Comments: MLA: Scott Fraser – NDP – 17 Jan 2012 – Bc Legislature Cosmetic Pesticide Ban

This is how misinformed some of these committee members are when it comes to the topic of Pesticides.

As for 1 example below, He mentions he has all kinds of data on Roundup but truly has never used it or even knows its mode of action.

Roundup is not a product to green up your lawn.  It is a non-selective, it kills everything.

He also talks about Seralini the discredited french scientist.

There is a similar study floating around where a scientist replaced caffine with the roundup and had the exact same results.

Imagine the results using Acetic Acid, a natural, organic, healthy alternative to pesticides. (Vinegar)




S. Fraser: Okay. Yeah. Thanks. I'll just follow through with my threadhere, although I've got a lot more questions, I guess, from your comments. Thereare no definitive ways of testing the effects on humans because…. I guess this is aquestion. You've already said that you've been doing testing on rats and mice —two-year lifespan. It's quite limiting there as far as potential impacts on humanbeings.

This study coming out of the States…. It's coming out of the States, so,again, this is after the fact. Out of the States, what we learned was that of thenearly 3,000 high-production-volume chemicals, 75 percent lack even the mostbasic toxicity tests. Of the 140 registered pesticides — this is the EPA, so theStates — which the EPA considers to be neurotoxic, the majority have not beentested for developmental neurotoxicity.

Again, I would suggest that this is a specific sort of testing that you'd wantto do regarding humans, but you can't expose humans knowingly to things in anykind of a controlled way. Again, there are lots of gaps here.

Then I would refer to, certainly, in the University of Cannes…. I don'tknow if you're familiar with their substantive work on glyphosate — Roundup, ifyou will. Their work suggests that human placenta cells, which are what theyspecifically work with, were very sensitive to Roundup — at concentrations lowerthan typical use, even. They suggest that this could explain the higher levels ofpremature births and miscarriages associated with women farmers in the U.S.using glyphosate.

There is certainly evidence there from respected scientific institutions anduniversities that is already in place. Of course, Monsanto was fined for falseadvertising around the safety of their product — in this case, glyphosate, orRoundup — and that goes back probably ten years.

Again, the precautionary principle — you're not able to test humansspecifically. There are rafts of material that we've received — and I'm sure it's justthe tip of the iceberg — suggesting in the only way possible, which is by thepotential that exposure may be linked to things like these endocrine disruptions.


Cosmetic Pesticides — Tuesday, January 17, 2012[1/25/2012 4:12:54 PM] [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY][DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY][DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]

Certainly, specific studies show that placenta cells are specifically sensitive andcould be aversely affected by small amounts of pesticide. There is all of that outthere.

Citing the current work being done in the United States doesn't give me anycomfort, because there is a substantial body of evidence to say that there are risks.We're just adjudicating the issues around cosmetic pesticides. So if you are usingRoundup on your lawn to make it greener, it's not that you're making your lawnhealthier even. All you're doing is you're killing the other stuff. It's not making thesoil healthier. You're just killing stuff that's not grass.

Of course, the studies out of the university in Pittsburgh and others —again, not stated by Monsanto, the makers of Roundup…. This stuff is lethal onthings like amphibians — frogs, salamanders, that sort of thing — even in smallamounts. That you can test in the lab.

So I guess it's a whole raft of comments, and I don't really have a specificquestion, except…. The government's interpretation of the precautionary principleis woefully lacking, in my opinion.