Cancer Classification With Descriptors – Part 3 Of 3 – Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) – Mecoprop To Triticonazole – 2012 11 00

 

Myth-BUSTING -- Cancer -- EPA -- WEB-PAGE (7)

 

 

 

 

 

Cancer Classification

 

With Descriptors

 

 

Chemicals

 

Evaluated For

 

Carcinogenic

 

Potential

 

 

 

 

 

November 2012

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

Office Of Pesticide Programs

 

Selected And Adapted Excerpts

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

mecoprop

 

 

Product Names ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Mecoprop-P Herbicide Liquid,

 

mecoprop-P ( present as potassium salt ) 150 g a.e./L

 

Killex Turf Herbicide Concentrate,

Par III Turf Herbicide Solution, and

Pro Tri-Kil Turf Herbicide,

 

2,4-D 190 g a.e./L,

mecoprop-P 100 g a.e./L,

dicamba 18 g a.e./L

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Suggestive Evidence Of Carcinogenicity,

But Not Sufficient To Assess Human Carcinogenic Potential

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

16484-77-8

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

3/13/2003

 

 

 

Product Labels  ―

 

LABEL — MECOPROP-P HERBICIDE LIQUID

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Mecoprop-P-Herbicide-Liquid-2012-12-19-Loveland.pdf

 

LABEL — KILLEX TURF HERBICIDE CONCENTRATE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Killex-Turf-Herbicide-Concentrate-2011-08-09-Green-Cross.pdf

 

LABEL — PAR III TURF HERBICIDE SOLUTION

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Par-III-Turf-Herbicide-Solution-2011-11-22-Loveland.pdf

 

LABEL — PRO TRI-KIL TURF HERBICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Pro-Tri-Kil-Turf-Herbicide-2012-09-21-Agrium.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

metalaxyl

 

 

Product Name ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Subdue MAXX Fungicide,

 

metalaxyl-M and S-isomer 240 grams per litre

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Group E  –  Evidence Of Non-Carcinogenicity For Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

57837-19-1 113501

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

04/20/1994

 

 

Product Label  ―

 

LABEL — SUBDUE MAXX FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Subdue-MAXX-Fungicide-2006-04-03.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

myclobutanil

 

 

Product Name ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Eagle WSP Turf Fungicide,

 

myclobutanil 40%

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Group E  –  Evidence Of Non-Carcinogenicity For Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

88671-89-0

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

06/16/1994

 

 

Product Label  ―

 

LABEL — EAGLE WSP TURF FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Eagle-WSP-Turf-Fungicide-2006-01-17.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

permethrin

 

 

Product Name ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Ambush 500EC Emulsifiable Concentrate Insecticide,

 

permethrin 500 grams per litre

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

52645-53-1

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

10/23/2002

 

 

Product Label  ―

 

LABEL — AMBUSH 500EC EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE INSECTICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Ambush-500EC-Emulsifiable-Concentrate-Insecticide-2011-10-21.pdf

 

 

 

NOTE  ―  The simple fact of being LISTED here DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCT POSES A SIGNIFICANT CANCER HAZARD to the public from use.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

propamocarb hydrochloride

 

 

Product Name ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Banol Aqueous Solution Fungicide,

 

propamocarb hydrochloride 722 grams per litre

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Not Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

25606-41-1 119302

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

05/31/2000

 

 

Product Label  ―

 

LABEL — BANOL AQUEOUS SOLUTION FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Banol-Aqueous-Solution-Fungicide-2012-11-02.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

propiconazole

 

 

Product Names ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Banner MAXX Fungicide,

 

propiconazole 14.3%

 

Quali-Pro Propiconazole 14.3 ME Turf Fungicide,

 

propiconazole 154.5 g/L ( 14.3% )

 

Instrata Fungicide,

 

chlorothalonil 362 grams per litre,

propiconazole 57 grams per litre,

fludioxonil 14.5 grams per litre

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Group C  –  Possible Human Carcinogen

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

60207-90-1 122101

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

09/11/1992

 

 

Product Labels  ―

 

LABEL — BANNER MAXX FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Banner-MAXX-Fungicide-2012-11-30.pdf

 

LABEL — QUALI-PRO PROPICONAZOLE 14.3 ME TURF FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Quali-Pro-Propiconazole-14.3-ME-Turf-Fungicide-2008-01-17.pdf

 

LABEL — INSTRATA FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Instrata-Fungicide-2008-02-21.pdf

 

 

 

NOTE  ―  The simple fact of being LISTED here DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCT POSES A SIGNIFICANT CANCER HAZARD to the public from use.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

pyraclostrobin

 

 

Product Name ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Insignia EG Fungicide,

 

pyraclostrobin 20%

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Not Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

175013-18-0 99100

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

02/15/2007

 

 

Product Label  ―

 

LABEL — INSIGNIA EG FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Insignia-EG-Fungicide-2012-10-16.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

quintozene ( pentachloronitrobenzene, PCNB )

 

 

Product Name ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Quintozene 75 Per Cent Wettable Powder Fungicide,

 

quintozene 75%

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Group C  –  Possible Human Carcinogen

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

82-68-8 56502

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

12/18/1992

 

 

Product Label  ―

 

LABEL — QUINTOZENE 75 PER CENT WETTABLE POWDER FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Quintozene-75-Per-Cent-Wettable-Powder-Fungicide-2011-03-03.pdf

 

 

 

NOTE  ―  The simple fact of being LISTED here DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCT POSES A SIGNIFICANT CANCER HAZARD to the public from use.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

spinosad

 

 

Product Name ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Conserve 480 SC Naturalyte Insect Control Product,

 

spinosad 480 grams per litre

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Not Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

131929-60-7 110003

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

07/18/2002

 

 

Product Label  ―

 

LABEL — CONSERVE 480 SC NATURALYTE INSECT CONTROL PRODUCT

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Conserve-480-SC-Naturalyte-Insect-Control-Product-2010-03-26.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

thiophanate-methyl

 

 

Product Names ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Senator 70WP Systemic Fungicide,

 

thiophanate-methyl 70%

 

Easout Turf And Ornamental Fungicide ( 1989 – 2008 )

 

thiophanate-methyl 70%

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

23564-05-8 102001

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

08/24/1999

 

 

Product Labels  ―

 

LABEL — SENATOR 70WP SYSTEMIC FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Senator-70WP-Systemic-Fungicide-2009-04-15.pdf

 

LABEL — EASOUT TURF AND ORNAMENTAL FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Easout-Turf-And-Ornamental-Fungicide.pdf

 

 

 

NOTE  ―  The simple fact of being LISTED here DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCT POSES A SIGNIFICANT CANCER HAZARD to the public from use.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

trifloxystrobin

 

 

Product Names ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Compass 50WG Fungicide,

 

trifloxystrobin 50%

 

Trilogy SC Fungicide,

 

iprodione 29.41%,

triticonazole 3.14%,

trifloxystrobin 1.47%

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Not Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

141517-21-7 129112

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

06/16/1999

 

 

Product Labels  ―

 

LABEL — COMPASS 50WG FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Compass-50WG-Fungicide-2009-03-20.pdf

 

LABEL — TRILOGY SC FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Trilogy-SC-Fungicide-2013-03-14.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemical Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

triticonazole

 

 

Product Names ( Active Ingredient )  ― 

 

Chipco Triton Fungicide,

 

triticonazole 19.2%

 

Premis 200 F Fungicide,

 

triticonazole 200 grams per litre

 

Trilogy SC Fungicide,

 

iprodione 29.41%,

triticonazole 3.14%,

trifloxystrobin 1.47%

 

 

Descriptor ( aka Cancer Classification )  ― 

 

Not Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans

 

 

Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number  ― 

 

131983-72-7 125620

 

 

Report Date  ― 

 

06/15/2006

 

 

Product Labels  ―

 

LABEL — CHIPCO TRITON FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Chipco-Triton-Fungicide-2012-11-02.pdf

 

LABEL — PREMIS 200 F FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Premis-200-F-Fungicide-2009-06-01.pdf

 

LABEL — TRILOGY SC FUNGICIDE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Label-Trilogy-SC-Fungicide-2013-03-14.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Myth-BUSTING -- Cancer -- EPA -- WEB-PAGE (6)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chemicals

 

Evaluated For

 

Carcinogenic

 

Potential

 

 

 

 

 

November 2012

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 

Office Of Pesticide Programs

 

Selected And Adapted Excerpts

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA )

 

 

In America, pest control products are regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or sometimes USEPA ), which requires thorough scientific reviews and safety assessments to ensure they meet strict health and environmental standards and are shown to have value. 

 

Pest control products are one of the most stringently regulated products in the world. 

 

EPA is an agency created by President Richard Nixon for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

What Is This LIST ?

 

 

The following LIST provides an overview of pest control products evaluated for CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Pesticide Program through October 2012.

 

The evaluation of many of these chemicals is an on-going process.

 

Therefore, the information in this LIST may be subject to change as new and/or additional data are submitted to EPA.

 

This LIST will be updated annually.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

How Should The Information Provided In This LIST Be Used ?

 

 

Although this LIST is available to the public, note that the LIST represents only the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY HAZARD for the chemical with no consideration of exposure information.

 

This LIST is not intended to be used independent of the full RISK ASSESSMENT for the chemical.

 

When EPA completes a RISK ASSESSMENT on a pest control product, a variety of toxicity information, including potential for non-cancer effects ( e.g., neurotoxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, immune-toxicity, etc … ) and carcinogenicity, are considered in determining whether to register a pest control product and what requirements for use of the pest control product need to be in place to protect human health.

 

The simple fact of being LISTED here DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE PEST CONTROL PRODUCT POSES A SIGNIFICANT CANCER HAZARD to the public from use. 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

What Does The Report Date Mean ?

 

 

The date included in the LIST for each chemical is the date of the most recent review of POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY HAZARD for that chemical.

 

This date provides a key as to which set of cancer guidelines were used in the review.

 

Note that the classification of POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY generally is not re-evaluated unless new data are submitted.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

What Does The CAS REGISTRY NUMBER Mean ?

 

 

CAS REGISTRY NUMBERS are unique numerical identifiers assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service to every chemical described in the open scientific literature.

 

They are also referred to as CAS RNs and CAS Numbers.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

How Does EPA Review Pest Control Products For POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY ?

 

 

In evaluating and describing the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY of a pest control product, EPA’s Pesticide Program follows the Agency’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.

 

The Health Effects Division of the Pesticide Program performs an INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE to determine the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY of pest control products.

 

The results of the INDEPENDENT REVIEW are PEER-REVIEWED by the Cancer Assessment Review Committee.

 

This committee recommends a DESCRIPTOR ( e.g., likely to be carcinogenic to humans, not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential ) to convey the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY of the compound.

 

This DESCRIPTOR is also referred to as the CANCER CLASSIFICATION.

 

( See earlier segments. )

 

The evidence for the human cancer potential and the extent to which a person might be exposed ( how much time and to what quantity of the pest control product ) will determine how the Agency regulates the pest control product.

 

In some cases, EPA may request a review by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel.

 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA ) is a United States federal law that set up the basic U.S. system of pesticide regulation to protect applicators, consumers, and the environment.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

What Does EPA Consider In Its Review Of Cancer Risk ?

 

 

In determining the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY of a chemical, EPA considers the full range of available evidence.

 

This information includes  ―

 

•   laboratory animal findings,

 

•   metabolism studies,

 

•   structural relationships with other carcinogens, and

 

•   if available, mode of carcinogenic action information and epidemiologic findings in humans.

 

All of the information is considered in a WEIGHT-OF-THE-EVIDENCE APPROACH.

 

In this WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE-EVALUATION, EPA undertakes a critical analysis of each available study to determine its quality and reliability.

 

Then the ENTIRE BODY OF EVIDENCE is integrated and examined for consistency ( repeatability of findings in studies ), cohesiveness ( a logical pattern of responses ), and for biological plausibility ( i.e., are the observed findings consistent with current understanding of carcinogenic processes).

 

Most of the CANCER DETERMINATIONS for pest control products are largely based on laboratory animal studies because, under its statutory authority, EPA requires registrants to submit an extensive range of laboratory studies on pest control products, including long-term rodent cancer studies.

 

The findings in laboratory animals are generally assumed to be relevant to humans unless there is evidence to the contrary.

 

When human information is available, EPA would consider that information.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

When Does EPA Review Pest Control Products For POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY ?

 

 

EPA reviews studies submitted when a pest control product is proposed for registration.

 

Studies are required in two species ( mice and rats ) and two sexes ( males and females ), as well as a battery of mutagenicity assays.

 

These studies are required for all pest control products used on food and some non-food pest control products that could lead to long-term exposures in humans.

 

In future reviews of the pest control product, the cancer classification may be re-evaluated if new studies have been submitted.

 

All existing pest control product tolerances that were in place as of August 1996 were re-assessed for their human health and environmental risks by August 2006 as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

 

However, if there was no new information on carcinogenicity, the compound was not re-evaluated simply to determine how it would be described under the 2005 cancer guidelines.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

How Have The EPA’s CANCER ASSESSMENT Guidelines Changed ?

 

 

There have been a number of different documents issued by the EPA for CANCER ASSESSMENT.

 

•   In 1976, EPA issued its first set of principles and interim procedures to guide evaluation of human POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY.

 

•   In 1986, EPA issued guidance, which included a letter system

( A-E ) for designating degree of POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY.

 

•   In the 1986 guidelines, hazard identification and the WEIGHT-OF EVIDENCE process focused on tumor findings.

 

•   In 1996, EPA released Proposed Guidelines For Carcinogen Risk Assessment, which used a WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE narrative and standardized DESCRIPTORS to replace the 1986 alphanumeric classification to classify CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL.

 

•   In the 1996 proposal, emphasis was placed on available MODE-OF-CARCINOGENIC-ACTION INFORMATION and discussing characterization of hazard, dose-response, and exposure assessments.

 

•   The HAZARD AND WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE PROCESS embraced an analysis of all relevant biological information and emphasized understanding the agent’s mode of action in producing tumors to reduce the uncertainty in describing the likelihood of harm.

 

•  In 1999, EPA issued a revised version of its 1996 proposal that responded to public and peer review comments, which included  ―

 

•   a framework approach to evaluate the mode of action in the assessment of POTENTIAL CARCINOGENESIS.

 

•   In March, 2005, EPA released its final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.  These guidelines represent the culmination of a long development process, replacing EPA’s original CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES ( 1986 ) and its interim final guidelines ( 1999 ).

 

Key changes included  ―

 

•   Five weight of evidence DESCRIPTORS chosen for use in narratives  ―

 

−   Carcinogenic To Humans.

 

−   Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans.

 

−   Suggestive Evidence Of Carcinogenic Potential.

 

−   Inadequate Information To Assess Carcinogenic Potential.

 

−   Not Likely To Be Carcinogenic To Humans.

 

•   Emphasis on analysis of data will precede use of defaults.

 

•   Improved guidance on modeling and expanded discussions of sensitive sub-populations including children ( supplemental guidance ).

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

Why Are There Several Different Cancer Classifications In The LIST ?

 

As discussed above, EPA’s guidelines for evaluating the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY of chemicals have been updated over the years to reflect increase transparency in describing the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY of a compound and to reflect the understanding of ways chemicals may cause cancer.

 

Not all pest control products have been evaluated under EPA’s 2005 Cancer Guidelines.

 

Agency policy states that for RISK ASSESSMENTS that were completed before issuance of the 2005 Guidelines, the need for a re-assessment should be determined on a case-by-case basis by the program and that the existing assessment should continue to be considered scientifically sound based on the guidance used when the assessment was completed.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Chemicals Evaluated For Carcinogenic Potential

 

How Can I Find The Basis Of EPA’s Decision Regarding The Carcinogenicity Of A Pest Control Product ?

 

 

The Re-Registration Eligibility Decision for each pest control product contains a discussion of the available data and information used in the human health and environmental RISK ASSESSMENTS, which includes a description of the evidence used to determine the POTENTIAL CARCINOGENICITY of the chemical.

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Myth-BUSTING -- Cancer -- EPA -- WEB-PAGE (1)

 

 

 

 

 

Anti-Pesticide

 

Lunatics Are

 

WRONG

 

About Cancer

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Background Information From An Independent Perspective

 

Cancer FACTS

 

 

There are NO pest control products that are known or probable carcinogens.

 

It is a MYTH to believe that pest control products somehow cause cancer.

 

There are THOUSANDS OF DEATHS per year from KNOWN CANCER-CAUSING SUBSTANCES such as cigarette smoke and alcohol. 

 

There is NOT ONE KNOWN CANCER DEATH from the proper use of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.

 

Canadian Cancer Society, through its promotional literature, continues to insist there is a link between pest control products and cancer, despite the fact that its U.S. counterpart, American Cancer Society, DOES NOT SHARE THE SAME VIEWPOINT.

 

Even Canadian Cancer Society’s own web-site states that scientific research does NOT provide a conclusive link between pesticides and human cancer.

 

In 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada issued a ruling that products like 2,4-D Herbicide ARE NOT CANCER-CAUSING IN HUMANS.

 

The World Health Organization only lists the common pest control product 2,4-D in the SAME CANCER-RISK CATEGORY AS PICKLED VEGETABLES AND CELL-PHONES.

 

Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE, and NO HARM WILL OCCUR when they are used according to label directions. 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Background Information From An Independent Perspective

 

No Conclusive Link With Cancer

 

 

Canadian Cancer Society’s own web-sites STATE REPEATEDLY that scientific research DOES NOT PROVIDE A CONCLUSIVE LINK between pest control products and cancer.

 

Even some of Canadian Cancer Society’s HIGHEST-RANKING LOBBYISTS states that the connection between cancer and pesticides is NOT CONCLUSIVE.

 

INDISPUTABLE AND CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH shows that, as reported through the VAST TOXICOLOGY DATABASE of United States Environmental Protection Agency and Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada, NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products are used according to label directions.

 

 

 

REPORTS & WEB-PAGES

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — 2012 06 09 — PESTICIDES & CANCER — NO CONCLUSIVE LINK — CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY — BARBARA KAMINSKY ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/06/11/pesticides-cancer-no-conclusive-link-canadian-cancer-society-barbara-kaminsky-2012-06-09/

 

http://wp.me/p1jq40-4te

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS — 2012 06 09 — PESTICIDES & CANCER — NO DEFINITE CAUSE & EFFECT — CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY   –  PATTI MOORE ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/07/01/pesticides-cancer-no-definite-cause-effect-canadian-cancer-society-patti-moore-2012-06-09/

 

 

ORGANIZATION  –  CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY  –  NO DIRECT PROOF PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-4qC

 

 

 

 

Myth-BUSTING -- Cancer -- EPA -- WEB-PAGE (5)

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

Discover What Anti-Pesticide And Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists Are Doing And Saying About Subversively Imposing Their Life-Style Choices Against Our Society

 

 

Read  …  Force Of Nature  ―  The Whole Truth From An Independent Perspective.

 

Communities and businesses are being HARMED and DESTROYED and RAPED by PROHIBITIONS against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape, and by other ACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM.

 

We are living in the 9|11 Era of Anti Pesticide and Environmental Terrorism where at least ONE SUBVERSIVE ACT OF TERROR is perpetrated EVERY SINGLE DAY by these terrorist.

 

We are living in the DARK AGE OF ANTI PESTICIDE TERRORISM where sound science is trumped by FAKE SCIENTISTS, JUNK SCIENCE and UNVERIFIABLE SECRET EVIDENCE through FABRICATION, INNUENDO, and INTERNET RUMOR  ―  scientific research PROVES that pest control products CAUSE NO HARM and can be USED SAFELY.

 

An informed public is better able to protect itself and its communities and businesses from so-called activists who are THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE ANY ADVICE about pest control products or the environment.

 

NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm and destroy the Green space industry, and the well being of our communities.

 

NORAHG morally represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people associated with turf and ornamental plant maintenance who are OPPOSED to Anti Pesticide PROHIBITION and the CLOSURE or ABANDONMENT of green spaces under the RIDICULOUS PRETEXT of somehow « saving » the environment.

 

NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON PROFIT NON PARTISAN organization that does not accept money from corporations or governments or trade associations, and represents NO VESTED INTERESTS WHATSOEVER.

 

NORAHG is dedicated to reporting the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.

 

NORAHG pledges to deliver comprehensive reports that are worthy of peoples’ time and of peoples’ concern, reports that might ordinarily never have breached the parapet.

 

NORAHG was the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991.  Mr. Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.

 

Force Of Nature was launched by NORAHG for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet on January 1st, 2009   ―   however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone FORCE OF NATURE Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.

 

On January 1st, 2009, Force Of Nature Reports were launched for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet   ―   however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone Force Of Nature Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.

 

On March 15th, 2010, Uncle Adolph independently launched The Pesticide Truths, an easy-to-use Web-Site that collects relevant reports of information right-off-the-press.

 

Pesticide Truths and Force Of Nature, in some ways, are like Google for everything concerning the SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES of Anti-Pesticide and Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists.

 

For The Complete Library of Force Of Nature and A LOOK AT Reports & References, go to the following link  …

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/toc/

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Myth-BUSTING -- Cancer -- EPA -- WEB-PAGE (9)

 

 

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

NORAHG has archived more information about CANCER CLASSIFICATION on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site  …

 

 

CANCER CLASSIFICATION  –  CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL  –  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Myth-BUSTING-Cancer-2012-11-00-Chemicals-Evaluated-for-Carcinogenic-Potential-EPA-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/04/17/chemicals-evaluated-for-carcinogenic-potential-environmental-protection-agency-epa-2012-11-00/

 

 

CANCER CLASSIFICATION  –  CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS  –  PART 1 OF 3  –  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA )  –  2,4-D TO DELTAMETHRIN ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/04/24/cancer-classification-with-descriptors-part-1-of-3-environmental-protection-agency-epa-24-d-to-deltamethrin-2012-11-00/

 

 

CANCER CLASSIFICATION  –  CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS  –  PART 2 OF 3  –  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA )  –  DIAZINON TO MALATHION ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/05/02/cancer-classification-with-descriptors-part-2-of-3-environmental-protection-agency-epa-diazinon-to-malathion-2012-11-00/

 

 

CANCER CLASSIFICATION WITH DESCRIPTORS  –  PART 3 OF 3  –  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA )  –  MECOPROP TO TRITICONAZOLE  –  2012 11 00 ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/05/09/cancer-classification-with-descriptors-part-3-of-3-environmental-protection-agency-epa-mecoprop-to-triticonazole-2012-11-00/

 

 

CANCER CLASSIFICATION  –  CHEMICALS EVALUATED FOR CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL  –  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( EPA ) ( Reference )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Myth-BUSTING-Cancer-2012-11-00-Chemicals-Evaluated-for-Carcinogenic-Potential-EPA-REFERENCE.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

NORAHG has archived more information about CANCER on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site  …

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER  –  MYTH-BUSTING ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-2nl

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER  –  CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY  –  NO DIRECT PROOF PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-4qC

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER  –  THE WISDOM OF KABAT, GEOFFREY C.  –  2012 11 20  –  CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE  –  HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS  –  INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER ( IARC ) ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Precautionary-Principle-2012-11-20-UNMASKED-Conflation-Of-Advocacy-With-Science-Kabat-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/11/25/precautionary-principle-pesticides-cancer-conflation-of-advocacy-with-science-how-activism-distorts-the-assessment-of-health-risks-false-positives-in-epidemiology-international-a/

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER  –  THE WISDOM OF RITTER, LEONARD  –  PESTICIDES DON’T CAUSE CANCER  –  MYTH-BUSTING  –  2012 01 26 ( Reports )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-Cancer-2012-01-26-Myth-BUSTING-Pesticides-Dont-Cause-Cancer-Ritter-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/2012/01/27/cancer-is-not-increasing-pesticides-do-not-cause-cancer/

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER  –  THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH )  –  MYTH-BUSTING  –  CANCER RATES DROPPING IN THE U.S.  –  2012 03 30 ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-The-Wisdom-of-Whelan-ACSH-2012-03-30-Myth-BUSTING-Cancer-Rates-Dropping-In-The-U.S.-pdf.pdf

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER  –  THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH )  –  MYTH-BUSTING — CANCER  –  RATES DECLINING  –  2011 03 31 ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-The-Wisdom-of-Whelan-ACSH-2011-03-31-Myth-BUSTING-Cancer-Rates-DECLINING-pdf.pdf

 

 

THE MYTH OF CANCER  –  THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH )  –  CANCER DOWN, CHEMOPHOBIA UP  –  2010 07 08 ( Report )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Force-Of-Nature-The-Wisdom-of-Whelan-ACSH-2010-07-08-Cancer-Down-Chemophobia-Up-pdf-300-dpi.pdf

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

NORAHG has archived more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site  …

 

 

THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/

 

 

PESTICIDE BANS ARE A FARCE ( Report )

 

http://wp.me/p1jq40-4mS

 

 

REAL TRENDS AGAINST PESTICIDE BANS ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1JO

 

 

CARNAGE CREATED BY CATASTROPHIC ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION  –  MAIN WEB-PAGE

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-5On

 

 

THE COST OF PESTICIDE BANS ( Report )

 

http://wp.me/p1jq40-6h1

 

 

ATTACKS AGAINST GOLF FACILITIES ( Report )

 

http://wp.me/p1jq40-6sN

 

 

MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES  –  LEADING SCIENTIFIC HEALTH AND POLICY EXPERTS ( White Paper )

 

http://wp.me/p1jq40-5DD

 

 

2,4-D HERBICIDE ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1J8

 

 

COMPLAINT CHANNELS  –  COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-1PE

 

 

PESTICIDE LINKS ( Web-Page )

 

http://pesticidetruths.com/pesticide-qa-links/

 

 

THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-2rr

 

 

PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORTS ( Web-Page )

 

http://wp.me/P1jq40-53G

 

 

 

――――――――――――――――――――

 

 

 

 

 

Myth-BUSTING -- Cancer -- EPA -- WEB-PAGE (10)

 

 

 

Uncategorized
https://wp.me/p1jq40-6DF