FIESTA HERBICIDE – FeHEDTA – Reduced Risk Product – Bogus Claims?

This blogsite has discussed Neudorff Germany (the manufacturer of Fiesta) in the past.

They do not sell FeHEDTA as a Weed Control Product there.

Here is a link to their site

http://www.neudorff.de/produkte/katalog/

Unkraut = Weeds
————————————————————————————————————————————————-

FIESTA HERBICIDE is BANNED in HALIFAX, Nova Scotia for Safety Reasons:

https://pesticidetruths.com/2011/01/29/fiesta-herbicide-fehedta-banned-in-halifax-ns-insufficient-evidence-of-its-safety/

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Representatives from NeudorffCanada, Guelph University and the MOE seem to present a decent product as a replacement weed control option in Ontario, just in time for the Province Wide Ban.

The Problem:

These products have been tested by many now, 1 plus years after the release of the product to the Green Industry.

Neudorff has made claims that this product has been extensively tested for 10 plus years.  Sounds very doubtful when you see the results for your self.

The results in the real world and on paying customers lawns does not seem to match the results the persons overseeing/controlling or working in relation with, the new legislation, are getting. (Provincial Ban on Pesticides)

As a simple example of how the factual information being provided by these Professionals can be disputed is in the following picture of a presentation (through Landscape Ontario and Neudorff) discussing staining results on wood from the use of Fiesta Herbicide.

Clearly you can tell the samples of OAK, LARCH and DOUGLAS FIR that are stained with FIESTA (at the lowest possible rate, lower than the recommended usage rate) are totally different pieces of wood, Before and After. The actual Knots in the wood are missing in the After Images, as if Thompsons Deck Cleaner or Fiesta Herbicide  removes Wood Knots.

Only 2 treatments and your Wood Knots are gone NATURALLY.   FIESTA HERBICIDE “The Professionals Wood Knot Remover” 

What is the most confusing is why this presentation would test FIESTA at 8 times per year when It has been stated several times that 2 Applications would do, just as the Label states.

This product is tested at 8 applications per year on Kentucky BlueGrass at 400ml/m2 (max rate) in this study with some turf thinning occurring.  What happened to the Labeled 2 Applications per year success we heard from persons like Pam Charbonneau?

https://pesticidetruths.com/2010/07/20/efficacy-of-iron-chelate-herbicide-ontario-pesticide-fiesta-fehedta-for-turf-broadleaf-weed-control-pam-charbonneau-ontario-ministry-of-agriculture-food-and-rural-affairs/

Conclusion:
” A second application roughly four weeks after the initial application may be necessary to give season long control of these two weed species” [Dandelion, Black Medic]

This product is a Dubious Alternative.

Just like when they promoted Corn Gluten as the Answer

Just like when they promoted Sarritor as the Answer

Just like when they promoted Nematodes as the Answer

They are really hoping to stall the public with misinformation until (hopefully) a product that is  reasonable in cost, works well and has reasonable reapplication intervals, comes to market.

Neudorff Claims they are Focused on organic/natural pesticides.

People are actually using Illegal versions of this registered product ???

How safe for the environment (or applicator) can 8 applications of FIESTA HERBICIDE and as recommended by the Overseers a companion application of ORGANOSOL HERBICIDE at 8-10 applications per year to supress the weeds that Fiesta does not work with.

 These products require VERY large amounts of Active Ingredient to be applied per application

Health Canada Approved  SAFE Product : 2,4-D was only applied 2-3 times per year maximum. At minute quantities of Active Ingredient.

Patience is running out with this Misinformation. Time for some Accountability and Job Position Shuffles.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

A common statement by anti-pesticide groups and individuals is that there are equally effective and less toxic alternatives to what is being used at present. It may come as a shock to many, but ‘organic’ pesticides can be, and often are, more toxic than conventional ones. ‘Natural’ does not equate to ‘safer,’ while it usually does with ‘much more expensive’ and ‘much less efficacious.’ If ‘organic’ products worked so well, why would applicator companies not embrace them? The companies are willing to use any products that are registered by the PMRA, efficacious, and cost-effective.

To demand that any presentation on pesticides to be given to Council must first be approved by an anti-pesticide Committee seems to me to be a travesty of the democratic process. You welcomed presentations by those against the use of pesticides, but refuse to hear a presentation of scientific facts. Hugh Tyson, speaking at the February EMAC meeting, stated that “only presentations should be heard if they have new information.” Then I must assume Mr. Tyson is of the opinion that Council is aware of, and has accessed, all the science which I presented. This is something of which I am unaware. If Council had the scientific facts concerning pesticides, I very much doubt there would be a bylaw prohibiting their use.

John Holland
Communications Director
Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada
(IEPMA)
Phone: (250) 764-7628
Email: iepma@shaw.ca

https://pesticidetruths.com/2010/12/22/iepma-bc-john-holland-pesticide-prohibition-stuff/

WHERE ARE THE ORGANIC SOD FARMS??????