|
Fri 11 Mar 2005 The Guelph Tribune New bylaw peeves pesticide foes By: Janet Baine A new pesticide bylaw has no teeth, will be ineffective and will undermine the time and expenditure of local lawn care companies that become accredited in safe use of pesticides, according to critics who spoke to city council about the policy. In fact, none of the dozen speakers over two nights who spoke to city council and represented both sides on this issue favour the city's new healthy landscapes education program and bylaw. But director of parks Jay Kivell "feels great" about city council's decision. "I feel like, after 16 years, there is a huge weight lifted off my shoulders. We have some direction from council," he said in an interview. He is investigating having city staff accredited in Integrated Pest Manage-ment (IPM) practices that are encouraged in the city policy and set clear restrictions on pesticide use. "If we're expecting others to do this, we'd better make sure our people are trained, too," he said. Stakeholders on a committee acted in an advisory capacity, and Kivell consulted with staff members before making changes to their proposal. He said he takes full responsibility for the changes to their proposal. Coun. Gloria Kovach wanted the policy to include restrictions related to weather and wind conditions, and council approved this. The new policy is a long way from the pesticide ban that was initially proposed, and it is highly dependent on an education program. There is no money in the city's 2005 budget dedicated to this process, though. All funds for education dried up before last summer. But Kivell said that a staff member, Thelma Kessel, is three weeks into a grant program that will cover her wages to roll out the education program developed by another short-term staff member last year, hired under the same program. "We have no money for advertising, brochures and that type of thing, so it will be a low-key approach and will be kept cost-effective," Kivell said. The city's new bylaw includes a requirement that new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development have 12 inches of topsoil. The aim is to reduce the need for lawn watering, if there is more topsoil. Council heard from four city doctors, who all spoke about health issues related to pesticide spraying. Council also heard from people who previously supported an outright ban on pesticides, but who were in favour of the more limited restrictions outlined by the stakeholder committee. Marion Baldwin, who chaired a pesticide review committee two years ago that undertook extensive community consultation in the issue, said she found the result "very disappointing, but not surprising." She said after the meeting that this issue exemplifies a "dire lack of leadership" in the city. A May 2003 resolution by city council directed a new committee to work on a policy or program that would include six items. Only one ended up in the bylaw, an education program that was passed. Baldwin called this "an insult to the public consultation process." Exemptions from pesticide regulations have been granted to golf courses and research institutions, and also for health and safety reasons. This would allow spraying for termites or handling of concerns about the West Nile virus. 'WEATHER' OR NOT TO SPRAY The city's new pesticide bylaw restricts spraying under certain weather conditions. These include: - Wind speed greater than 11 km/h - Temperatures above 25 degrees - On trees during their blooming period - When the forecast of rain on a given day is 50 per cent or greater, except for applications that require watering-in - Within 10 metres of any body of water and wetlands - During an air quality advisory day. While it may be difficult to prove the exact wind speed during an application in a specific location, this information will be helpful in educating people about proper pesticide use. Note: Ran with fact box "'Weather' or not to spray" which has been appended to the story ==================== Fri 11 Mar 2005 The Corner Brook Western Star Setting the record straight Dear Editor: I am responding to 'Pesticide bans based on junk science', by Terence Corcoran, published in The Western Star on March 4, 2005. First of all, the term "junk science" was invented by a PR company working for the tobacco industry. Let us examine the facts: On Monday, Feb. 21, 2005, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) made an interim announcement which stated that the pesticide 2,4-D can be used safely on lawns and turf when label directions are followed. The PMRA is a federal regulatory body responsible for the regulation of pesticides in Canada within Health Canada. However, 2,4-D is one of the 22 pesticide active ingredients to be banned from use on all green spaces across the province of Quebec. The reason that 2,4-D was put on the Quebec list in the first place is because it was found to be a risk under the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The new PMRA decision did not conclude that 2,4-D is not a carcinogen. Child cancer merited more study, but this was considered too difficult. Animal studies were used. There is significant doubt, and the Precautionary Principle should prevail. The PMRA has stated that 2,4-D is 'safe' IF 'label directions are followed'. This means that we and our children are at risk of harm when label directions are not followed. It is impossible to monitor every usage across Canada. The Precautionary Principle would dictate that 2,4-D not be used. We have already seen that most professional applicators do not protect themselves adequately while applying pesticides on lawns. In Canada, it is illegal to advertise that a pesticide is 'safe'. In the manufacture of 2,4-D, dioxins are formed. Dioxins are persistent, bioaccumulative and carcinogenic. They harm neurological development, impair reproduction, disrupt the endocrine system and alter immune function. The PMRA relies on the manufacturer's testing of 2,4-D to monitor dioxins, however since 1983 no such monitoring has been carried out and the recent announcement stated that required dioxin data had not yet been provided by the industry. No testing is carried out for herbicide related dioxins in sediments in waterways adjacent to 2,4-D use. According to Canada's Environmental Protection Act, dioxins are targeted for virtual elimination. The bad odour that emanates from storage or use of lawn pesticides is the smell of the first break-down product, which is very toxic. This chemical: 2,4-dichlorophenol, is not even mentioned in the review of 2,4-D by the PMRA. Important gaps in relevant information exist, for example, reproduction and neurotoxicity studies required by the PMRA were not submitted, and cancer in children merited study but will not be considered. 2,4-D has been found in blood and semen; it has been linked to neurological impairment and to reproductive risk. From an environmental point of view, the use of 2,4-D on lawns is an ecological aberration because it favours monocultures which are very vulnerable to insect infestations. Dr. K. Jean Cottam, (PhD, University of Toronto), Nepean (Ottawa) =================== Sat 12 Mar 2005 The Windsor Star Must protect kids from pesticides This letter is in response to all the debate over the safety, or lack thereof, in the use of pesticides in our city. Since when does a green and perfect lawn take precedence over the health of our citizens -- our children especially? Are we that self-absorbed that we need to put other people's health at risk just to have the perfect lawn? We're banning smoking in Ontario to protect the innocent people ,who do not smoke, from getting sick. So what is wrong with the idea that we protect innocent children and the people who do not choose to pollute their property? The children are the ones who are rolling, running and consuming (for those of you who have ever had toddlers) these chemicals. They cannot read the signs nor do they understand the idea that someone would put poison on their grass because they didn't like dandelions or bugs. Kim Charron Windsor ======================= Fri 11 Mar 2005 Courtenay Comox Valley Record - News Public forum on pesticides Valley Green is calling on municipal and regional governments to restrict the unnecessary or cosmetic use of pesticides in the Comox Valley. "There are currently 71 communities in Canada that already have, or are in the process of, enacting pesticide control bylaws in order to reduce the risks involved in using these toxins," explains Gaylene Rehwald of Valley Green. "We are requesting that local governments implement a public education campaign together with a phased-in bylaw, to restrict the use of cosmetic pesticides in our community." The group will be co-hosting a public forum called "Pesticides: Risks and Alternatives" on Thursday, March 17, from 7-9 p.m. upstairs at the Florence Filberg Centre in Courtenay. The forum will focus on how to make the transition from chemicals to healthy choices for the home and garden. Featured guest speakers include Mae Burrows of The CancerSmart Consumer Guide, and Heide Hermary, a renowned organic landscaping consultant and educator. Doors will open at 6:30 p.m. with speakers taking the stage at 7 p.m. Display tables will be set up, offering information and resources for making the transition to an ecologically-sound lifestyle. This public forum is being co-hosted by Valley Green, the Watershed Assembly, and the Council of Canadians. ==================== Sat 12 Mar 2005 Winnipeg Free Press Bug boss hopes new plan curtails residential fogging By: Mary Agnes Welch THE city's new bug boss hopes his new mosquito-fighting plan will eliminate the need for residential fogging this summer, a move that will thrill environmentalists and placate Winnipeggers annoyed by the nasty bugs. "That would be my primary goal, to see no fogging," said Taz Stuart, who outlined the city's new mosquito strategy yesterday. And, Mayor Sam Katz said he would support Stuart's decisions even if the city is bombarded by calls and e-mails demanding fogging. "We have someone here that myself and city council believe in and we are going to put our faith in him," said Katz. "If such a situation occurs, I'll take the heat, good or bad. I will support Taz Stuart and his department." Starting this summer, the city will add minnows, dragonflies and more environmentally friendly pesticides to its arsenal of bug-fighting weapons. Those will kill the mosquito larvae before they hatch into blood-suckers, avoiding the need to blast the city with a fog of malathion. The minnows will be culled from retention ponds and transplanted into permanent watering holes such as drainage ditches where city bug-fighters find plenty of larvae. In his previous post as Regina's bug boss, Stuart dumped about 500 minnows in a large pond of standing water and found barely a baby mosquito there all summer. Dragonflies are a bit trickier, since buying them from a supplier costs $25 per dragonfly -- "crazy money," said Stuart. Instead, Stuart thinks he'll send out some summer staff to kidnap dragonfly eggs from ponds outside the city and transplant them into the city. The city will also begin switching over to biological larvicides that cost more money but are a more environmentally friendly way to kill mosquito larvae. Stuart also plans to experiment with Methoprene -- a much-touted larvicide that stunts a baby mosquito's growth but doesn't harm many other organisms. The city will still use malathion in the fogging trucks that rumble through city neighbourhoods, even though the chemical has spawned midnight street blockades and protests the past few summers. Last summer, the city fogged whenever mosquito traps nabbed 25 bugs three nights in a row, which critics called a somewhat arbitrary threshold that had more to do with public pressure than science. Stuart is proposing a more detailed set of guidelines that take into account soil moisture, bug life cycles and weather. The no-fogging buffer zones around homes will remain. But the buffer zones and Stuart's fogging plan are rendered moot if the province declares a health emergency in the wake of a West Nile virus crisis. It will be June before the city has a clear sense of this summer's mosquito prognosis, but the bug office is bracing for a busy season. With this winter's significant snow, a shrinking chance of a slow, gradual thaw and soil already saturated by last summer's rain, the city could be an oasis for mosquito larvae. Yesterday, council's protection and community services committee heaped praise on Stuart's plan. Anti-malathion activist Glenda Whiteman said she would prefer if the city banned the fogging chemical altogether, but she said the plan was an improvement. maryagnes.welch@freepress.mb.ca =========================== EPA: Better Labels for Mosquito Control Products 3/10/2005--> EPA is issuing seven new recommendations to pesticide registrants and others to improve label statements for pesticide products used to control adult mosquitoes. The recommendations pertain to pesticide products applied by ultra-low volume aerial or ground application methods. The recommendations promote consistency and clarify labeling statements that may have been unclear to users. The improvements will help public health mosquito control officials use the most effective techniques while ensuring that use of these products will not pose unreasonable risks to public health or the environment. The recommendations are: (1) adult mosquito control applications should be limited to trained personnel; (2) mosquito control directions and precautions should be clearly distinguished from any other use directions allowed on the label, such as agricultural crops; (3) label precautions and directions should be revised as needed to make hazards to aquatic life as clear as possible, and also to allow the application of these products over or near a body of water allowable under some circumstances; (4) users should consult with the state or tribal agency for pesticide regulation to determine if permits or other regulatory requirements exist; (5) labels should specify a spectrum of spray/fog droplet sizes, and indicate that droplet size should be determined according to directions from equipment manufacturers or other appropriate sources; (6) precautionary language to protect bees should have a provision to allow mosquito control applications in order to respond to threats to public health which are identified by health or vector control agencies on the basis of evidence of disease organisms or diseases cases in animals or humans; and (7) labels for adult mosquitoes should include limits on timing and number of applications to the same location. EPA worked with state agencies to develop initial recommendations and presented them at two public meetings of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, an advisory committee to EPA representing a full spectrum of interests, including pesticide manufacturers, public health agencies, academia, user groups and public interest groups. In April 2004, EPA issued draft recommendations for public comment. To view the seven new recommendations, go to: http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/ Thursday, March 10, 2005 http://www.pctonline.com/news/news.asp?ID=3298 ================== County Considers Pesticide Law by Kate Welshofer Published Mar 08, 2005 Standing room only in leg chambersIt was standing room only in the Monroe County legislature chambers Tuesday. Dozens of people turned out to tell lawmakers what they think about law aimed at regulating the use of pesticides. State lawmakers passed the Neighborhood Notification Law in 2000. They gave counties the option of adopting it. The law requires that residents be notified if pesticides are being used in their neighborhood. Monroe county lawmakers are considering making it law here. The Neighborhood Notification Law requires that lawn care operators give two days written notice to neighbors who live 150 feet from the properties being treated. They must also provide additional dates for spraying in the event of rain and information on the pesticides being used. Nancy DeWitt of Rochester spoke out in favor of the law. "One of my neighbors is very environmentalist and she talked to me about it and I started to do my own research and i found out that the harm that it can cause was not worth having the greenest lawn on the street." Lawn care experts say the law looks good on paper, but believe it needs further study. They say it will not only be bad for business, but for the environment. Karolyn Shea is the general manager of a local lawn care company. "It's going to be a huge burden monetarily," she said, "but I just don't want to focus on the money part of it, because it think, even more importantly, as an environmentalist, I think we're going to be using more pesticides. We're going to be seeing more of that." Lawmakers set a date for a public hearing on the issue. It will be held May 10th. © 2005 Time Warner Cable Rochester, NY All Rights Reserved \ http://www.rnews.com/Story_2004.cfm?ID=25185&rnews_story_type=18&category=10 =============================== Cockroach Allergens Have Greatest Impact on Childhood Asthma In Many U.S. Cities By NIEHS 3/8/2005--> New results from a nationwide study on factors that affect asthma in inner-city children show that cockroach allergen appears to worsen asthma symptoms more than either dust mite or pet allergens. This research, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health, is the first large-scale study to show marked geographic differences in allergen exposure and sensitivity in inner-city children. Most homes in northeastern cities had high levels of cockroach allergens, while those in the south and northwest had dust mite allergen levels in ranges known to exacerbate asthma symptoms. The study results are published in the March issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. "These data confirm that cockroach allergen is the primary contributor to childhood asthma in inner-city home environments," said NIEHS Director Kenneth Olden, Ph.D. "However, general cleaning practices, proven extermination techniques and consistent maintenance methods can bring these allergen levels under control." Cockroach allergens come from several sources such as saliva, fecal material, secretions, cast skins, and dead bodies. People can reduce their exposure to cockroach allergen by eating only in the kitchen and dining room, putting non-refrigerated items in plastic containers or sealable bags, and taking out the garbage on a daily basis. Other measures include repairing leaky faucets, frequent vacuuming of carpeted areas and damp-mopping of hard floors, and regular cleaning of counter tops and other surfaces. NIH provided $7.5 million to researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas and seven other research institutions, including the Data Coordinating Center at Rho, Inc., for the three-year study. "We found that a majority of homes in Chicago, New York City and the Bronx had cockroach allergen levels high enough to trigger asthma symptoms, while a majority of homes in Dallas and Seattle had dust mite allergen levels above the asthma symptom threshold," said Dr. Rebecca Gruchalla, associate professor of internal medicine and pediatrics at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and lead author of the study. "We also discovered that the levels of both of these allergens were influenced by housing type," noted Gruchalla. "Cockroach allergen levels were highest in high-rise apartments, while dust mite concentrations were greatest in detached homes." While cockroach allergen exposure did produce an increase in asthma symptoms, researchers did not find an increase in asthma symptoms as a result of exposure to dust mite and pet dander. "Children who tested positive for, and were exposed to, cockroach allergen experienced a significant increase in the number of days with cough, wheezing and chest tightness, number of nights with interrupted sleep, number of missed school days, and number of times they had to slow down or discontinue their play activity," said Gruchalla. While cockroaches are primarily attracted to water sources and food debris, house dust mites, microscopic spider-like creatures that feed on flakes of human skin, reside in bedding, carpets, upholstery, draperies and other "dust traps." Dust mite allergens are proteins that come from the digestive tracts of mites and are found in mite feces. Researchers tested 937 inner-city children with moderate to severe asthma symptoms. The children, ages 5 to 11, were given skin tests for sensitivity to cockroach and dust mite allergens, pet dander, and mold. Bedroom dust samples were analyzed for the presence of each allergen type. This study was part of the larger Inner-City Asthma Study, a cooperative multi-center project comprised of seven asthma study centers across the country. The goal of the study was to develop and implement a comprehensive, cost-effective intervention program aimed at reducing asthma incidence among children living in low socioeconomic areas. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is a federal agency that conducts and funds basic research on the health effects of exposure to environmental agents. Source: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Tuesday, March 8, 2005 http://www.pctonline.com/news/news.asp?ID=3291 =============================== E.P.A. Nominee Supports Testing of Chemicals on Human Subjects ......... by Gene C. Gerard March 12, 2005 President Bush recently nominated Stephen L. Johnson, a 24-year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency, to be the agency's new administrator. Mr. Johnson has been the acting administrator since January, and prior to that oversaw the EPA office handling pesticides and other toxic substances. In nominating Johnson, Mr. Bush described him as "a talented scientist" and having "good judgment and complete integrity." Yet his record as the Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances casts serious doubt on whether he is suited to lead the E.P.A., an agency directly affecting Americans' health and many significant industries, including automobiles and agriculture. During President Bush's first term, Johnson was a strong supporter of pesticide testing on humans. During President Clinton's administration, the E.P.A. would not consider the results of controversial trials that tested pesticides on people. But after Mr. Bush was elected, Johnson changed the policy to permit consideration, saying, "We are willing to consider that such studies can be useful". However, a panel of scientists and ethicists convened by the E.P.A. in 1998 determined that these types of trials were unethical and scientifically unsuitable to estimate the safety of chemicals. In 2001, the trials considered by the agency gave paid subjects doses of pesticides hundreds of times greater than levels that E.P.A. officials considered safe for the general public. The agency evaluated three studies that year from Dow Chemicals, Bayer Corporation, and the Gowan Company. The Bayer and Gowan studies were conducted in third-world countries, where volunteers were more readily available, while Dow conducted their study in Nebraska. In the Dow study, human subjects were given doses four times the level that the E.P.A. knew produced adverse affects in animals. Subjects suffered numbness, headaches, nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps. Dow's doctors determined that these symptoms were "possibly" or "probably" related to the chemical. But in the final analysis of the study, Dow concluded that the pesticide did not produce any symptoms. And the E.P.A. accepted it. It's wasn't surprising then that in October of last year, Johnson strongly supported a study in which infants will be monitored for health impacts as they undergo exposure to toxic chemicals for a two-year period. The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS), will analyze how chemicals can be ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by children ranging from infants to three year olds. The study will analyze 60 children in Duval County, Florida who are routinely exposed to pesticides in their homes. Yet the E.P.A. acknowledges that pesticide exposure is a risk factor for childhood cancer and the early onset of asthma. Other aspects of CHEERS are equally troublesome. The participants will be selected from six health clinics and three hospitals in Duval County. The E.P.A. study proposal noted, "Although all Duval County citizens are eligible to use the [health care] centers, they primarily serve individuals with lower incomes. In the year 2000, 75 percent of the users of the clinics for pregnancy issues were at or below the poverty level." The proposal also cited that "The percentage of births to individuals classified as black in the U.S. Census is higher at these three hospitals than for the County as a whole." The E.P.A. is targeting the poor and African-Americans for the study, presumably in the hope that they will be less informed about the dangers of exposing their children to pesticides, and will therefore continue to expose them over the two-year period. The study actually mandates that parents not be provided information about the proper ways to apply or store pesticides around the home. And the parents cannot be informed of the risks of prolonged or excessive exposure to pesticides. Additionally, the study does not provide guidelines to intervene if the children show signs of developmental delay or register dangerous levels of pesticide exposure in the periodic testing. Parents receive $970 for participating, but only if they continue over the two-year period. This is a powerful inducement for these impoverished parents to keep exposing their children to pesticides. Even some E.P.A. officials have been troubled by the lack of safeguards to ensure that these parents are not swayed into exposing their children to the chemicals. Troy Pierce, a scientist in the E.P.A.'s Atlanta based pesticides office, wrote to his colleagues last year via e-mail, "This does sound like it goes against everything we recommend at EPA concerning use of (pesticides) related to children. Paying families in Florida to have their homes routinely treated with pesticides is very sad when we at EPA know that (pesticide management) should always be used to protect children." Additionally, it was disclosed that the American Chemistry Council gave $2.1 million to the E.P.A. to fund CHEERS. The council is comprised of many pesticide manufacturers. These manufacturers have known since the 1970s of the long-term toxicity of the pesticides being tested in the study. But since this study only lasts two years, there will likely be little or no obvious short-term effects. Consequently, this will allow the council to proclaim that the E.P.A. found no side effects, and in turn allow it to lobby Congress to weaken regulations on these chemicals. Stephen L. Johnson's strong support of pesticide testing on humans is morally and scientifically reprehensible. The testing provides no health benefit to the subjects, or to society at large. But it does help chemical companies who claim that their products are not dangerous. And this is not the type of help that the future head of the E.P.A. should be giving. http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=7420 |
 |
 |
|