|
What People are Writing
in March!!! Tue 08 Mar 2005 The Cornwall Standard-Freeholder The problem with pesticides By: Elaine Kennedy Pesticides, as applied for cosmetic purposes on lawns, have been receiving quite a bit of publicity lately. I am going to add to the discussion today. I am proud to be called an activist who thinks that health is more important than a perfect lawn. Several people from this area attended a meeting in Ottawa last week to hear some scientists talk to the people attending who are interested in having a bylaw in Ottawa prohibiting the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. This proposal does not affect or intend to affect farmers. Many of you read a letter to the editor who talked about junk science. I was interested in hearing what the scientists from the University of Ottawa and several prominent physicians had to say last week. When tests are done on new drugs in laboratories, they are tested on mice for quite a while and then, if they seem to be non-toxic, they are tested on humans. At that time, two groups of people are chosen: one group gets placebos, the other group gets the drugs. Neither group knows what they are getting. The scientists study the two groups. This is called blind testing or randomized controlled trials. In Ottawa, the point was made that this kind of testing cannot be done with humans and pesticides. After reading the letter to the editor last week, I think I have found a solution to the testing problem. All the people who work for the pesticide companies and who say that pesticides are not harmful should volunteer for the testing of these products. However, in Canada and other countries, this would not be allowed. The risk to their health is too great. Animal studies have provided enough biological plausibility of problems. Population-based studies have linked exposure to health problems. Since such studies always have variables, they don't allow direct links to pesticides, but they give important clues. Although the "blind" tests cannot be done safely, there is certainly enough anecdotal evidence to say that pesticides can be dangerous to our health, including men's sperm count. So, absolute proof is not possible, but what is called the precautionary principle holds here. In other words, if the risk of injuring people is there, err on the side of caution. A product should be demonstrated to have benefits that clearly outweigh risks to people, pets, the good bugs in the soil, the birds that eat the bad bugs and all things that are potentially sensitive to these substances. How much uncertainty and risk are acceptable for the sake of killing some weeds? Pesticides are the only chemicals deliberately made toxic, and spread in the environment for that effect. Pesticides are said to be "safe" when the directions are followed correctly. How many people follow the directions correctly and wear all the protective gear? I haven't yet heard a good reason for applying pesticides for cosmetic purposes from someone who is not an employee or connected to an employee of a pesticide company. Later this spring, when our grass is not covered with snow, I will talk about how to keep your lawn healthy enough that weeds and insects are not a problem. And, if a problem does arise, how to solve it without pesticides. For more information, check out www.healthyottawa.ca. --- I am writing this on Monday as usual, and the snow is starting to come down. The birds are stripping the bird feeders getting ready to retreat into the conifers for protection during the worst of the storm. --- To my readers: you are my conscience, so I hereby confess. Last Friday night, I thoroughly enjoyed the Red Cross wine and dessert function at the civic complex. But, and here is the confession, I did not take my own dishes. I did not even think about taking my own dishes. I went, blindly, into a situation where plastic forks, spoons, plates and bowls were being passed out, used and discarded and I participated in this orgy of good food, good wine and lots of plastic garbage. Next year I will try to remember my own dishes. Yours environmentally ============== Tue 08 Mar 2005 The Windsor Star Pesticide use has potential for risks: Talking Point: A chance to have your say I would like to reply to the Terence Corcoran column concerning pesticides. Mr. Corcoran equates all pesticides with 2,4-D, which is actually a herbicide. Herbicide's kill broadleaf plants like dandelions and plantain, to say nothing of tomatoes and fruit trees. 2,4-D is the agent in Agent Orange. Even when used properly, it has toxic effects on the eyes and skin, and may cause temporary loss of muscle co-ordination and inflammation of nerve endings. Moderate doses will impair honeybee brood production and are toxic to birds and fish. However, if not used properly, for example, if used on a windy day or in larger than recommended quantities, 2,4-D can have serious effects. It is not clear whether it is carcinogenic, but its safety has not been proven. Pesticides are different and are more dangerous. They create a lovely lawn by killing insects, moles and other pests, as well as the earthworms and birds that eat them. In addition to their effect on pests, they are lethal to cats, as is known by anyone whose pet has ever licked pesticide residue off its paws. People who use these pesticides place warning signs on their lawns, but few children read lawn signs when they are playing tag or hide and seek. Mr. Corcoran's column is sloppy journalism. Lenore Langs Windsor ========================= Tue 08 Mar 2005 The Windsor Star Non-chemical alternative better than pesticide use: Talking Point: A chance to have your say I feel compelled to respond to the column by Terrence Corcoran of Feb. 28 where he suggested it is a myth pesticides cause any cancer. I wonder how many people need to get sick or die before we act? How much evidence do we need? And would he feel the same way if someone in his family was affected? There are several non-chemical alternatives to pesticides for cosmetic use, (including pulling the weed by hand). We should not be exposing anyone to chemicals needlessly when there are reasonable alternatives. There may be some dispute about all of the evidence one way or the other, but I don't think a dandelion ever killed anyone. If there is any doubt, and a good substitute will achieve the same result, it only makes sense to remove any chemical exposures. These chemicals are designed to kill weeds. Human exposure cannot possibly be without a price to health. Did anyone ever think that maybe this debate is being pushed by the pesticide companies for profit? We are exposed to far more substances than ever before and we have far more cancers and illness than ever before. This is not a coincidence. Several municipalities across Canada have already banned the use of pesticides for cosmetic use for good reasons. Cancer is an ugly disease. There is plenty of focus on treatments and research, and we need to focus more on prevention. Richard St. Denis Windsor ========================= U.S. Youth Soccer Ejects TruGreen/Chemlawn (Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2005) U.S. Youth Soccer (USYS) has quietly ended its sponsorship agreement with TruGreen/ChemLawn, after public interest groups and interested people from across the country launched a letter campaign to the soccer association asking that it not renew its agreement. As a part of the agreement TruGreen/Chemlawn was given access to the association's mailing lists and sent mailings to "The Family of" young soccer players to promote the use of ChemLawn's services. The mailings explicitly stated that TruGreen/ChemLawn would donate a percentage of each purchase to USYS. USYS ended the partnership without comment. Josh Golin, program manager for Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC), which spearheaded a letter and campaign to end the USYS-TruGreen/ChemLawn alliance, said that while USYS has no comment, "It is clear that the letter -and all of our efforts-played a key role in U.S. Soccer's decision to end the partnership." Mr. Golin said, "It is great that ChemLawn will no longer be able to exploit children's love of soccer to market toxic pesticides to families. And it is gratifying to see all of our efforts make a real difference." Thirty prominent children's and environmental organizations sent a public letter in October 2004 to USYS asking them not to renew their sponsorship agreement with TruGreen/ChemLawn. Numerous individuals and grassroots organizations wrote letters of their own. The groups and people that wrote letters cited concerns about the exploitation of children in marketing hazardous products to them and their families. At the time, Dr. Susan Linn, of Harvard's Judge Baker Children's Center and author of Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of Childhood said, "These mailings are not only a violation of children's privacy, but a transparent attempt to get children to nag their parents for ChemLawn's services." Dr. Linn continued, "Marketers are constantly looking for ways to make it harder for parents to say no - in this case by equating support of their children's soccer team with hiring a company to dump pesticides on their lawn." It has long been identified that children are more susceptible to the effects of pesticides than adults. In 1993 The National Academy of Sciences found that children are more susceptible to chemicals. The announcement followed several studies with similar conclusions including one published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 1987, which found that children in households that use home and garden pesticides are 6.5 times at higher risk of developing leukemia. Other studies have since associated exposure to lawn pesticides with birth defects, liver and kidney damage, and neurological disorders. Today it is common knowledge that children are more likely to come into contact with lawn pesticides and are more vulnerable to their effects. The letter was written by CCFC, formerly Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children, a national advocacy group that counters the harmful effects of marketing to children. Signatories included Beyond Pesticides and other organizations concerned about the harmful effects of pesticides and the commercialization of childhood. The letter called on USYS to: Protect children's health by not renewing their sponsorship agreement with ChemLawn when the current agreement expires in December 2004. Protect children's privacy by refusing to share their contact information with USYS -or any other corporate sponsors. Refrain from working with corporate partners whose products and/or practices may cause harm to children. Editors Note: Thanks to all those who contacted U.S. Yourth Soccer on this issue. TAKE ACTION: Please write a thank you note to U.S. Youth Soccer's Director of Marketing Chris Branscome. For more information about the hazards of lawn and landscape chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes program page. To join Beyond Pesticides' campaign to stop the aesthetic use of pesticides, contact Shawnee Hoover. ======================== Mon 07 Mar 2005 Stratford Beacon-Herald REDOUBLE EFFORTS, GREEN LEADER URGES; 'WE CAN REDEFINE THE UNACCEPTABLE' BY DONAL O'CONNOR, STAFF REPORTER The threat to planetary survival as well as the changes necessary to ensure life in the future have more to do with "what's between our ears" than with anything else, the executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada told a luncheon gathering Saturday in Stratford. "We can redefine the unacceptable," said Elizabeth May, urging a change in attitude towards the effect mankind's relatively short industrial life is having on the only life-supporting planet in the solar system. Taking one kilometre to represent Earth's 3.8 billion years, she said, the last two centimetres would mark homosapiens' existence and the last eight-thousandths of a centimetre would represent time since industrialization. The "self-proclaimed smart ones," said Ms. May, are having the biggest impact on the biosphere that sustains and supports life. Ms. May pointed out that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has never been more than 280 parts per million, is currently at 379 parts per million. "That has has profound implications." We're impacting the biosphere in "a very profound and dangerous way," she said, referring especially to the rapid burning of fossil fuels, ongoing use of lawn pesticides and extinctions of species. "It may just be a bad experiment," she said of our current consumption-driven ethos in which values such as "waste not-want not" and "share and help your neighbour" are being replaced by "shop till you drop" and "buy now, fly now -- pay later." "We can shift our values back. We are not automatons driven by a large corporate monopoly that wants us to be constant consumers," she said. In her address to diners at an organic luncheon at the Stratford Garden Festival, Ms. May urged bringing "Gaia thinking" into gardening and finding ways to restore ecosystems locally. (Gaia was a Greek goddess personifying the Earth and Gaian theory views the Earth as a vast self-regulating organism.) Restoring indigenous Carolinian plant species encourages pollinators and birds. Buying organic can help local organic producers and encourage larger areas that are safe for insects and birds. "The plants that are indigenous to this region should be supported and replanted." Strive for bio-diversity in the garden, advised Ms. May, and "first do no harm." Compost Applying chemical pesticides to a lawn or a garden is harmful, she said, and may have an impact on human health as well as on the diversity of plants and other life in the soil. Composting home organic waste not only provides for fertile soil but keeps garbage tossed into landfills in plastic bags from creating harmful methane gas. Ms. May expressed support for the federal government's Kyoto stand and suggested Canadians will be pleased when they see the government's report due out within the next few weeks. But she also surged listeners to write to their Liberal MPs in southwestern Ontario to express support for measures aimed at reducing automobile emissions. While one questioner from the audience expressed concern about the effects of growing industrialization in countries such as China and India, Ms. May said it's up to the world's richest industrialized countries to set the standard and that had always been the intent of Kyoto. She suggested green technology developed in the West could be later transferred along with resources to developing countries so solutions become affordable. She did note, however, that the United States had "jumped ship" on Kyoto. Still, she noted the state governments are doing a lot regarding energy efficiencies and renewables. "I have to be optimistic because I'm a mother," she said, although acknowledging the world's environmental challenges are immense. "It's incumbent on all of us who understand the enormity of the threat to redouble our efforts," she said. Illustration: * photo of ELIZABETH MAY |
 |
 |
|