Analysis and Commentary
on the June 12, 2012 Presentation
to Kamloops Council by the Canadian
Cancer Society’s Jerilynn Maki
Part 2
By John J. Holland,
Kelowna, BC,
June 19, 2012
Summary of Part 2
According to Richard Doll, The Greatest Epidemiologist Of The 20th Century, there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR PESTICIDE BANS.
Epidemiological studies are SO OFTEN WRONG that they are coming close to being WORTHLESS.
If a modern « cosmetic » pesticide actually caused cancer, it is fairly certain that this would be ascertained through the extensive testing procedures required before it is registered for use in Canada.
If the use of pest control products is LOWEST in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, then why are the cancer incidence and mortality rates HIGHER in these region ?
The idea that there is an epidemic of human cancer caused by synthetic industrial chemicals is NOT SUPPORTED BY EITHER TOXICOLOGY OR EPIDEMIOLOGY.
Overview
Analysis and Commentary on the June 12, 2012 Presentation to Kamloops Council by the Canadian Cancer Society’s Jerilynn Maki By John J. Holland, Kelowna, British Columbia, June 19, 2012.
Jerilynn Maki, the BC-Yukon Canadian Cancer Society’s Health Promotion Coordinator for the Southern Interior Region, made a presentation to Kamloops Council on June 12, 2012.
As discussed by John Holland in Part 1 …
While Ms Maki is no doubt sincere in her beliefs, what should have been a science-based presentation became one that is BOTH SHORT ON FACTS AND REPLETE WITH MISINFORMATION ― and is thus MUCH WORSE THAN NO PRESENTATION AT ALL.
Statements from Canadian Cancer Society COULD BE TRUE if it did not just CHERRY-PICK WEAK EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES, and PRETEND that this is the ONLY evidence that is available.
After previously detailing many scientific sources from which she claims the CCS receives its information, Ms Maki maintained that her organization’s stance on « cosmetic » pesticides « aren’t our opinions ».
Although Ms Maki claims that the position of Canadian Cancer Society « isn’t our opinion », it also certainly isn’t that of Health Canada, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the American Cancer Society, the British Cancer Society, and many others.
Canadian Cancer Society FAILS TO EXPLAIN is that its INFAMOUS 100 STUDIES are ALL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES WITH VERY WEAK LINKS between pesticides and disease.
Conversely, Health Canada has estimated that ABOUT 23 MILLION PAGES OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES are used to support the decisions made about pest control products.
Additionally, International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) stated that VERY FEW currently available pesticides are ESTABLISHED EXPERIMENTAL CARCINOGENS, and NONE is an established HUMAN CARCINOGEN ― studies in humans have FAILED TO PROVIDE CONVINCING EVIDENCE of an increased risk, even in heavily exposed groups.
NO Support For Cancer Epidemic
Dr. BRUCE AMES, an American biochemist and molecular biologist, is ONE OF THE MOST CELEBRATED SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD TODAY, and is also AMONG THOSE WHO ARE THE MOST CITED.
Besides numerous other awards, he is the recipient of the U.S. National Medal of Science.
Dr. Ames, for many years, was a senior staff member at the University of California, Berkeley and is the developer of the Ames Test, a process widely used for evaluating the mutagenicity ( which may then indicate the carcinogenicity ) of a chemical.
Now retired from Berkeley, he continues to work at the California Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, searching for the causes of cancer and other diseases of aging.
As Dr. Ames and Dr. Lois Swirsky Gold ( also a Berkeley researcher ) have written ―
The idea that there is an epidemic of human cancer caused by synthetic industrial chemicals is NOT SUPPORTED BY EITHER TOXICOLOGY OR EPIDEMIOLOGY.
Though there are some epidemiologic studies that find an association between cancer and low levels of industrial pollutants, the studies do not correct for diet, which is a potentially large confounding factor; moreover, the levels of pollutants are low and rarely seem plausible as a causal factor when compared to the background of natural chemicals that are rodent carcinogens.
Bruce N. Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold, The Causes and Prevention of Cancer ― The Role of Environment, 1998.
Animal Models Are RELIABLE
If a modern « cosmetic » pesticide actually caused cancer, it is fairly certain that this would be ascertained through the extensive testing procedures required before it is registered for use in Canada.
As stated by a PMRA representative ―
For any known human carcinogen, whatever the chemical might be — I’m not speaking directly to pesticides — THE ANIMAL MODELS THAT HAVE BEEN USED HAVE SHOWN TO BE POSITIVE FOR ANYTHING THAT'S KNOWN TO BE CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS AS WELL.
So they are well understood predictors of potential human toxicity, and those are the models that are well worked out and used for toxicity testing.
Dr. Connie Moase ( Director, Health Effects Division II, Health Evaluation Directorate ), in the Second PMRA Presentation to the BC Special Committee On Cosmetic Pesticides, January 17, 2012. [ Emphasis added ]
Incidence Of Cancer vs Pesticide Use ?
If one wishes to look at correlations, consider this fact ―
Generally, both [ cancer ] incidence and mortality rates are HIGHER in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
« Canadian Cancer Statistics 2009 », Canadian Cancer Society, Statistics Canada, and the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Compare the above statement to the fact that pesticide use « is lowest in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec ».
« Households and the Environment Survey », Statistics Canada, February 10, 2009.
Are we then to suppose that we can conclude that pesticide use LOWERS the incidence of cancer ?
NO Scientific Basis For Pesticide Bans
But, as an internationally respected scientist once told me …
The main problem with epidemiology is that people don’t know the PROBLEMS with epidemiology.
Many of those belonging to anti-pesticide organizations maintain that there now exists ― in the case of pesticides ― a similar situation to that which occurred with the once-disputed association between TOBACCO and lung cancer.
In the words of Ms Maki …
And, you know it’s like if you look at TOBACCO, it’s taken many, many years and we now know we have definitive, you know, indication that people get cancer from using TOBACCO.
But there exists a major difference ― a heavy smoker has a thirty times ( 3,000 per cent ) greater risk of developing lung cancer than does a non-smoker.
Illustrating a strong correlation between lung cancer and smoking is one of the greatest accomplishments of epidemiology, and the association, once revealed, was so pronounced that it was difficult to dispute the connection.
Sir RICHARD DOLL and Sir Austin Bradford Hill were the British authors behind the momentous 1950 study. ( « Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung », British Medical Journal, 1950 )
Richard Doll has been termed « The Greatest Epidemiologist Of The 20th Century » and, nine years ago, delivered a lecture in Guelph, Ontario.
The following is taken from an article published at the time ―
Sir Richard gave a public lecture in Guelph.
Afterward, a city councillor asked whether he’d support a BAN ON PESTICIDES in the city.
« No », he said, to her immense surprise.
« There’s NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR IT. »
« Pesticide Panic Zaps the Facts », Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, May 24, 2003.
Epidemiology Studies Almost Worthless
Then there is also the opinion of Dr. STAN YOUNG, a respected statistician ( epidemiology is based on statistics ) at the National Institute of Statistical Sciences in Research, Triangle Park, North Carolina, who …
… argues that epidemiological studies are SO OFTEN WRONG that they are coming close to being WORTHLESS. « We spend a lot of money and we could make claims just as valid as a random number generator » he says.
« Numbers Can Lie ― Vitamins, Hormones, Coffee ― Today They’re Good, Tomorrow They're Bad. Why all the flip-flops ? » by Andreas von Bubnoff, Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2007.
Pest Control Products Are Scientifically Safe
The following LEADING EXPERTS have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products.
These EXPERTS have publicly stated, in one form or another, that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ―
● AMES, Bruce N., Professor
● BRANHAM, Bruce, Professor
● DOLL, Richard, The Greatest Epidemiologist Of The 20th Century
● DOST, Frank N., Doctor
● DRYSDALE, Art C., Horticulturist
● EDWARDS, J. Gordon, Doctor
● FELSOT, Allan S., Professor
● HOLLAND, John J., Communications Director
● MILLOY, Steven J., Juris Doctor
● RITTER, Leonard, Doctor
● ROSS, Gilbert L., Doctor
● SCHWARCZ, Joseph A., Doctor
● SOLOMON, Keith R., Professor
● STEPHENSON, Gerald R., Professor
● SWITZER, Clayton M., Doctor
● WHELAN, Elizabeth M., Doctor
● WOOD, Joel, Doctor
Canadian Cancer Society is more knowledgeable than Health Canada ?!?!?
NO !
Canadian Cancer Society has conveniently considered the hundreds of qualified scientists of Health Canada’s respected Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be incompetent and/or incapable of arriving at correct scientific findings concerning conventional pest control products.
In order to allow SOUND SCIENCE to be effectively practiced, it would be preferable leave the interpretation of scientific research about pest control products to those people who ARE competent to do it ― Health Canada, and NOT Canadian Cancer Society.
NO pest control product can be sold or used until Health Canada’s scientists have evaluated ALL the existing evidence to determine whether the product meets stringent health and safety requirements.
Conventional pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE since they have been scrutinized and approved by the HUNDREDS of expert scientists at Health Canada !
Overall, when they are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !
Ironically, Canadian Cancer Society has STATED REPEATEDLY that scientific research does NOT provide a conclusive link between pest control products and cancer.
Why is Canadian Cancer Society WASTING EVERYBODY’S TIME on the issue of pest control products ?
Canadian Cancer Society is a FUND-RAISING, PROFIT-SEEKING, and LOBBYING organization, and NOT a science, research, or health organization.
Health Canada, and NOT Canadian Cancer Society, has THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE on the subject of pest control products.
Canadian Cancer Society is RIDICULOUSLY IMPLYING that its NON-EXPERT ASSESSMENT is somehow being withheld from Health Canada and EVERY other regulatory agency in the world.
The following educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies have CONCLUSIVELY SUPPORTED or VALIDATED the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ● American Chemical Society ● American Council for Science and Health ● American Cancer Society ● British Columbia's Special Committee On Cosmetic Pesticides ● Canadian Medical Association ● CropLife Canada ● Health Canada ● Institute of Public Affairs ● International Agency for Research on Cancer ● Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee ● The Fraser Institute ● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ● World Health Organization.
Canadian Cancer Society merely ALLEGES having UNDISCLOSED, NON-EXISTENT AND UNVERIFIABLE SECRET EVIDENCE about the safety of pest control products.
Canadian Cancer Society has NEVER provided ANY credible information to Health Canada to justify its Anti-Pesticide CONSPIRACIES.
John J. Holland
John J. Holland is Communications Director for Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada ( IEPMA ).
He is Canada’s MOST ELOQUENT and INTELLIGENT WRITER on the subject of public policy and pest control products.
In Letters To The Editor, Holland has EFFECTIVELY and FREQUENTLY SPOKEN OUT AGAINST Anti-Pesticide Activists.
The Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada ( IEPMA ), in conjunction with its membership, has been VERY decisive regarding the CONSPIRACY to PROHIBIT pest control products in British Columbia.
After all, conventional pest control products are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC, and CAUSE NO HARM.
The Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association has correctly recognized that this is a BEACH-HEAD in the FIGHT FOR VICTORY against the CONSPIRACY to PROHIBIT pest control products in British Columbia.
Here are Mr. Holland’s career highlights and accomplishments ―
Fields of study ― Honours BA in History and Geology, post-graduate work in History.
Notable work ― owner of a large professional lawn and tree care company in the Okanagan Region of British Columbia ( 1983 – 2004 ) ― supervisor of a structural pest control company ( 1979 – 1982 ).
Special contributions ― Communications Director of Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada ( 2007 – present ) ― Vice-President of Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada ( 1998 – 2007 ) ― President of Environmental Standards Association ( 1985 – 1994 ) ― Co-Founder of Environmental Standards Association, the fore-runner to IEPMA ( 1984 ).
Here are some examples of Holland’s wisdom ―
Agencies of your own Government ― namely Health Canada and the PMRA [ Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada ] ― have stated on numerous occasions that 2,4-D POSES NO UNACCEPTABLE RISKS TO THE PUBLIC.
Although I have never used my degree in the profession for which I studied, I found that the training I received in the methods of research was invaluable in enabling me to discern the facts of the real science behind the use of pest control products. Not being a scientist, I have always been guided by the work of those who are the actual experts.
As you may be aware, there are also numerous MISLEADING ― or UN-SCIENTIFIC ― studies with such a negative point of view, such as the Ontario College of Family Physicians’ [ OCFP ] Pesticide Literature Review ( 2004 ). This review has been used to support almost every proposed pesticide ban, from the Municipal to the Provincial ( e.g., Ontario ) level. The information used by those like the OCFP has been CHERRY-PICKED by the physicians ― NOT SCIENTISTS ― writing the report, and the report has been DISCOUNTED by many scientists and government experts in this and other countries. Studies used are generally all epidemiological, and links to cancer and other diseases have been WEAK and NOT CONSISTENT from study to study. Toxicological studies DO NOT CONFIRM the epidemiological findings. By definition, epidemiology CANNOT FIND CAUSES ― they merely suggest correlations, and the basic tenet of epidemiology is that correlation does not mean causation. Studies must also be consistently reproducible before a finding can be found meaningful. At any rate, the OCFP study ignored or down-played other important epidemiological studies that did not conform to its premise of the dangers of pesticides ( again, check with the PMRA ).
CAPE and Forman also seem to believe, with NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, that all synthetic pesticides cause cancer.
Despite popular belief, Canadian Cancer Society, which has taken such a large and activist role against pesticides, is NOT A SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION. Canadian Cancer Society is a volunteer advocacy and fund-raising association, with NOT A SINGLE SCIENTIST on staff with pesticide expertise.
From your statements, I would have to assume that you must consider the 350 qualified scientists of the PMRA incompetent and/or incapable of arriving at correct scientific findings.
It must first be noted that there is NO SUCH THING as « full scientific certainty ». ONE CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove scientifically that pest control products ― or any substance, including water ― could NEVER harm anything or anyone under ANY circumstances. There is also NO PROOF of « environmental degradation » caused by what are erroneously termed « cosmetic » pest control products.
Municipal and provincial governments and even health-related professional organizations have been taking advice on pesticides from those who are THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE IT. These governments also ignore those who have THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE, such as Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ).
Products containing 2,4-D DO NOT POSE UNACCEPTABLE RISKS to human health or the environment. They also have value for lawn and turf, agriculture, forestry and industrial uses when used according to the label directions proposed in previous consultation documents.
Proper weed control on turf HELPS PREVENT SLIPPING INJURIES by eliminating broad-leaved weeds. [ … ] the Precautionary Principle dictates that, with the choice between treating and not treating, the decision for proper weed control must be made. Therefore, turf pest control products SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED.
There are NO efficacious or cost-effective alternatives to the conventional products being banned. Due to their POOR PERFORMANCE, the « alternative » products left have to be applied more often, with more applicator visits, dramatically increasing an applicator’s environmental foot-print ― there is no lack of certainty about this.
There is SUBSTANTIAL AND UNDENIABLE PROOF for both « serious » and « irreversible » harm to employees and families of applicator companies ( and to the companies themselves ). In Quebec and Ontario, many companies have been driven out of business ― there is no lack of any certainty about this. In spite of the claims of activists to the contrary, THOUSANDS OF EMPLOYEES HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS, and they and their families are suffering the consequences, health and otherwise ― there is no lack of certainty about this.
While there have been numerous studies published on the effects of pesticides on human health, the VAST MAJORITY have shown that there are NO DISCERNABLE HEALTH PROBLEMS.
2,4-D has been registered in our country since 1946, and is the third most-used herbicide in Canada. If there were health problems related to 2,4-D’s application, it would seem obvious that concrete proof ― after over 60 years of use ― would have surfaced by now, particularly when you realize that there have been thousands of studies, and numerous re-evaluations by both Health Canada and the U.S. EPA [ Environmental Protection Agency ]. This herbicide is probably THE MOST STUDIED PESTICIDE IN HISTORY.
For the original copy of this Force Of Nature Report, go to the following link …
For a copy of Part 1 of HOLLAND's report, go to …
For more information about JOHN J. HOLLAND, go to …
THE WISDOM OF HOLLAND, JOHN J. – THE NATION'S MOST ELOQUENT AND INTELLIGENT WRITER ( Web-Page )
For more information about JERILYNN MAKI, go to …
CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY WANTS TO ANNIHILATE THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY – JERILYNN MAKI – KAMLOOPS, BRITISH COLUMBIA – 2012 06 12 ( Reports )
NORAHG has archived more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site …
AGRICULTURE – TARGETED BY ANTI-PESTICIDE ACTIVISTS … AND MORE ( Web-Page )
CARNAGE CAUSED BY CATASTROPHIC ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION ( Web-Page )
ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED – WRONG FOR OVER 50 YEARS ! ( Web-Page )
FAILURE OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT ( Web-Page )
FAILURE OF LANDS-CAPE ONTARIO, IPM ( Web-Page )
GREEN ALTERNATIVES … BOGUS & DISMAL FAILURES ( Web-Page )
MYTH-BUSTING – CANCER, THE MYTH OF ( Web-Page )
MYTH-BUSTING – PESTICIDE BANS – THE MYTHS ABOUT ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATIONS – ANTI-PESTICIDE & ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT – GLOATING, TREACHEROUS, AND REPUGNANT ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – SUBVERSIVE, CONTEMPTIBLE, AND RADICAL ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – NO DIRECT PROOF PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – REFERENCES FOR LITIGATION ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION – DANGEROUS, HYPOCRITICAL, AND INSATIABLE ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – DAVID SUZUKI FOUNDATION – REFERENCES FOR COMPLAINTS AND LITIGATION ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – ONTARIO COLLEGE OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS – DISCREDITED, RADICAL, AND SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT MAD SCIENTISTS WHO WERE LAZY & STUPID ( Web-Page )
PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS – PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE – INVALIDATED WEAPON OF COERCION ( Web-Page )
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – CONSPIRACY TO PROHIBIT PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPE ( Web-Page )
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – COQUITLAM, CITY OF – AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS UNHAPPY, UGLY, UNEMPLOYED, UNENLIGHTENED, AND UNHEALTHY ( Web-Page )
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – COQUITLAM, CITY OF – REFERENCES FOR LITIGATION ( Web-Page )
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – KELOWNA, CITY OF – ANTI-PESTICIDE WOMEN COUNCILLORS ( Web-Page )
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA – SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES ( Web-Page )
SPEAKING OUT AGAINST ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRORISM – HEROES ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF CANADIAN CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION – BC RESIDENTS OPPOSED TO PESTICIDE BAN ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE, ART C. – CELEBRITY EXPERT HORTICULTURIST ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF HEPWORTH, LORNE – THE NATION'S MOST EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT SPOKESMAN ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF HOLLAND, JOHN J. – THE NATION'S MOST ELOQUENT AND INTELLIGENT WRITER ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF MAINS, HOWARD ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMONS, KEITH R. AND SANDRA ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF THE FRASER INSTITUTE ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF ELIZABETH M. WHELAN AND AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH, Web-Page )
THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )
