|
September 13, 2004
Thank you for hearing my presentation today. I have to start
by saying that this is not the presentation I wanted to make (which
would have been to complain that you have a made a motion to study
the studies that study the studies.) In teaching, I learned that
you have to start from where the students are. It would not be
wise to teach you the subjunctive mood if you have not yet mastered
the present indicative. I cannot tell you that this motion
(580) is not good enough when the other motion
(579) before you is even worse. So instead, I must explain why
we in Winnipeg deserve to live under the protection of a pesticide
use ban.
There are currently 69 municipal cosmetic pesticide use by-laws
protecting some 35% of Canadians. Since nuisance mosquito fogging
is cosmetic, under a cosmetic pesticide by-law, Winnipegers would
be protected from further poisoning by the City and also from
the private homeowners who do not read label directions, do not
notify their neighbours, do not discard unused product properly
and who are not required to display any understanding of pesticide
hazards. We agree with Bill Norrie that fogging is cosmetic, but
it is not a placebo because it is not benign.
Please don't take my word for that. I suggest that you listen
to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
who explain Vulnerable Groups in chapter 7 of Pesticides:
Making the Right Choice For the Protection of Health and the Environment.
"The entire population is vulnerable to contaminants circulating
in the environment, but to varying degrees. Geography has an influence
on the level of the risk to which the public is exposed. Researchers
have shown that pollution is high in the basins of the Great Lakes
and The Saint LawrenceRiver where most Canadians live. Because
of the grasshopper effect and the characteristics of certain substances,
contaminants also accumulate in Canada's North. The literature
provided by the witnesses indicates that three categories of the
population are especially vulnerable to the presence of pesticides.
In the first group are women and children who, because of their
body types, are more sensitive to contaminants. The second group
comprises people in poor health (including older people), who
are likely to have reduced defenses against chemical stresses.
The portion of the population in more frequent contact with pesticides
makes up the third group, which includes workers who handle pesticides
on the job and people who live in areas where pollutants accumulate,
and who also fish, hunt and collect fruit to feed themselves."
Because there is not much time, this presentation today will
focus on answers to the questions most frequently posed to me
by politicians. What do I tell my constituents and colleagues?
What is happening in other juresdictions? What are the cost/benefits
of spraying? What are the best practices and where are they happening?
What are the human health effects? What are my legal obligations?
Human Health Effects
Let us start with the human health effects. The second "study
of the studies" I will share with you today is found of page
4 of the Pesticides Literature Review from the Ontario
College of Family Physicians. I will read it from quote number
4 of the CROW Open
Letter to politicians which all Councillors and MLA's recently
received for the second time. The Open Letter has been signed
by about 250 Manitobans so far. We continue to collect endorsements
and signatures.
"Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of
pesticides. Children eat and drink more per kilogram of body weight
than adults. Their skin is more permeable and their livers do
not excrete as efficiently as adults'. Their hand-to-mouth behaviour
increases the chance of ingestion and they play on the ground
outdoors and on the floor indoors. Parents track pesticides indoors
on their shoes, inadvertently exposing their children. Some pesticides
that degrade outdoors in sunlight are more persistent once they
are present indoors." You may have seen the Globe & Mail
headline about this article: Pesticides
too harmful to use in any form, doctors warn.
Myths
Let us move on to some of the myths that abound on this subject.
These are the things that constitutents and politicians in favour
of fogging must believe. I will attempt to identify and dispel
some of these myths with an excerpt from a presentation I made
earlier this summer to the R.
M. of Winchester, called 'You are not Monsters.'
- if Health Canada registers pesticides, they must be safe
- pesticides are thoroughly tested before they're brought to
market
- there is not enough 'scientific' evidence to prove pesticides
are harmful
- Malathion breaks down quickly
- fogging with Malathion reduces mosquito populations
- fogging reduces the risk of West Nile virus
- our exposures to pesticides are within 'acceptable levels'
- pesticides are safe when used as directed
- we are more at risk from mosquitoes than we are from pesticides
Truths
The arm of Health Canada responsible for overseeing pesticide
approvals is called the PMRA, Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
The first paragraph on their website states: Health Canada's Pest
Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), is the federal agency responsible
for the regulation of pest control products in Canada. They do
not regulate health management. Furthermore, they do no testing
of pest control products. Rather, they review the scientific 'evidence'
provided by the manufacturers.
Most pesticides are never tested on humans before coming to market.
Testing is done on animals, such as rats, which simulate human
responses and/or behaviours. Complex equations are calculated
to allow for differences between human and animal reactions to
the toxins. When test results do reflect human exposures, subjects
are usually healthy, young, predominantly white males.
It would be unethical to subject humans to pesticides in order
to study health effects. Can you imagine lining up pregnant or
lactating mothers, and their children, and exposing them to varying
or repeated doses of a particular toxin, or various combinations
of poisons, and then tracking the children to see at what point
they die or develop mutations, childhood leukemia, Multiple Chemical
Sensitivities, diabetes, ADHD, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, asthma,
sexual dysfunction, etc, etc…
I thought of a visual way to explain the different types of exposures
we face. It's called Toxin.
It may help you begin to understand the degree to which Health
Canada is not keeping us safe.
Another problem with providing the so-called 'hard evidence'
sometimes called for is that there is no true control group left.
Everyone is now carrying pesticide metabolites in their bodies.
Even in places in the world that have never used pesticides. This
is according to another study of studies, Growing
Up Toxic: Chemical Exposures and Increases in Developmental Disease.
The Sierra Club explains it further in the Truth
About Pesticides, "Although pesticides used and sold
in Canada are registered, this does not mean they are safe. Even
the federal government regulators do not claim that registration
equals safety. Pesticides are not tested in combination, although
their synergistic effects may be amplified as much as 1000 times.
While pesticides produce acute and long-term health effects, toxicity
experiments (done on healthy animals) measure and account for
only the acute effects. The pesticides that are deemed acceptable
for use as a result of these tests do not take into account the
possible chronic effects. "Acceptable" tolerance levels
are set for an average adult male, and do not take into account
the different situations of women and children."
Let's get specific now and talk about malathion. People say it
'breaks down quickly'. The Winnipeg Regional Health Authority
states that it has "a relatively short half-life in the environment."
What they don't say is that it breaks down into substances that
are even more toxic than the malathion itself, such as malaoxon.
"Malaoxon, a metabolite produced by the oxidation of malathion
in mammals, insects, plants, and in sunlight is a primary source
of malathion's toxicity and is 40 times more acutely toxic than
malathion." http://www.beyondpesticides.org
I invite you to read the Myths & Facts by CAPE. Paper copies
are provided since I do not believe this is on their website.
What you will find on their site is this excellent paper, Why
Canadian Physicians Are Concerned about the Policies Regulating
Pesticide Use.
Health Canada
Let's talk about Health Canada some more. In 2001 their Fact
Sheet on Malathion used to carry a warning about car paint. The
new Fact Sheet
no longer describes this problem. It's not because malathion is
less toxic, rather it is because the droplets are smaller now.
As I explained to Councillor Angus, this means that particles
can now travel deeper into our lungs. But again, please do not
take my word for it. The University of California, Naval Biosciences
Laboratory says, "Because these particles reach the alveoi,
there exists a potential for rapic translocation of chemicals
into the bloodstream."
The old Fact Sheet also talked about a history of "safe"
use of Mathion in Winnipeg and New York. It no longer quotes New
York. (Do you suppose that has anything to do with the lawsuits?)
I would like to know specifically what documents the City of Winnipeg
has provided to Health Canada to justify the statement that Winnipeg
has a history of safe use for large-scale application? (NB. Re
the legality of calling pest control products 'safe' please view
Breaking the Law: Pesticide Advertising and Public Deception by
the Toronto
Environmental Alliance.)
Other Cities
- Well, then what is happening in New York? They dumped a lot
of pesticides on themselves too. Are the people all healthy
and the mosquitoes all gone? No. I invite you to read another
article by the Globe
& Mail: Pesticide Suicide explaining that after 11 years
of spraying, mosquito numbers had grown 15-fold. Or maybe you
would like to learn about how New
York sues Dow for advertising Dursban as "safe."
Or perhaps you would like to read about the birds
in New York. Or you might be interested in the lawsuit in
New York that was just launched September 11 requiring the Housing
Authority to reduce
pesticide use. Or this lawsuit from September, 2003, New
York sues EPA (or view the pdf
version) for failing to protect children from pesticides.
- Edmonton
is doing some things right.
+ Their mosquito control department is required to obtain
advanced written permission from the owner of every parcel
of land that it treats :)
+ They have a consolidated weed and insect control website
and spray-line,
where information is available daily on ALL spray operations
:)
- They also still use Dursban :( for larviciding along
with Bti
+ They stopped fogging in 1993 :)
+ They offer a Beneficial Insect Guide :)
- As you know in March, 2003, Quebec adopted the
highest standards in North America to decrease exposure
to pesticides with their provincial pesticide ban. They are
holding a conference in October, PESTICIDES
IN OUR BODIES /A TOXIC LEGACY.
- In July, 2003 Lyndhurst,
Ohio passed an ordinance prohibiting fogging AND declaring
a health emergency. Mr. Scott Picker, Councilor in Lyndhurst
sent this cost-benefit analysis package.
- It is interesting to ponder that the Capitols, Ottawa and
Washington, DC do not fog themselves. Dr. Meg Sears told me
by phone from Ottawa this week that when Ottawa stopped fogging
themselves there was one 'year from hell' for mosquitoes and
then it normalized. In 1987. Let that one sink in.
- There was considerable international response to our protest
and my arrest this summer. Some e-mails were sent to me because
politicians' mail boxes were jammed. I don't know if you are
aware:
- New
Jersey Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet sent to Winnipeg
via Ontario
- support came from as far as South Wales and Australia
- Toronto--Hillary Balmer of RAINET, wants to explain human
rights issues to Winnipeg politicians and police, Sept 29th
or 30th
Speaking of human rights issues, please do not forget that the
Charter
of Rights and Freedoms guarantees us, in Section 7, "The
right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right
not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles
of fundamental justice." This means we have the right to
air.
We deserve protection
To conclude today, I have to say that I agree completely with
Councillor Angus, that the citizens of Winnipeg deserve protection
from West Nile virus. But the use of more pesticides will not
protect anyone. In your deliberations, keep in mind also that
changing the buffer zones would require an amendment to the Pesticide
Use Permit and the Minister has already indicated that he would
not entertain that possibility. Furthermore, even if he did, we
would proceed in court seeking an injunction to prevent spraying.
Lastly, I would have to breach a recognizance that my lawyer is
desperately trying to convince me to accept. More poison is not
the answer. Please stop poisoning us now.
Thank you,
Glenda Whiteman
Executive Director
|
