In Canada, 97 per cent of the pesticide use is in the AGRICULTURAL AREA while less than 1 per cent is used in the domestic ( lawn care ) area.
― Paul Visentin, Director of Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada ( IEPMA ).
Of all pest control products sold in Canada, MORE THAN 60 PER CENT ARE FOR AGRICULTURE while LESS THAN 2 PER CENT ARE FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKET, which includes the lawn care products.
The FRIVOLOUS AND UNENFORCEABLE MUNICIPAL PESTICIDE BANS promoted by the Canadian Cancer Society, David Suzuki Foundation, and others, are STARTING TO WEAR THIN ON HOME-OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
The INFESTATIONS of weeds and bugs is getting UNMANAGEABLE and starting to DETRACT FROM THE HEALTHY COMMUNITY that pesticide-free com-munities thought they were achieving.
There are INFERENCES by Anti-Pesticide Activists that Health Canada has fallen asleep at the wheel, and that its extensive and comprehensive reviews of pest control products somehow have no credibility.
Pesticide Bans Backfire
Because of Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION, an Ontario farmer can do weed control on his field, but not on his lawn.
In jurisdictions where pest control products are PROHIBITED in the Urban Landscape, yards are POLLUTED WITH WEEDS, and are INFESTING nearby agricultural land.
In the Agriculture Industry, DANDELION INFESTATIONS FROM URBAN NEIGHBOURS can be a real problem, and growers end up SPRAYING A LOT MORE OFTEN than they would have had the weeds been controlled in the first place.
There is A LOT OF GOOD SCIENCE to support measures for the safety of applicants and proper use of weed control products.
Targeted by Anti-Pesticide Lunatics
According to Dr. Lorne Hepworth of CropLife Canada ―
The reality is that the Canadian Cancer Society has been involved in this pesticide debate for many years, and HAS NEVER PROVIDED CREDIBLE INFORMATION TO HEALTH CANADA OR OTHERS TO JUSTIFY ITS POSITION, nor have they explained how they can accept other uses of pest control products such as for AGRICULTURE if they are convinced of the dangers these products pose.
In fact, now that Canadian Cancer Society has DESTROYED the Professional Lawn Care Industry, the Agriculture Industry is NEXT !
Growers are being LULLED into LUNATIC LA-LA LAND.
Growers who DO NOT want to get too involved in the issue of the PROHIBITION of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
For growers, LUNATIC LA-LA LAND is a euphoric dream-like mental state detached from the reality that Anti-Pesticide Enviro-Lunatics will IMMINENTLY ANNIHIHILATE the agriculture Industry.
Growers are DELUDED into believing that the Agriculture Industry will be FOREVER granted an EXCEPTION STATUS from Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION.
Growers DO NOT understand that the HATED GOLF INDUSTRY also enjoys an EXCEPTION STATUS, which itself will be SHORT-LIVED.
Both GOLF INDUSTRY and AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY use the VERY SAME ingredients for the control of pests.
If it is safe to eat pesticide-treated food, then it is safe to play on pesticide-treated golf courses.
Anti-Pesticide Terrorists DISAGREE !
AGRICULTURE IS NEXT !
Canadian Cancer Society, and other Anti-Pesticide Terrorist-Organizations, are planning to ANNIHILATE the Agriculture Industry.
Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION IS SPREADING.
The Agriculture Industry is NOW BEING TARGETED.
The Anti-Pesticide ASSAULT against the Professional Lawn Care Industry was PREPARATORY TO AN ATTACK AGAINST AGRICULTURAL USES.
Anti-Pesticide CONSPIRACIES AGAINST AGRICULTURE are currently being organized by Cancer-Lunatics.
The Agriculture Industry is in a VULNERABLE position regarding pest control products.
Both the Agriculture Industry and the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry use the SAME ingredients that are needed to control insect, disease, and weed pests.
In fact, Professional Lawn Care maintenance requires LESS PESTICIDE-INPUTS than Agriculture.
The Agriculture Industry enjoys the benefits from a PROHIBITION EXCEPTION STATUS despite the fact that it uses the VERY SAME INGREDIENTS employed in Professional Lawn Care maintenance.
The Agriculture Industry is NOW AN EASY TARGET.
Anti-Pesticide Activists are already alleging that the so-called threat to health and environment posed by Professional Lawn Care is EQUAL OR HIGHER WITH AGRICULTURAL FOOD CROPS.
Of course, THIS ALLEGED THREAT IS A MYTH !
If it is safe to eat pesticide-treated food, it is also safe to walk on a pesticide-treated lawn.
ANTI-PESTICIDE CONSPIRACIES ARE BEING ORGANIZED AGAINST THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY, which includes Farms and Nurseries.
While Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION in the Urban Landscape does not restrict the agricultural use of herbicides and insecticides, GROWERS ARE WORRIED THAT WEEDS WILL SPREAD FROM MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TO FARMLAND.
Moreover, there is the concern that Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION will HARDEN PUBLIC SENTIMENT AGAINST ALL PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS, including those used in the Agriculture Industry.
In other words, consumers will begin to ask why growers are allowed to spray chemicals on food if spraying pest control products on lawns is dangerous.
Canadian Cancer Society is PLANNING TO ANNIHILATE THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY.
Canadian Cancer Society will also ANNIHILATE THE NURSERY INDUSTRY.
● Farms and Nurseries will be BASELESSLY SMEARED.
● Farms and Nurseries will be FALSELY ACCUSED.
● Farms and Nurseries will be GROTESQUELY PUNISHED.
● Farms and Nurseries will be INNOCENTLY CONVICTED.
● Farms and Nurseries will be MERCILESSLY TERRORIZED.
● Farms and Nurseries will be SHAMELESSLY PERSECUTED.
● Farms and Nurseries will be WRONGFULLY DEPRIVED.
Agriculture Is NEXT ! ― August 13th, 2008
Here is a 2008 statement from Canadian Cancer Society ―
For years, the Canadian Cancer Society has argued in favour of BANS on the cosmetic use of pesticides around homes and gardens.
But it has remained silent on the country’s biggest use of bug and weed killers ― ON FARMS.
Now, the society is considering weighing in on whether THESE SPRAYS POSE A CANCER RISK TO FARMERS, other rural residents near them, and to the wider public from eating foods carrying pesticide residues.
To that end, the society is holding a conference starting today [ AUGUST 13TH, 2008 ] at which it has assembled experts to advise it on whether cosmetic pesticide restrictions, which now exist in Ontario, Quebec and many municipalities, should be followed by TOUGHER ACTION AGAINST THE USE OF SPRAYS IN AGRICULTURE.
The society doesn’t have a view on the related issue of whether organically grown foods are a better option, a topic that will also be discussed.
The conference mentioned in the above statement was organized and held by Canadian Cancer Society on AUGUST 13TH, 2008, in Toronto.
It was called …
EXPLORING THE CONNECTION
A STATE OF THE SCIENCE CONFERENCE
ON PESTICIDES AND CANCER.
According to Canadian Cancer Society …
Experts from around the world will lead discussions [ ON AUGUST 13TH, 2008 ] on the CANCER RISKS OF PESTICIDES USED ON AGRICULTURAL CROPS, at a ground-breaking conference organized and hosted by the Canadian Cancer Society.
The Cancer-Basterds have already PREPARED THE GROUND FOR THEIR NEXT ATTACK …
… this time, AGAINST THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY AND AGAINST THE NURSERY INDUSTRY.
Canadian Cancer Society is PLANNING TO ANNIHILATE THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY, WHICH INCLUDES THE NURSERY PRODUCTION INDUSTRY.
AGRICULTURE IS NEXT !
AGRICULTURE – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY WANTS TO ANNIHILATE THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY – AGRICULTURE — EXPLORING THE CONNECTION – 2008 08 13 ( Reference )
Agriculture Is NEXT ! ― June 12th, 2012
On June 12th, 2012, during a City Council Meeting in Kamloops, British Columbia, observers could not believe the comments uttered by a PAID-FOR-PROFIT Lobbyist from Canadian Cancer Society.
Observers were in shock and could not believe what they were hearing.
Canadian Cancer Society is pushing for a BAN on ALL PESTICIDES, not just against the Professional Lawn Care Industry, but against the AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY as well.
Now that the Professional Lawn Care Industry has been DESTROYED …
Agriculture Is NEXT !
AGRICULTURE – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY WANTS TO ANNIHILATE THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY – JERILYNN MAKI – KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA – 2012 06 19 ( Reports )
Pesticides & Health ― Myths vs. Realities
A Position Paper of the
on Science and Health
Professor Allan S. Felsot
Washington State University
… in a press release world of communication, only the truly scary stories get told.
● ATRAZINE, CHLORPYRIFOS, PYRETHROIDS, AND GLYPHOSATE ― Following explications of toxicological mechanisms of selectivity and the importance of considering pharmacokinetic factors influencing pesticide disposition within the body, this report specifically examines the claims about four types of contemporary pesticides — atrazine, chlorpyrifos, pyrethroids, and glyphosate. In each case study, the published scholarly literature is used to show that the PERCEPTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS has arisen as a result of mistaking — either through ignorance or ideology — laboratory studies of toxicological mechanisms for analysis of risk based on consideration of how the chemicals are actually used.
● BENEFITS OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY ― Missing from much of the public debate are the benefits of chemical technology, especially as applied to crop protection. Negative critiques of modern agriculture are vaguely familiar as echoes of complaints nearly 40 years ago, just prior to the suspension by EPA of DDT use for agriculture. The report herein did not engage in trying to defend old chemical technology because agriculture has moved far beyond it. Crop protection specialists themselves began long ago to argue for the judicious use of crop protection agents. Industry long ago began to examine the problems of the most persistent chemicals with broad spectrums of toxicity to non-target organisms and synthesize new compounds with less persistence, less toxicity, and greater selectivity for specific pests versus non-target organisms. Furthermore, the amounts of new chemicals needed to control pests today are small fractions of what they were just 20 years ago.
● CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY ― The point is, chemical technology has improved, and will continue to improve, human health, whether helping to make vegetables and fruits of high quality more abundant and cheaper or to preserve the health of individuals who can then help their society to progress.
● DDT ― Finally, we in the United States TAKE FOR GRANTED our country’s lack of serious outbreaks of epidemic disease transmitted by insect vectors. We ignore the fact of 300 MILLION NEW CASES OF MALARIA elsewhere each year and the devastating effects on an economy. The list of vectored diseases is large, but we do not think about the important contributions of pesticide use to the protection of our public health. Yet communities besieged by outbreaks of biting mosquitoes clamor for their communities to be treated with mosquito control insecticides, as long as it is done out of sight at night. Studies have proven that bans of DDT in South America were correlated with increased incidences of malaria that plummeted when spraying of wall surfaces resumed. If one doesn’t like DDT, one still cannot ignore the effectiveness of pyrethroid-treated bed nets to protect sleeping kids and their parents from feeding mosquitoes. Indeed, such nets, which would cost us the equivalent of pennies, are expensive commodities to many in the world.
● EVIDENCE ― However, scrutiny of the published literature has FAILED TO FIND EVIDENCE of a credible probability of adverse human health effects derived from the use of modern pesticides as occurs in the real world, not in the laboratory-generated environment.
● FOCUSING ON THE PAST ― Unfortunately, public attitudes — fed by attention-seeking MEDIA SCARE STORIES — seem FOCUSED ON THE PAST and fail to see a comparatively rapid change in chemical technology and how it has been deployed. Similarly, public attention is drawn to misinterpretations and half-analysis of stories of hazards.
● GLYPHOSATE ― In summary, pronouncements of adverse effects of glyphosate and its surfactant seem relegated solely to the laboratory; in the environment, exposure is just too low for any measurable effects. Indeed, the European authors own studies show clear thresholds for an effect. In other words, their studies show that, at some concentrations in the cell cultures, nothing happens. Proclaiming that spray tank concentrations of glyphosate expose workers to hazardous levels of glyphosate and its surfactants DEFIES LOGIC in the light of actual exposure measurements and in vivo rodent studies. The interpretation of in vitro studies is realistic only when concentrations reflect levels likely to occur in blood and/or interstitial fluids.
● ORGANIC AGRICULTURE ― Some advocates call for wholesale adoption of organic agriculture. But if the calls are motivated by concerns about pesticide use, then disappointment will reign because USDA rules for certification of organic agriculture do allow pesticide use. But it is a “pick your poison” choice of eschewing certain products in favor of others. Ironically, some of the same active ingredients with known nervous system toxicity used by so-called conventional growers are also used by practitioners of organic agriculture.
● PESTICIDE CONTROL STATUTES ― Controversy surrounding pesticide use at first glance would seem to date back to the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. However, this superficial analysis ignores the long history of pesticide control statutes such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA 1938 ) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA 1947 ).
Agriculture – Targeted by Anti-Pesticide Activists … and More
The NORAHG Library of Force Of Nature References
Agriculture – Targeted by Anti-Pesticide Activists … and More
The NORAHG Library of Force Of Nature Reports
NORAHG has archived even more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site …
AGRICULTURE – ORGANIC FOOD … DISMALLY BOGUS
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – Subversive, Contemptible, and Radical
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – References For LITIGATION
CATASTROPHIC CARNAGE CAUSED BY ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION
PROVINCE OF ONTARIO – LIVING IN ENVIRONMENTAL INFAMY
THE WISDOM OF ELIZABETH M. WHELAN AND AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH )