Presentations

Although I did not really have time to actually present all of this presentation, here it is. The numbers refer to paper copies of documents left with the Committee.

Healthy Children, Healthy Futures
All Party Task Force Presentation
March 5, 2005

Good Afternoon.

Thank you for allowing me to speak before this All Party Task Force, Healthy Kids, Healthy Futures. My name is Glenda Whiteman and I am currently the Executive Director of Concerned Residents of Winnipeg (CROW) Inc. and the Secretary of the Canadian Coalition for Health & Environment. I note with interest that your Task Force started with a presentation by Ian Greaves of the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction and comes back to Winnipeg today for another presentation about pesticides. Because Ian did a great job of demonstrating the link between chronic illness and pesticides, I can now focus this presentation on other issues. I hope to demonstrate for you how concerned people have become about pesticides by sharing some relevant recent news. I hope you will leave today with no faith in Health Canada and with the clear understanding that it is the responsibility of your government to protect us, because Health Canada is not. Then, I want to conclude by answering the questions you posed in your task force discussion paper.

I will be providing you with copies of most of these resources as I move through this presentation and I would like to advise you at this time that you can access the entire presentation on our website where most of the resources will be available by hyper-link.

I was pleased to read in your discussion paper that you are particularly interested in chronic disease and injury prevention. You write that your vision is a healthy province in which all Manitobans experience conditions that support the attainment and maintenance of good health. So what exactly is “good health”? My Webster's dictionary claims that it is “soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment”. I will demonstrate for you how pesticides increase disease and ailments. You say that healthy living includes taking measures to avoid injury. I will show you how governments inflict chemical injury upon us repeatedly and despite our objections.

There is an awful lot of talk in the media recently about pesticides. This is only March and numerous articles have already appeared in local newspapers. This is a clear demonstration of the public's increasing interest in this issue. In case you missed these; please let me share some of the recent headlines.

1. Brandon group to ask council for pesticide ban (WFP)
They will ask City Council next month for a lawn care pesticide ban.

2. Rebate program weeded out (WFP)
Farmers say “they've never really liked the programs because they're complicated and encourage producers to buy certain weed-control products even though they may not be the best products for their particular weed problems.”

3. Genetically modified spuds not welcome (NP)
This letter to the editor reads, “And when you create a wheat or canola that is resistant to a general herbicide, you are creating a potential and dangerous “weed” should wind or water spread seeds to adjacent areas where the plant is not desired. How do you get rid of a plant that is already immune to powerful herbicides? Introducing GM foods into the environment is fraught with problems, not the least of which is an effect on human health.”

4. Bug fixing strategy may help fix summer (WFP)
...if Whyard's strategy pays off, biological control of mosquitoes could make summers pleasantly pesticide-free.

Well, that sounds wonderful. If one did not attend the session held at 7 pm that day, in “Smartpark” on “Innovation Drive” at the University, one would never have known any differently. But if one did attend the session one would have learned that the truth is, this research is being done to develop a new era of pesticides because the shelf life on the current ones has expired. Whyard informed the audience that “we can now turn off genes in any organism” and that 25 of over 70 genes are being considered as targets for NEW CHEMICALS, despite not knowing what those genes are for. They want to release genetically modified insecticide resistant mosquitoes and because they know that transgenic plants have crossed to other species (ie Bt), they know they must tread carefully. Therefore, they won't release any transgenic mosquitoes unless they know they have a way to call them back. That way is by releasing... another chemical! It's called gene silencing. Doesn't that make you feel safe? Oh and by the way, the genes they want to target are the ones that control growth and development.

Here's one of my favourites.

5. Manitoba Business Community Lends Support to Environmental Education at Oak Hammock Marsh (WFP)
The Honourable Stan Struthers, Minister of Conservation, was joined by Manitoba business leaders at the ninth annual Minister's Dinner, held at the St. Charles Country Club on February 17, 2005 in support of the Oak Hammock Marsh Interpretive Centre.>>>The Minister's Dinner raises funds for new interpretive programs and exhibits at the Interpretive Centre. The Interpretive Centre has received awards at the local, national and international levels, and hosts 200,000 visitors, including more than 50,000 students, each year.>>>Tod Wright, Ducks Unlimited Canada director, presented Dow Chemical Canada Inc. with the Conservation Education Award for their generous support of environmental education. ...

I hope the Minister has recovered from his indigestion.

6. Public Notice: Insect and Weed Control Operations, Manitoba Provincial Government Properties (WFP)

The Manitoba Department of Transportation and Government Services proposes to use Dursban 2E, Methoxychlor, Dormant Oil, Dipet, EERTAVAS, Dynomite, Trumpet 80WP, Safers, Primor Malathion, Diazinon, Par III and Round Up. The areas to be treated are several properties under the control of the Manitoba Government Services Department. The public may send written submissions within 15 days.

Pesticide Approvals Branch has informed me in the past that they might place restrictions on a permit if a nearby resident registered a letter of complaint. My inquiry about specifically which areas are to be treated remains unanswered, as does my inquiry about who supplies the pesticides in question. I was advised to do a google search for labels of the said products because they're all the same anyway, no matter which company makes them.

My Google search produced this result:
The

label for Dursban 2E, produced by DOW Chemical in Calgary, states, "This product is not to be used in and around homes and other residential areas such as parks, schoolgrounds, playing fields."

7. This would be the same DOW Chemical that paid 2 M for illegal safety claims. The same DOW Chemical that refuses to clean up the site, provide safe drinking water, compensate the victims, or disclose chemical information to physicians of the 1984 Bhopal tragedy. (Pesticides & You, Vol 24, No 4, p 13), for more info on-line see http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dow/index.htm

Burden of lake cleanup shared by all: report
and
Farmers will shoulder larger share of lake cleanup

The Government of the Province of Manitoba wants us to believe that it is serious about cleaning up Lake Winnipeg. Reducing pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer use is one of many strategies deemed appropriate. That sounds good, too. It would have been a lot easier to believe if I had not happened upon this headline, which, oddly enough, did not appear in the Winnipeg Free Press.

8. Hecla Golf Course Public Notice (Interlake Spectator)
Public Notice is hereby given that Hecla Golf Course intends to conduct the following pesticide control programs during 2005. Herbicides to be used include Par III, Round-Up, Mecoprop...(better find out how many isomers they have on that last one).

Pesticide Approvals Branch was not really able to tell me an appropriate distance from water that pesticides were allowed and seemed unconcerned that buffer zones from bodies of water had been removed from pesticide labels.

I did not know much about Par 111 until I found this:
9.

Pesticides Used in Our Communities—Human Health and Environmental Impacts
2,4-D used in “weed and feed” products and often formulated in combination with Dicamba and Mecoprop—such as in Killex, Par 111 or Trillion

And that ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the second point I want to make for you and I will begin with a question. Does anyone here believe that registration of a pesticide by Health Canada's PMRA equals safety?

Many people do believe that. I want to give you four examples to demonstrate that Health Canada is not keeping us safe.

The recent scandals with pharmaceuticals such as Vioxx tell us that Health Canada is not equipped to protect Canadians from the pharmaceuticals/pesticide companies. Canadian regulators say they lack the power to force drug companies to research specific safety concerns once a medication is on the market, despite suspicion of risk...This situation is no different for the PMRA and pesticides.

10. Here is an example from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Josette Weir wrote in their newsletter last year about the BC governments hearings over the registration of arsenical MSMA. Her article ended by saying “On a positive note, PMRA has indicated MSMA will be re-evaluated by fiscal year 04-05, one year earlier than planned.” I contacted PMRA to see if that re-evaluation has indeed been completed. The response was, “At this point, PMRA requested that the registrant submit additional data to complete the re-evaluation. Therefore, MSMA is not scheduled for completion in 2005.”

Before I received that e-mail response to my telephone query, I telephoned the author of this article in BC. She explained to me that there are huge gaps of knowledge about how this arsenical chemical affects wildlife, but they do know it is entering the food chain and they do know it is genotoxic (meaning it damages dna—it has the potential to damage future generations).    The company refused to do the testing because of the cost. Trees injected with this chemical are now being logged (and the dust is being burned) despite Health Canada's claim that they are not, and the re-evaluation is shelved. Her article states that in the past the Environmental Appeal Board has refused to question pesticides registered by Health Canada. The EAB would be the BC equivalent of our Clean Environment Commission which I am going to discuss next.

When I explained to her that I was hoping to draw the parallel between this situation and ours in Manitoba, to make the point that Health Canada is not adequately protecting us, she reminded me of the Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, of which point 1.1 states, “The federal government is not adequately ensuring that many pesticides used in Canada meet current standards for protecting health...” I will leave you with a copy of that as well as this article for the Sierra Club of Canada by Paddy Running-Horan, Misrepresentations from the Industry. Paddy also quotes the Environment Commissioner and does a superb job of explaining some of the problems at Health Canada.

If registration by Health Canada equals safety, as many people like to claim, then why would we bother re-evaluating anything? Paddy wrote, “Of the 550 active ingredients in 5,892 pesticides registered in Canada, over 300 were approved before 1981 and over 150 before 1960, when conditions placed on their use were less stringent than they are today and far below our current knowledge and standards of health and safety in pesticide use.” In other words, as time goes on, we are learning that these pesticides are not safe—and they never were.

11. The next example that I would like to share with you is the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission Report of 1982. This time the name of the chemical in question is Baygon. The report states, “The evidence presented at the hearings also indicates that the 1981 single aerial dispersal of Baygon into the environment, with the low concentration used by the aerial spraying program, posed no appreciable threat to human health or to fish and wildlife.” They also state, “The Federal Government officials, responsible for pesticide registration and testing, present at the hearings gave evidence to the Commission that Baygon is environmentally acceptable for aerial spraying when used in accordance with authorized dosage directions and application procedures for this purpose. Nevertheless, the possibility exists that exposure to aerial spraying may adversely affect persons in a high risk category, particularly those persons with respiratory diseases and those with an unusual sensitivity to the chemical.”

12. We know from Irene Papparo-Stein, who fought to have Winnipegers protected from mosquito fogging and who wrote in Cities Under Siege (p 150), that “In 1981, following the aircraft spraying of the city of Winnipeg with Baygon, twenty-one still births were recorded. These infant's organs grew externally on their bodies! Investigation showed the unprecedented number pointed to environmental causes.” I had the occasion to meet one of the delivery nurses who saw it first hand. She started whispering and looking over her shoulder as she relayed the story to me. We all knew what it was, she whispered, “but nobody wanted to come forward and say anything. I guess they did not invite the delivery room nurses to testify at the hearings.

And why am I bringing up information that is over 20 years old? Because nothing has changed.

13. Last week the PMRA announced its

proposed re-evaluation of 2,4-D. Please refer back to the

Human Health and Environmental Impacts document I gave you recently. 2,4-D is at the top of the list. Its stated impacts include potential for dioxin contamination, contaminates urban bodies of water, surface and groundwater contaminant; may be linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma , may be linked to prostate cancer; found in residual carpet dust up to one year after application outdoors on lawns; endocrine disruption ... How is it that a chemical like this can be recommended for re-registration? I hope you will read this commentary by Dr. Meg Sears from the Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa, who explains clearly what's wrong with this decision by the PMRA. It's not just the breakdown product of 2,4-D that stinks. Most people do not know that, although it has already been a few years since the new Pest Control Products Act was made law, it will not come into effect until 2006. This re-registration would never have passed through the new Act's stricter transparency rules.

14. And how did the Winnipeg Free Press report this event, you may wonder? There was no mention at all that label limits had been reduced. The headline read
    Weed-killer deemed safe
    The controversial herbicide 2,4-D, found in many common weed-killers, is safe to use on lawns, Health
    Canada has concluded.
    Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency conducted a re-evaluation of the chemical as part of a
broader review of pesticide safety.

15. By the way, according to the PMRA, Clause 3.1 of the PCPA makes it illegal to say a control product is 'safe' (Toronto Environmental Alliance, Breaking the Law, Pesticide Advertising and Public Deception)

16. There are some other little known facts that, surprisingly, some politicians do not even know about the way Health Canada's PMRA makes its decisions. You have already heard that all decisions are based on data provided by the companies, if and when they want to. Another problem is that the tests called for do not adequately assess risk. (As if any risk to children is acceptable for the sake of killing a dandelion.) Please refer to this document called Toxin, my effort to visually demonstrate the different types of exposures we face. Health Canada tests only acute exposure limits, usually for young, healthy white males. Pardon me, I should say that HC relies on results provided by the manufacturers. The PMRA conducts no tests.

17. We are not the only ones who think this type of testing is inadequate. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Developmen t recommends that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency incorporate cumulative and aggregate risks and the possible interaction between pesticides into their evaluation and, more specifically, in the determination of maximum residue limits and that cumulative and aggregate risks be defined...

Thus ends my evidence for you. I hope that you are now feeling very unsafe—because you are the people with the power to do something about this problem. You can keep Manitoba's children safe, because clearly the federal government is not protecting them. How do I suggest you do that? This brings me to my concluding remarks; my answers to the questions in the task force committee discussion document.

* What is healthy living?
   Living to promote “soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment”.

* What information and supports do parents/families require to provide a healthy living environment for their children?
    The truth from governments, media and business.

* What information and supports do children and young people need to help them make healthy choices and lead active, healthy lives?
    Educational resources developed by educators and not sponsored by for-profit corporations.

* What are the challenges that make it difficult to eat healthy foods, be physically active and prevent injuries? What can be done to overcome them?
    Organic food should not be a luxury few can afford and please, LABEL all the contents.
    Canadians    DO NOT   WANT to eat GM foods.

* What is the role of our schools, health care providers, fitness/recreation/sports groups and other organizations in our communities to support healthy choices for children and young people?
    Health care providers should not be permitted to accept any benefits from pharmaceutical/pesticide companies.

* What initiatives/programs should be in place at the local/provincial/national levels to enhance healthy living opportunities?
        1. An immediate moratorium on GM experimentation in Canada.
      2. Protection for all farmers who wish to grow crops from their own seeds.
        3. An immediate moratorium on all ruminant feed.
        4. An end to herbicide rebate programs.
18. 5. A Manitoba provincial pesticide code, such as the Pesticide Code of Quebec.

* What innovative initiatives or programs are currently taking place in your community that you would like to share with others?
19. The most recent public opinion polls on this issue in Canada
20. And finally, to leave you on a positive note, The Organic School Garden
http://www.beyondpesticides.org

Thank you for having these consultations around the province and thank you for listening to me today.