Roger Gordon makes claims as if he is a real and well versed Scientist, but anyone with the ability to comprehend what they READ can see that his theories on the Safety of Health Canada Approved Pesticides are a JOKE.
DDT, 2,4,5-T They sound SCARY, just Recently Ontario Forestry admitted to using 2,4,5-T in the 1980s. http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/About/2ColumnSubPage/STDPROD_082257.html
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED from DDT and 2,4,5-T Exposure, How Many got Cancer???
None that were documented. Ask Elizabeth May, she can tell you.
In June 1982, the Nova Scotia government approved spraying Agent Orange (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T). It was used to kill thehardwoods that compete with the fir and spruce wanted for pulpwood. Our grassroots group filed a lawsuit. I worked for the lawyer we hired, raised money, and coordinated the media, all while trying to finish law school. After a 30-day trial the judge ruled against us. He ruled Agent Orange had never caused any health problems, not even in Vietnam. It was devastating. Before the trial our group was ordered to pay costs and damages to Scott Paper. The company was threatening to send out the sheriff and the homes and farms of 18 people were on the line. My mom generously sold the 80 acres overlooking the Bras d’Or lakes that they had for their retirement.
Mr. Gordon Uses the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and The Ontario College Of Family Physicians as the BackBone to his Scientific Knowledge.
The Same Associations that created Fear and Intimidation by misinforming the public with Fake Doctors, Precautionary Stories and a heavy dash of Creative Writing. http://pesticidetruths.com/2010/07/02/articles-relating-to-dr-gideon-forman/
Has Health Canada reviewed the Ontario College of Family Physician's report on pesticides and, if so, what actions did PMRA take as a result?
Scientists within Health Canada and elsewhere have carefully reviewed the Ontario College of Family Physicians report. This report examined a small group of epidemiology studies, and reported potential associations between pesticides and certain cancers. The wider scientific community raised significant concerns with respect to how this literature study was conducted because it did not consider all of the relevant epidemiological evidence.
Epidemiology studies are typically designed to look for associations, rather than causes.
Epidemiological studies have value and are used by Health Canada in different evaluation scenarios where they are considered alongside toxicity studies which examine toxic effects over various dose levels.
Examining animal toxicity studies that analyze the absorption and break down of toxins, combined with exposure studies, is a preferred method for assessing risks to human health. Health Canada uses this approach, which is also supported by the international scientific community, in determining if a pesticide can be used safely.
Has Mr. Gordon read the latest 2012 Pesticide Literature REVIEW from the Ontario College of Family Physicians, there is one weak reference to 2,4-D , linking dangers to Costa Rican Coffee Bean workers. I am betting this doesn't stop Mr. Gordon from his daily cup of Coffee. http://pesticidetruths.com/2013/02/06/new-ocfp-2012-literature-review-112-pages-1-reference-to-24-d-lawn-pesticide-costa-rican-coffee-farmer-edo-erroneous-doctors-of-ontario/
Mr. Roger Gordon even brings up the Hudson, Quebec Supreme Court Decision allowing Municipalities to Ban Pesticides as FACT that Pesticides are indeed Dangerous. (Hudson Quebec Mayor Elliot and Director General Louise L. Villandré, both instrumental in the Quebec Pesticide Ban are both involved in a 1.2 Million Dollar Corruption Investigation at this very moment. Funny their only claim to fame while working for Hudson Quebec is the ill informed Pesticide Ban they Implemented. Will June Irwin's property be implicated as well in this arrears tax scam?) I can see a "Chemical Reaction Re-Deux" The Story behind the Story, starring Paul Tukeys Father.http://pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/PaulTukeysFatherUsesChemLawnLivedAFullLife.mp3
Roger Gordon forgets to mention that Quebec recently, has openly stated that "2,4-D is safe for Humans and the Environment" http://pesticidetruths.com/2011/06/13/croplife-canada-quebec-agrees-24-d-not-an-unacceptable-risk-to-human-health-or-the-environment/ and that the Quebec Pesticide Ban is based on Non Factual Fears, Just as Ontario BeeKeepers are trying to do with the HONEY BEES.
Colony Collapse Disorder will not go away banning Agricultural Pesticides
Our streams and rivers are not healthier in Ontario because of a Lawn Pesticide Ban
People in Ontario do not have less Incidence of Cancer than other provinces now that a pesticide ban in in place. In Fact The Ontario Canadian Cancer Society is requiring a $100 upfront payment to take advantage of their Volunteer Driver Program. Citing Cancer Incidence are on the rise, creating a cash crunch for their paid executives salaries. (tanning beds,pesticide bans,smoking bans all worthless actions by this group)
To Ban a Pesticide like 2,4-D that has been extensively tested and used on our foods for over 50 years and replace it with an alternative product that does not even have a health or environmental history. Then using this alternative product, which requires 7 to 20 more times the active and inert ingredient to achieve any kind of acceptable suppression, then say its SAFER for humans and the Environmnent, is mere Idiocracy.
Will Genetically Modified Sterilized Wasps be the answer for Biological Insect Control?
Will Lawn Weed Applications of Biological Spores be safer for our children, who roll around in the grass?
Mr. GORDON, If you have some real proof Pesticides KILL HUMANS or EVEN CAUSE CANCER please do not hesitate to Contact Health Canada and provide them with your findings. In the mean time politely Shut The Frig UP!
FYI Mr. Gordon and Ms. Elizabeth May have a common interest, The Spruce Budworm. Which Destroyed Many Jobs and the Entire Lumber Industry.
Roger Gordon Sitting on a Committee with Extreme Activists and outright Liars, Sharon Labchuk, Maureen Kerr
Sharon Labchuk Protesting Pesticides Naked with Gas Mask
Scientific evidence supports ban on cosmetic pesticides
Commentary by Roger Gordon
I would appreciate being given the opportunity to respond to a couple of points made by Lorne Hepworth ("Pesticides can be used safely" – the Guardian Sep 6, 2013), who took issue with my previous submission to the Guardian on the issue of using cosmetic pesticides ("P.E.I. government should ban cosmetic pesticides – the Guardian Aug 29, 2013).
First, it is important to recognize that Mr. Hepworth, as president of Crop Life Canada, represents the interests of a global network of manufacturers and distributors of pesticides, including those commonly referred to as cosmetic or lawn ones.
Mr. Hepworth contends that I "cherry-pick Information to support his (i.e. my) view on the topic." Proving beyond any shadow of doubt that cosmetic pesticides cause cancer or other serious conditions in humans is difficult, because science must rely upon epidemiological or case history studies of human populations after exposure has been inflicted under uncontrolled conditions.
Thus, it is unsurprising that every single study would not show a positive correlation. Yet, many well executed investigations of this type in which robust statistical analyses have been performed do show a worrisome trend. In 2007, an international group of medical researchers extensively reviewed the literature connecting pesticides of various ilks with cancer in humans.
As an example, 10 of 12 studies showed a positive correlation for Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma, in four cases reaching statistical significance. Twelve of 14 case studies were positive, 8 reaching statistical significance. Dicamba, mecoprop and carbaryl (all being sprayed on lawns in P.E.I.) were among the culprits. When one pieces together the evidence from these "field" studies with laboratory evidence of damage at the molecular level, it is small wonder that the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 ruled that a 100 per cent cast-iron cause and effect relationship was not required for a governing body to exercise the "precautionary principle" and ban these chemicals. It is also unsurprising that a growing list of respected bodies have advocated such a ban -the Medical Societies of P.E.I. and of Canada, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Ontario College of Family Physicians, to name but three.
A second point of Mr Hepworth's is that we should be reassured of the safety of these pesticides because they have been approved by Health Canada. I am afraid that this does not give me the same sense of comfort. In the first place, Health Canada only tests the active ingredients, whereas commercial formulations contain a variety of so-titled "inert" ingredients (solvents, dispersants, etc) that in many cases have undesired effects of their own.
Also, there are several examples of pesticides that were once approved by regulatory bodies in existence at the time that have, in light of subsequent knowledge, been banned. DDT, fenitrothion, and 2,4,5-T (the partner to 2,4-D in "Agent Orange") come to mind. Up until the 1970s, farmers were allowed to spray apple orchards with lead arsenate. So please, let's not look to Health Canada for peace of mind. The only responsible course is to ban these chemicals that are being sprayed unnecessarily on lawns.
– Roger Gordon of Stratford is a retired biologist and former Dean of Science at UPEI. During his career at several universities he conducted research and published extensively on controlling insect pests using biological, environmentally-sound strategies.
Some More Diatribe: