Letter to Editor : Gideon Forman provides the [Secret Evidence] behind Cancer and Pesticides

This Quote Gideon Forman uses  “2,4-D can be persuasively linked to cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems.”  is taken from the Pesticide Assessment: Protecting public health on the home turf

The assessment is more of an Organic Lawn Care & Product Endorsement Manual with a lot of misinformation about turf. 

This assessment was published in 2006, there were 2 more re-evaluations on 2,4-D since then and Health Canada says 2,4-D is Safe for use on your Lawns, and Safe for Pregnant Women and Childs' hand to mouth contact. 

A letter from the Canadian Paediatric Society and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is included : Jeffrey Lowes.


The Science Gideon Forman is using:

Meg Sears – Expert Bibliographer – Member of CAPE : Campaigned with Debbie Lazar in Misinformation of Groundskeepers Death, CFB Gagetown Expert Bibliographer – No Doctor




Robin Walker – Activist Doctor – Member of CAPE – His Association Does Not Endorse Products [audio: http://www.pesticidetruths.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/CAPE/RobinWalkerCPS.mp3]



Richard Van der Jagt – Activist Doctor – Member of Cape : Retracted statement that evidence is crystal clear 2,4-D is linked to lymphoma 


To The Editor :

RE: “Council on Wrong Track with Move to Cosmetic Pesticide Ban” (April 13)

The letter-writer says “public policy should be based on science and facts…”.

Physicians agree.

Here’s what doctors writing in the scientific journal Paediatrics and Child Health have to say about the common lawn pesticide 2,4-D:2,4-D can be persuasively linked to cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems.”

The people of B.C. should follow the lead of science-based organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and urge their government to ban lawn pesticides across the province.

Doing so will protect drinking water, family pets and, most important, local children.

Gideon Forman,

Executive Director Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

OSOYOOS TIMES-April 20, 2011


Letter: Director, Communications & Public Education Canadian Paediatric Society

From: Elizabeth Moreau [mailto:elizabethm@cps.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 3:19 PM
To: jplowes@cogeco.ca
Cc: Olivia Craft
Subject: FW: Presenters of CPS position on pesticides
Dear Mr. Lowes,
The study referred to was published in Paediatrics & Child Health, which is the journal of
the Canadian Paediatric Society, by authors who have no affiliation with the CPS. It was
not written by the Canadian Paediatric Society, and does not reflect the opinion of the
CPS. Currently, we do not have any position statements on pesticide use.

The reference for the study in question is as follows:

Sears M, Walker CR, van der Jagt RHC, Claman P. Pesticide assessment: Protecting
public health on the home turf. Paediatr Child Health , Vol 11, No 4, April 2006.

The CPS should not be cited as this information. This has been communicated to the
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Elizabeth Moreau
Director, Communications & Public Education
Canadian Paediatric Society
2305 St. Laurent Blvd.
Ottawa, Ont. K1G 4J8
Tel: 613-526-9397, ext 231
Fax: 613-526-3332


Letter : Manager, Physician Advisory Service The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Dear Mr. Lowes,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me earlier today. As I indicated in our
conversation, Mr. Gideon Foreman is not a registered member of the College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.


Brian Goldig

Manager, Physician Advisory Service
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario


What About Health Canada? Has anyone read their Frequently Asked Questions on Pesticide Safety?


 Its right here: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/faq-eng.php#whya

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? http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/faq-eng.php#has

Are my pets safe if they walk on a lawn that has been treated with pesticides? http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/faq-eng.php#aremy

Is it safe to use the herbicide 2,4-D on my lawn? http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/faq-eng.php#isitsafe

Ontario Drinking Water Report:


The Science Behind  Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE)


Paediatr Child Health. 2006 April; 11(4): 229–234.
Pesticide assessment: Protecting public health on the home turf
Meg Sears, MEng PhD,1 C Robin Walker, MB ChB FRCPC,2 Richard HC van der Jagt, MD FRCP,3 and Paul Claman, MD4

The medical literature does not uniformly indicate harms from herbicides. However, the balance of epidemiological research suggests that 2,4-D can be persuasively linked to cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems. These may arise from 2,4-D itself, from breakdown products or dioxin contamination, or from a combination of chemicals.


Although the medical literature does not uniformly indicate that harms arise from phenoxy herbicide exposure, given the strengths and limitations of epidemiological, toxicological and ecological research, it appears that cancer, neurological impairment and reproductive problems are persuasively linked to phenoxy herbicide exposure. It is not possible to distinguish whether these effects arise from 2,4-D itself, from breakdown products or dioxin contamination, or from a combination of ingredients. However, toxicological experiments using selected (possibly less contaminated) herbicides, and during which typical environmental breakdown products (eg, 2,4-dichlorophenol) would not accumulate, may not be representative of exposures from 2,4-D application to lawns.
Potentially toxic chemicals should not be approved for use when more benign solutions exist, when risks are not clearly quantifiable or when the potential risk outweighs the benefit. In light of what is known and knowable, the use of 2,4-D merely to kill broadleaf weeds on turf is unjustified. Physicians should urge caution in the public debate regarding pesticides for landscaping and point to effective, safer alternative landscaping practices. Organic lawn care focuses on growing thick, healthy turf on rich, aerated soil. Natural products, such as compost, are used to feed the soil and enrich microbial populations that break down thatch, and are pathogens for pests, such as grubs. (This is in contrast to synthetic chemical strategies that eliminate important non-target organisms, much as antibiotics damage the flora of the gut.) Weeds may be controlled by hand pulling; by using products with ingredients such as corn gluten meal, beet extract or vinegar; and by cutting grass no shorter than 7 cm to shade seedlings. Many companies offer this service, and franchises are now available for entrepreneurs. Canadians are also moving away from monoculture lawns that require a lot of water and energy to turf with a variety of grasses and other species, such as white Dutch clover, for nitrogen fixation and drought resistance, or thyme. Lawns may also be replaced with hardy alternative landscapes, such as native plants.
Until federal legislation curtails nonessential pesticide use nationally, ‘cosmetic’ pesticide bylaws and provincial legislation, such as Quebec’s Pesticide Management Code, are wise, prudent measures to protect public health.
Dioxins are persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals that may cause cancer, harm neurological development, impair reproduction, disrupt the endocrine system and alter immune function. Only 17 of 76 congeners were addressed in the pesticide regulations, and none were analyzed in 2,4-D samples. Dioxins should be monitored comprehensively in people, food and the environment, and phenoxy herbicides should be screened independently for this contamination.
Multiple deficiencies in the 2,4-D PACR illustrate systemic problems with pesticide regulation in Canada. The 2,4-D assessment is contrary to the CEPA and the Declaration of Helsinki, and does not approach standards for ethics, rigour or transparency in medical research. Canada needs a stronger regulator of toxic chemicals, with the competence and will to protect Canadians’ health. 2,4-D ‘safety’ claims should be publicly withdrawn by the PMRA and Health Canada. The 2,4-D PACR should be grounds for federal bureaucratic, legislative and regulatory changes.