So called dangerous facts on Pesticides? Ask Gideon Forman or the Saskatchewan Environmental Society

BACK TO USING THE flawed Ontario College of Family Physicians 2004 Literature review as their defense against pesticide use.
Pesticide Truths on the 2004 OCFP Report
Now they refer to other coerced provinces as their proof of product safety.
But still no genuine evidence after 60 years of testing these products.Where is the late breaking news that they finally have proof?
Where is the evidence that the ban has saved lives and has made the communities safer?
These people have a vested interest in banning anything they can.  That is how they get paid.


Pesticide ban wise

Re: Too much yellow in our green spaces (SP, June 5). Dandelions harm no one, but 2,4-D, the herbicide used to destroy them, is linked to cancer, neurological illness and reproductive problems.

This may explain why four provinces (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia), along with three countries (Denmark, Norway and Sweden) have banned this chemical.

Isn’t it time Saskatchewan followed the lead of our doctors, nurses and the Canadian Cancer Society and banned all non-essential pesticides? Doing so would protect drinking water, family pets and, most important, the province’s children.

Gideon Forman

Executive Director, Canadian Assn. of Physicians for the Environment

via Pesticide ban wise.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

See 2,4-D risk in context

Bronwyn Eyre’s column, Too much yellow in our green spaces (SP, June 5), described the presence of dandelions in public parks as a “civic disgrace.”

She argues the city should be using 2,4-D because the Pest Management Regulatory Agency has deemed this herbicide as “safe.”

The PMRA has never stated 2,4-D is safe, only that it poses an “acceptable risk.” When the agency audits a pesticide product, it considers the health and environmental concerns verses the value or usefulness of the product.

In an agricultural context, where pesticides are applied by professionals among very sparse populations and serve the role of increasing crop yields, the argument for them is more compelling. However, in the urban setting, where untrained users apply pesticides in a densely populated area purely for aesthetic purposes, their use becomes much more controversial.

The Ontario College of Family Physicians in 2004 reviewed the health effects of pesticides and found evidence of “serious harmful effects including cancer, reproductive effects and impacts on the nervous system,” and placed 2,4-D specifically on the list of harmful chemicals.

The Lung Association of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Cancer Society, and the Saskatoon Health Region all have taken a stance against the use of turf pesticides.

There are two sides to this debate, and we must consider both to make an informed decision. However, we must ask whether we are willing to risk our health for the sake of a yellow flower?

Greg Rooke

Pesticide reduction co-ordinator

Saskatchewan Environmental Society

Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/risk+context/3146650/story.html#ixzz0qen2Va44
https://wp.me/p1jq40-6G