is a serial killer."

"An environmental human rights movement is the vision under which I labor and which may if we all work together in concert become a self fulfilling prophesy. May it be so."

Sandra Steingraber explores the links between human rights and the environment, with a focus on chemical contamination. She takes a personal and scientific look at these issues and offers insights into how we can protect our environment and ourselves.

A Bridge to Somewhere - Responding to the President's Cancer Panel Report (Part 3)

Dr. Sandra Steingraber

Authority on environmental links to health

Posted: July 7, 2010

The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. The President's Cancer Panel urges President Obama "to use the power of [his] office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation's productivity, and devastate American lives." reports Steingraber. Visit Livingdownstream.com for more information on cancer survivor Sandra Steingraber's book and documentary.

HOW MUCH EVIDENCE DO YOU WANT? 

CHEMICAL EXPOSURE & CANCER

Environmental Links to Cancer

Interview with Dr. Sandra Steingraber, biologist, poet, and survivor of cancer in her twenties, brings all three perspectives to bear on the most important health and human rights issue of our time: the growing body of evidence linking cancer to environmental contamination. "Living Downstream" (book and documentary) is a scientist's personal investigation of cancer and the environment.

10:00 Pesticides don't just stay on the plants they evaporate and drift into the air, they fall as "rain", they're found in snowflakes, in fog, in wind, in clouds and backyard swimming pools. So why do so many farmers feel that they still have to use pesticides? And do they not know how persistent they are in the environment.

Dr. Sandra Steingraber's documentary Living Downstream is now available for theatrical and festival screenings. Fifteen new screenings have been added.

Preview

* * *

Posted by Olga Krywyj

Groups Call for Full Ban of Insecticide 'Chlorpyrifos'(Dursban): Pesticide Once Widely Used in Homes

On October 13, over 13,000 organizations and individuals - consumers, parents, health advocates, farmworkers and others- from across the U.S. sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday calling for a ban on the insecticide chlorpyrifos (active ingredient in specialty insecticides Dursban & Lorsban) and a phase out of other organophosphate (OP) pesticides. Chlorpyrifos was phased out for residential use under a 2000 agreement between EPA and Dow Agrosciences, but continues to expose farmworkers and consumers through its use in agriculture.

Also on October 13, the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), led by renowned scientist Theo Colborn, PhD,  announced the addition of chlorpyrifos to its online database, Critical Windows of Development, spotlighting research that links prenatal, low dose chlorpyrifos exposure to altered health outcomes in the brain and other organs. “Human studies have now linked prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos with mental and developmental delays emphasizing even more the urgency to remove the product from the market,” said Dr. Colborn, President of TEDX and a signatory on the letter. “Chlorpyrifos illustrates the urgent need to be cautious, prevent further exposure and protect our children from the time they are conceived onward.”

Beyond Pesticides calls EPA’s 2000 chlorpyrifos settlement with Dow a classic failure of the risk assessment process under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) –a failure that is repeated over and over again in agency chemical regulation decisions. Advocates have pointed to chlorpyrifos as the "poster child for why risk assessment does not work to protect the public, workers and the environment, even with safer practices and products available in the marketplace. " EPA’s decision in 2000 and subsequent action removed chlorpyrifos’ residential uses and retains all agricultural uses except tomatoes (allowable residues on apples and grapes were adjusted), golf course and public health mosquito spraying. The agency argued at the time of its decision that it had adequately mitigated risks through the removal of high exposure uses to children in the residential setting, but ignored the special risks to farmworker children’s exposure as well as the availability of alternative agricultural practices and products that made chlorpyrifos unnecessary and therefore its risks unreasonable. The decision at the time was hailed as a victory for the public because it eliminated high hazard exposures and showed that EPA could remove uses of a widely used chemical. Except, it did not do the job. The risk assessment process does not force a consideration of those who suffer disproportionate risk or groups of people (such as those with neurological diseases in this case who are disproportionately affected).

Chlorpyrifos is a neurotoxic insecticide whose use was found to exceed acceptable rates of illness, especially to children. By focusing on risk reduction strategies to come up with “acceptable,” but unnecessary, rates of illness across the population, EPA virtually ignored the chemical’s widespread use in agriculture, resulting in exposure to farmworkers, farm families and others living near agricultural areas. It is also a frequent water contaminant and a long range contaminant, exposing communities and contaminating pristine areas far from where it was applied. Short term effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos include chest tightness, blurred vision, headaches, coughing and wheezing, weakness, nausea and vomiting, coma, seizures, and even death. Prenatal and early childhood exposure has been linked to low birth weights, developmental delays, ADHD and other health effects.

David Carpenter, M.D., Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany (State University of New York) said, “It is unacceptable that farmworker children, and children in the general population continue to be exposed to these neurotoxins.”

“As more families cope with the suffering and costs of learning and developmental disabilities and attention problems, EPA must prevent further exposures to neurotoxic pesticides,” said Maureen Swanson of the Learning Disabilities Association of America. “EPA needs to protect people, especially children and pregnant women, from any chemical that threatens brain development. In addition to banning neurotoxic pesticides, we must reform the Toxic Substance Control Act to require EPA to address the many neurotoxic chemicals in our everyday products.”

“The last time EPA reviewed these pesticides, its own scientists complained that the Agency was not assuring adequate protection of the nation’s children, and that it was unduly influenced by those it regulates,” said William Hirzy, Ph.D., a professor at American University in Washington D.C. and a former EPA chemist. While at EPA, Dr. Hirzy was involved in a letter raising these concerns sent to management by six unions representing 9000 EPA scientists and other staff, as the Agency was finalizing its Cumulative Risk Assessment for organophosphates in 2006. “Five years later, with even more sobering studies in hand, will EPA finally act to protect children?,” Dr. Hirzy asked.

Chlorpyrifos is used widely on corn, orchard, and vegetable row crops all over the country. While it is known to contaminate dozens of fruits and vegetables with detectable residues, Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database reveals that chlorpyrifos is also registered for use on more than half of the 15 “cleanest” fruits and vegetables, or those with the lowest pesticide residues (asparagus, cabbage, corn, grapefruit, kiwi fruit, onion, peas and sweet potatoes). So while there may be little residue remaining by the time it reaches your store shelf, these crops may be grown with hazardous pesticides that get into waterways and groundwater, contaminate nearby communities, poison farmworkers, and kill wildlife, while not all showing up at detectable levels on our food. An estimated 8 to 10 million pounds of chlorpyrifos are applied to U.S. crops each year (see a U.S. Geological Survey map showing where chlorpyrifos is used.)

“The warning signs have been obvious for decades, yet EPA has allowed generation after generation to suffer exposures and consequences,” said Carol Dansereau, Executive Director of the Farm Worker Pesticide Project, a Washington State farmworker organization that initiated the letter to EPA. “EPA is promising to better protect children and other vulnerable people, but that promise is meaningless as long as it keeps reregistering chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates, ” she said. FWPP and others are asking the public to contact EPA and join in demanding a ban, and precaution-based policies.

“Unfortunately chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates do not stay where sprayed. They evaporate and move with wind and fog. That’s how they contaminated our fields,” said Larry Jacobs of Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, an organic grower in California. “There are better ways to manage insect pests than depending on organophosphates like chlorpyrifos. We signed onto the letter to EPA to protect our health and to protect our farm.”

EPA is in the process of considering re-registration for chlorpyrifos, one of the most widely used pesticides in agriculture in the US and worldwide.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the national conversion to organic systems planning, which moves chemicals off the market quickly and replaces them with green management practices. The chlorpyrifos story, in addition to untold damage it has caused families across the U.S., is testimony to the need to adopt alternatives assessments that force chemicals off the market that can be replaced by safer or green practices.  Despite agency efforts to use failed risk assessment decision making to claim that the food supply is safe and the environment protected, an informed public is driving the growth of organic production in the marketplace, choosing health and environmental protection over risk assessment. It is a process that can be supported through purchasing decisions everyday in the grocery store and advocacy that effects a conversion of land and building management in parks, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, indoor and outdoor spaces to nontoxic and least-toxic methods. Whether it is agriculture, schools, lawns and gardens, health care facilities, or community insect management, turn to Beyond Pesticides for the latest on science, policy, safe management practices, and activism.

For more information, contact:

* Carol Dansereau, Farm Worker Pesticide Project, 206-729-0498; cdansereaufwpp@earthlink.net
* Stephenie Hendricks, 415-258-9151, stephdh@earthlink.net
* Ana Duncan Pardo, Toxic-Free North Carolina, 919-818-5933, ana@toxicfreenc.org
* John Kepner, Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450, jkepner@beyondpesticides.org

* * *  

Source: BeyondPesticides.org