“Secret Evidence” Letter from the Canadian Cancer Society – Carolyn Gotay – Latest ‘PROOF’ of Cosmetic Lawn Pesticide Dangers

AUDIO: Included below

5 Articles are Referenced in the Letter used by Municipal Council Members and Environmental Groups to ban pesticides in their community, they will be listed below with any available abstract, summary and or conclusions.

3 reviews, 1 editorial and 1 Research Article. 

A Quote from the Cancer Societys own Medical Reference (Spinelli 2008):

Nor is it clear whether a ban on the use of 2,4-D was
warranted.  In fact, the major source of dioxin exposure in the
United States is not from contamination in industrial
products such as pesticides.  It is from combustion
processes, primarily municipal and medical waste
incinerators and uncontrolled backyard waste burning

 4 Short Audio Clips:

Selina Robinson Coquitlam Councillor who is insulted people don't think she uses Real Facts in her decision making process:  CoquitlamMarch72011PesticideAgendaSelinaRobinsonInsultedProperResearch

Councillor speaks of having to wipe pesticides from Cat and Dog paws: CoquitlamMarch72011PesticideAgendaSelinaRobinson2WashingKittyPaws

Robinson Says 'Ample Evidence' and quotes Cancer Society: CoquitlamMarch72011PesticideAgendaSelinaRobinsonAmpleEvidence

Letter read from Cancer Society – Gotay (actual letter below): CoquitlamMarch72011PesticideAgendaLetterFromCarolynGotayUBCProfessorCancerSociety

 



BC & Yukon Canadian Cancer Society Letter April 15, 2010 - Caroly Gotay - References:

Considerable evidence supports a link between pesticides, including agents in cosmetic
pesticides, and cancer incidence (that is, new cases of cancer). According to Dr. John
Spinelli of the BC Cancer Research Centre, " ... there is now sufficient evidence to
conclude that there is likely a causal relationship between pesticide use and lymphatic
malignancies" (I). Many studies have been based on the experience of individuals who
have high occupational exposures, such as farmers, with accumulating evidence that
cancers in addition to lymphomas are also caused by pesticide exposure, such as prostate
and brain cancers (2). Recent evidence from Saskatchewan indicates that family history
and pesticide exposure may interact to greatly increase the risk of multiple myeloma; as
the authors state, "A positive family history andlor shared environmental exposure to
agricultural chemicals play an important role in the development of cancer" (3). These
effects may be particularly evident in children: a systematic review published just this
year from the University of Ottawa found that exposures to residential pesticides or
insecticides in utero or during childhood were linked with significantly higher rates of
childhood leukemia (4).

 Despite these limitations, there is evidence that suggests that pesticide bans do result in lower cancer rates. Lowerrates of lymphoma have been reported in countries after they enact pesticide bans (e.g., Sweden, Finland, Denmark), whereas declines are not observed in countries without such bans (e.g., UK, Norway, Israel) (5).

 

 References:

  I. Spinelli, J. (2008). Pesticides, soft tissue, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma Acta Oncologica 47:335-6.

2. Bassil, K, et al. (2007). Cancer health effects of pesticides. Canadian Family Physician 53: 1704-11.

3. McDuffie, HH, et al. (2009). Clustering of cancer among families of cases with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), multiple myeloma (MM), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and control subjects. BMC Cancer 9:70.

4. Dreiher, J, Kordysh, E. (2006). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and pesticide exposure: 25 years of research. Acta HaematoII16:153-64.

5. Turner, MC, et al. (2010). Residential pesticides and childhood leukemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 118:33-41.





Citation (1)

Editorial

 Spinelli, J. (2008). Pesticides, soft tissue, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma Acta Oncologica

Dioxins, including TCDD, are also created in the
production of other phenoxy herbicides such as
2,4-D. These pesticides have been associated with
cancer in some studies, although less consistently
and with less strength of association. 2,4-D has been
banned in some countries, but is still in use in many
others. 2,4-D was also contaminated by dioxins,
although at lower levels than 2,4,5-T, and the dioxin
levels have been greatly reduced due to better quality
control in the production of these chemicals [4]. It is
not clear whether improving the manufacturing
process to reduce or eliminate dioxin contamination
in 2,4,5-T, rather than an outright ban, would also
have reduced the risk from exposure to this pesticide.
Nor is it clear whether a ban on the use of 2,4-D was
warranted.
In fact, the major source of dioxin exposure in the
United States is not from contamination in industrial
products such as pesticides. It is from combustion
processes, primarily municipal and medical waste
incinerators and uncontrolled backyard waste burning,
although dioxin exposure from large incinerators
has been reduced due to improvements in
incineration technology in recent years [7]. The
lesson to be learned is that the actions taken to
reduce carcinogenic exposure need to be informed
by research; simple solutions may have little effect in
public health.
The precautionary principle as a strategy for risk
management and the role of epidemiology in the
application of this principle have been greatly debated,
and I will not attempt to add to that debate

 


Citation (2)

Bassil, K, et al. (2007). Cancer health effects of pesticides. Canadian Family Physician 53

Review 

Conclusion

We believe that there is enough evidence to recommend
that patients reduce use of pesticides. Because most studies
analyzed exposure to multiple rather than individual
pesticides, our recommendation is to reduce exposure to
all pesticides. The results of this systematic review have
prompted the Ontario College of Family Physicians to recommend
that everyone, especially children and pregnant
women, reduce exposure to pesticides whenever possible,
both at home and in the workplace. Bans on the cosmetic
use of pesticides (used only for appearance and not for
major infestations and risks to human health) are also
supported by the Ontario College of Family Physicians,
the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Cancer
Society, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Registered
Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Toronto Board of
Health, both the Canadian and the Ontario Public Health
Associations, and many other physician and health professional
associations.

The public has expressed concern about the issue of pesticides,
especially regarding the risk to children. More than
100 municipalities across the country have implemented
bylaws restricting and banning cosmetic use of pesticides,
including Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Halifax, and
these bylaws have been supported by the public.

Family doctors should consider asking about pesticide
exposure during periodic health examinations
and make recommendations about minimizing exposure.
They should also encourage use of protective
clothing and masks for patients who use pesticides
on the job and encourage them to be attentive to the
timing of re-entry into recently sprayed areas. Family
doctors can also advocate for reductions in pesticide
use in communities, schools, and hospitals, and
to governments, and can educate patients about the
potentially harmful effects of pesticides on health.


Citation (3)

McDuffie, HH, et al. (2009). Clustering of cancer among families of cases with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), multiple myeloma (MM), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and control subjects.

Research Article

Conclusion

HL, MM, NHL, and STS cases had higher incidence of cancer
if any first degree relative affected with cancer compared
to control families. A positive family history of
cancer and/or shared environmental exposure to agricultural
chemicals play an important role in the development
of cancer.


Citation (4)

Dreiher, J, Kordysh, E. (2006). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and pesticide exposure: 25 years of research 

Review  

      Over the past 40 years, a substantial rise in the incidence of non-Hodgkin
      lymphoma (NHL) has been observed. Epidemiologic studies aimed at understanding
      this rise have revealed some association with occupational exposure. NHL is
      common among farmers, where pesticides have been described as the culprit. The
      association between pesticides and NHL has been demonstrated mainly in
      case-control studies, while retrospective cohorts have been less convincing.
      Pesticides including chlorphenol and phenoxyacetic acid herbicides,
      organochlorines, and organophosphate insecticides, carbamates, and fungicides
      have been associated with NHL. Although the causality has not been clearly
      proven, both genotoxic and nongenotoxic mechanisms for lymphomagenesis have been
      proposed. The leveling-off of NHL incidence in certain countries may be the
      result of a favorable change in pesticide usage patterns. Future studies, such as
      the Agricultural Health Study, may clarify the uncertainties regarding this
      issue.
 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17016033


 Citation (5)

 

Residential Pesticides and Childhood Leukemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Michelle C. Turner,1,2 Donald T. Wigle,1 and Daniel Krewski1,3,4

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis reveals positive associations between exposure to residential pesticides in pregnancy and childhood and childhood leukemia, with the strongest associations observed for insecticides. Further work is needed to confirm previous findings based on selfreport, to better describe potential exposure–response relationships, to assess specific pesticides and toxicologically related subgroups of pesticides in more detail, and to assess the potential role of preconceptional paternal exposures. Large prospective studies of children with biomonitoring data and discovery of biomarkers of past exposure (especially for rapidly excreted pesticides) would aid in this regard (Metayer and Buffler 2009). Additional studies are needed in order to better understand potential mechanisms of action and gene–pesticide interactions. In terms of precautionary public health implications, cosmetic pesticide bylaws implemented in various Canadian jurisdictions typically do not address the use of pesticides indoors or for essential purposes, such as to intervene in a health hazard or infestation to property. Further consideration of the need to reduce prenatal and childhood exposure to residential pesticides may be warranted.


 

https://wp.me/p1jq40-Wb