Tuesday, May 08, 2007

The Ottawa Citizen

Canada lowers standards on pesticide use on fruits, vegetables to
match U.S. limits:  Harmonizing rules removes 'trade irritant,' but won't put Canadians at
risk, agency insists

by Kelly Patterson

Think those grapes look suspiciously dusty?

Better break out the veggie-scrubbers: Canada is set to raise its
limits on pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables for hundreds of
products.

The move is part of an effort to harmonize Canadian pesticide rules
with those of the United States, which tends to allow higher residue
levels on its food: Canada's limits are stricter than those south of
the border for 40 per cent of the residues it regulates.

Differences in residue limits, which apply to domestic and imported
food, pose a potential "trade irritant," said Richard Aucoin, chief
registrar of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which sets
Canada's pesticide rules.

However, Canada will only relax its rules "where this poses no risks,"
he stressed.

The harmonization effort may even force Canada to raise some of its
standards to match those in the U.S., he adds. However, he concedes,
U.S. standards are stricter in only 10 per cent of cases.

The U.S. often allows more pesticide residues because its warmer
climate means it is plagued by more pests, Mr. Aucoin said.

Canada won't be relaxing its limits for all of the cases in which they
are stricter than those south of the border, but "will likely be asked
to (change) them" for cases now being identified as priorities by
growers, he says.

The agency is reviewing its limits on a case-by-case basis, he said.

The harmonization effort is drawing fire from environmental critics.

"Canada should never lower its standards in the name of
harmonization," said David Boyd, an environmental lawyer and author of
a 2006 study of international pesticide regulations.

"We should look to equal or surpass the best in the world, not only
measure ourselves against the U.S.," where regulations are weaker than
in jurisdictions such as the European Union, he said.

Canadian regulators and their U.S. counterparts have been working to
harmonize their pesticide regulations since 1996, as part of the North
American Free Trade Agreement.

Now the effort is being fast-tracked as an initiative under the
Security and Prosperity Partnership, a wide-ranging plan to streamline
regulatory and security protocols across North America. The SPP's 2006
report identified stricter residue limits as "barriers to trade."

Mr. Boyd's report, published by the B.C.-based David Suzuki
Foundation, raised concerns about the levels of pesticide residue
allowed both in the U.S. and Canada.

Comparing 40 U.S. limits with those set by Canada, the European Union,
Australia and the World Health Organization, he found the U.S. had the
weakest rules for more than half of the cases studied.

In some cases the differences were dramatic: The U.S. allows 50 times
more vinclozolin on cherries as the E.U., and 100 times more lindane
on pineapples.

Canada fared no better: For permethrin on leaf lettuce and spinach,
the Canadian and U.S. limit was 400 times higher than in Europe, and
the Canadian cap on methoxychlor was 1,400 times the European limit.

Both Canada and the U.S. also allow pesticides that have been banned
by health officials not only in Europe but also in some developing
countries, Mr. Boyd noted.

Methamidophos, for example, is permitted in Canada but banned in
Indonesia and other developing nations, he found. (The pesticide is
now being re-evaluated in Canada.)

Both countries also allow the use of atrazine, which has been found to
cause sexual deformities and reproductive problems in frogs in
concentrations of just a few parts per billion -- concentrations that
have been found in Canadian drinking water, Mr. Boyd's report says.

Other pesticides have been associated with a risk of cancer, including
breast cancer and childhood leukemia, autism, birth defects, organ
damage and Alzheimer's disease.

Mr. Aucoin said residue limits are set according to exacting standards
in Canada, adding that differences in ecosystems and patterns of use
can account for the variation from country to country.

Also, it's just common sense for Canada to work most closely with its
largest and nearest trading partner, he adds.

Besides, in practice, the question of official residue limits is moot
in most cases because farmers are using fewer and fewer pesticides, he
says.

"The trend in both Canada and the U.S. is to use less, not more," he
said, explaining that the high cost of bug-killers has prompted
farmers to cut back.

As a result, residue levels on imported produce are usually well below
even the Canadian limits, he says.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which monitors residue levels,
has found "a relatively small number of violations" of Canada's
maximum levels in recent years, he said.

Raising the official limits "will not change the amount of pesticides
coming into the country," he concludes.

But Mr. Boyd questions how much we really know about the amount of
pesticides coming across the border, saying his study raised questions
about the effectiveness of Canada's monitoring system.

His study noted that the food inspection agency found residues in only
10 per cent of the produce it tested in 2004-05. In the same period,
U.S. regulators found residues in 76 per cent of the fresh fruit and
vegetables they tested. British officials found pesticides in 40 per
cent of their produce in 2006.

In the cases of Canada and the U.S., less than one per cent of the
residues exceeded the legal limits.

Even if those findings are accurate, Mr. Boyd says they are cause for
concern.

"One or two per cent may not seem like very much, but you have to
consider that people are eating fruits and vegetables several times a
day, 365 days a year," Mr. Boyd said.

Pesticide residues also make their way into water and the air through
dust particles, leading to a cumulative effect that regulators do not
currently take into account, he says.

A 2006 study in the Annals of Neurology found even low exposure to
pesticides increased the risk of contracting Parkinson's disease by 70
per cent, Mr. Boyd's study notes.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

http://tinyurl.com/2ckkzk

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

Richard Aucoin is the PMRA's Chief Registrar. His e-mail address is
Richard_Aucoin@hc-sc.gc.ca.  Denise_Shields@hc-sc.gc.ca
is his executive assistant.  You may also want to cc
on any correspondence.
(copy and past these into your e-mail server)

Contact your politicians

Need an example to get you started?  Read Bonita Poulin's letter.  Way to go Bonita!  Scroll down to read CROW's letter at the bottom.

Pesticide residues
 From: "Bonita & Gilles Poulin" <poulin@xplornet.com>
 To: "Cheryl Gallant" <Gallant.C@parl.gc.ca>, "Gilles Duceppe" <ducepg1@parl.gc.ca>, "Jack Layton" <ndpadmin@fed.ndp.ca>, "Stephen Harper" <pm@pm.gc.ca>
 
Dear Sirs and Madame,

I heard on the news last night that the government was about to up the allowable levels of pesticide residues on food crops to match the US levels. What the hell are you doing?
The Ontario College of Family Physicians already stated that all pesticides are hazardous to our health and especially to small children, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems. People like me with Multiple Chemical Sensitivities get ill from exposures to pesticides and have developed allergies to many foods because of the pesticide residues on them already. We need to reduce these levels, not add to them.
You better decide who it is you are supporting and protecting; the Canadian people who voted you in, or industry that will line your pockets! We are watching and will remember in the next election!

Bonita Poulin

Canadian Coordinator
GLOBAL RECOGNITION CAMPAIGN
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
and other Chemically Induced Illnesses, Diseases & Injury
affecting civilians and military personnel
www.mcs-global.org
More coordinators needed!

***

Mothers' Day, May 13th, 2007

SUBSIDIZE ORGANIC FOOD
 From: "CROW Inc." <crowinc@mts.net>
 To: Clement.T@parl.gc.ca, Dion.S@parl.gc.ca, Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca, Prime Minister <pm@pm.gc.ca>, Prime Minister Harper <Harper.S@parl.gc.ca>, Richard_Aucoin@hc-sc.gc.ca
 CC: Canadian Organic Growers office-at-cog.ca, Denise_Shields@hc-sc.gc.ca, Organic Food Council <janine@mb.sympatico.ca>, Wpg Pesticides Group <winnipegpesticides@yahoogroups.com>
 
Dear Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister of Health Tony Clement,
Mr. Richard Aucoin Chief Registrar of the PMRA, and Opposition Leaders

You do not have the Canadian public's permission to subsidize the American
agri-chemical-pharmaceutical industry.  You have lost the public's
confidence by putting U.S. trade ahead of Canadian public health.

SUBSIDIZE ORGANIC FOOD:
Your e-mail response will be appreciated indicating that either Canada a) will
not relax pesticide residue limits or b) will immediately subsidize organic
food.  You cannot poison us.  

Responses from all recipients is appreciated; please feel free to quote me.  
Thank you.

Sincerely,
Glenda Whiteman
Concerned Residents of Winnipeg
www.CROWinc.org