――――――――――――――――――――
I wouldn’t hesitate to let my children and dogs play on a lawn where lawn care products have been used as long as the products were applied according to their respective labels.
― Dr. Katherine von Stackelberg, the LEADING EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND RISK MANAGEMENT, at E Risk Sciences And Harvard Center For Risk Analysis.
PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORT
PESTICIDE TRUTHS — UPDATE — 2,4-D — 2012 12 06 — LATEST RESEARCH REPORTS — PROPER USE OF LAWN CARE PRODUCTS ARE NOT A HEALTH THREAT — HOT TOPICS — TURFGRASS PRODUCERS INTERNATIONAL — VON STACKELBERG ( Report )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Scientifically Safe & Causes No Harm
Of all pest control products, 2,4-D HERBICIDE IS THE MOST HATED by Anti-Pesticide Terrorist-Activists.
Actually, 2,4-D is not only among the MOST STRINGENTLY TESTED pest control products, it is among the MOST THOROUGHLY REVIEWED and RE-EVALUATED.
In fact, 2,4-D is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and CAUSES NO HARM.
Activists FALSELY ALLEGE having some form of « secret evidence » proving that 2,4-D is not safe.
In fact, they have NOTHING but CONCOCTED STORIES, PUBLIC PARANOIA and ENVIRONMENTAL TERROR − these are the ONLY weapons that activists have against 2,4-D.
Anti-Pesticide Activists CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the fact that pest control products like 2,4-D are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC, and CAUSE NO HARM.
Anti-Pesticide Activists also CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the expertise of ANY leading authority on matters concerning pest control products.
They do so when it suits THEM !
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Unblemished Safety Record
Overview Of Facts
2,4-D has been used for the control of broad-leaved weeds in the Urban Landscape SINCE 1946.
2,4-D has a 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health.
2,4-D DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
Both United States Environmental Protection Agency and Health Canada conducted reviews of the scientific literature and concluded there was NO EVIDENCE OF A LINK BETWEEN CANCER AND 2,4-D.
The World Health Organization lists 2,4-D in the SAME CANCER-RISK CATEGORY AS PICKLED VEGETABLES AND CELL-PHONES.
2,4-D is LESS TOXIC THAN PICKLES.
In fact …
2,4-D is PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC.
2,4-D is LESS TOXIC THAN TABLE SALT.
2,4-D is LESS TOXIC THAN BAKING SODA.
2,4-D is LESS TOXIC THAN TYLENOL.
2,4-D is LESS TOXIC THAN ASPIRIN.
2,4-D has LESS IMPACT THAN SOAP.
2,4-D is probably THE MOST studied and best understood of ANY chemical … not just pesticide … in existence.
2,4-D has been the subject of over 40,000 studies.
2,4-D has been RE-EVALUATED 17 TIMES, and each time passing tougher scrutiny.
2,4-D Herbicide DOES NOT contain harmful dioxins.
2,4-D is NOT Herbicide Orange.
2,4-D is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and CAUSES NO HARM.
FORCE OF NATURE REPORTS
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2011 08 19 — LETTER TO THE EDITOR — 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD — RICHMOND, BRITISH COLUMBIA — RESPONSE
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 09 28 — WISDOM OF HOWARD MAINS — THE MOST STUDIED CHEMICAL EVER — BABY-LOBBYISTS ( Report )
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2006 08 16 — LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D — RE-EVALUATION NOTE — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA
WEB-PAGE – HERBICIDE ORGANGE
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – HERBICIDE ORANGE A.K.A. AGENT ORANGE ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Researched Ad Infinitum
2000 07 22
On July 22nd, 2000, The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data issued a statement to the Canada’s Federal Standing Committee On Environment And Sustainable Development ―
The toxicology database alone exceeds 4,000 PEER-REVIEWED, PUBLISHED STUDIES, PLUS HUNDREDS OF UNPUBLISHED STUDIES that the manufacturers must fund for the various regulatory agencies throughout the world.
Additionally, there are now MORE THAN 100 PEER-REVIEWED, PUBLISHED EPIDEMIOLOGIC ( HUMAN ) STUDIES pertinent to 2,4-D.
If anything, 2,4-D SEEMS TO BE RESEARCHED AD INFINITUM.
The reason anti-pesticide activists keep insisting on more research is that they either have little comprehension of the extent of the current data package or the fact that the weight of today’s scientific evidence simply does not support their allegations.
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2000 07 22 — NOW THE FACTS ABOUT 2,4-D — HUNDREDS OF RESEARCH STUDIES — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA — NATIONAL POST
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Proven Innocent 4,000 Times
National Post
2004 00 00
On July 23rd, 2004, the following statement appeared in National Post ―
The negative campaign against chemicals by activists, certain academics and those in the media who blithely take up their cause has long since passed the stage of rational risk assessment.
It has morphed into an ideological witch-hunt, in which chemicals such as 2-4,D, used to control broadleaf weeds such as dandelions, are considered guilty even after being PROVEN INNOCENT 4,000 TIMES.
Activists cynically and repeatedly exploit public fear, diverting scarce research dollars away from meaningful areas of inquiry into ones with no value.
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2004 07 23 — PROVEN INNOCENT 4,000 TIMES — FALSE ADVERTISING — NATIONAL POST
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Remarkable Health & Safety Record
The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data
2005 − 2012
According to The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data …
2,4-D ( 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid ) is ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY USED SELECTIVE HERBICIDES in North America and world-wide.
Since its discovery in 1945, 2,4-D has had an ENORMOUS IMPACT ON INCREASING WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION while reducing food production costs.
It also enjoys a REMARKABLE HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATORY APPROVAL RECORD in the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, South America, Asia and Africa ― in total, more than 100 countries.
THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – LINKS
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2012 08 00 — STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT 2,4-D HERBICIDE — MYTH VERSUS FACTS ( Reports )
http://www.24d.org/StraightTalk/default.aspx
http://24d.org/StraightTalk/Straight-Talk-August-2012.pdf
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2005 12 01 — WHAT IS 2,4-D ? ( Report )
http://24d.org/backgrounders/body.aspx?pageID=33&contentID=121
http://www.24d.org/background/Backgrounder-What-is-24D-Dec-2005.pdf
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2012 08 00 — STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT 2,4-D HERBICIDE — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA — 1
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2012 08 00 — STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT 2,4-D HERBICIDE — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA — 2
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
Does NOT Cause Cancer
After rigorous scientific study over several decades, NOT A SINGLE REGULATORY AGENCY IN THE WORLD mandated with protecting public health IDENTIFIES 2,4-D AS A HUMAN OR ANIMAL CARCINOGEN.
2,4-D DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
2,4-D has a REMARKABLE HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATORY APPROVAL RECORD.
THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – LINKS
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2012 07 11 — A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES ( Reports )
http://www.24d.org/scientificstudies/body.aspx?pageID=202&contentID=319
http://24d.org/ScientificStudies/CarcinogenicOutcomes.pdf
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2008 05 16 — HEALTH CANADA ISSUES FINAL DECISION ON 2,4-D ( Reports )
http://24d.org/backgrounders/body.aspx?pageID=30&contentID=261
http://24d.org/govtrev/pmra2008.pdf
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2008 05 16 — HEALTH CANADA FINDS 2,4-D CAN BE USED SAFELY ( Reports )
http://24d.org/newsroom/body.aspx?pageID=2&contentID=111
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pubs/pest/_decisions/rvd2008-11/index-eng.php
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2006 04 25 — REVIEWS BY EUROPEAN COMMISSION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION CONFIRM 2,4-D NOT A HEALTH RISK ( Report )
http://24d.org/newsroom/body.aspx?pageID=2&contentID=113
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2006 01 01 — SUMMARY OF EXPERT PANEL REVIEWS OF THE CARCINOGENICITY POTENTIAL OF 2,4-D ( Report )
http://24d.org/backgrounders/body.aspx?pageID=30&contentID=122
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2005 08 08 — 2,4-D COMPLETES EPA REVIEW PROCESS – OCCUPATIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL RISKS « NOT OF CONCERN » ( Report )
http://24d.org/newsroom/body.aspx?pageID=2&contentID=114
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2005 02 21 — HEALTH CANADA’S PMRA ISSUES RE-EVALUATION ON LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D ( Reports )
http://24d.org/newsroom/body.aspx?pageID=2&contentID=115
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/index-eng.php
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2005 02 21 — HEALTH CANADA’S PMRA ISSUES RE-EVALUATION ON LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D ( Reports )
http://24d.org/newsroom/body.aspx?pageID=2&contentID=115
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/index-eng.php
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2004 04 23 — REGULATORY RULINGS AND EXPERT PANEL REVIEWS CLEAR THE PESTICIDE 2,4-D ( Report )
http://24d.org/newsroom/body.aspx?pageID=2&contentID=118
FORCE OF NATURE REPORTS
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 11 00 — WISDOM OF JOHN J. HOLLAND — NO REGULATORY BODY IN THE WORLD CLASSIFIES 2,4–D AS CARCINOGEN ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 06 02 — QUEBEC — CAN 2,4-D AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH ? — ENVIRONMENTALIST BATTLE — NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT ( NAFTA ) ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 04 15 — ONTARIO — NO REGULATORY BODY CONSIDERS 2,4-D TO BE A HUMAN CARCINOGEN ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 04 08 — ONTARIO — ONLY BAD SCIENCE LINKS 2,4-D TO CANCER — HEALTH CANADA’S PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATORY AGENCY SYSTEM IS SCIENCE-BASED ( Report )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
Only Bad Science Links 2,4-D To Cancer
2,4-D Is Not An Animal Carcinogen
Not One Regulatory Agency In The World Classifies 2,4-D As A Human Carcinogen
The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data
2004 05 05
On May 5th, 2004, Donald L. Page of The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data issued the following statements that were published in National Post ―
The Ontario College of Family Physicians’ [ OCFP, an Anti-Pesticide Terrorist-Organizations ] recent review on the effects of pesticides on humans raises important questions about Canada’s scientific and regulatory process.
More importantly, it raises concerns about the ability of trusted professional bodies to ERODE THE PUBLIC’S FAITH in this process.
Canada has a COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY SYSTEM TO PROTECT CANADIANS from a wide range of potentially harmful substances.
In the case of pesticides, a product is acceptable for use only after demonstrating that it DOES NOT CAUSE ANY UNACCEPTABLE HEALTH RISK, including CANCER.
The system is effective because of rigorous review processes whereby all the applicable science is examined to ensure the best and most evidentiary decision on what is safe and what is not.
When other bodies [ Anti-Pesticide Terrorist-Organizations ], particularly those from a SUPPOSED science-based discipline, follow a less stringent process to produce and promote a [ so-called ] comprehensive review, « we no longer give Canadians informed decisions based on the weight of evidence ».
In the OCFP’s review, A LARGE BODY OF EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND WIDELY RECOGNIZED RESEARCH IS IGNORED.
In fact, the OCFP appears to have committed the ultimate transgression in scientific reporting − TO SELECTIVELY CHOOSE RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS ONE’S HYPOTHESIS [ i.e. Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION is somehow necessary ].
And even worse, to SELECTIVELY PICK INFORMATION from within research studies.
Although the OCFP SINGLED OUT 2,4-D FOR SPECIAL ATTENTION, recent reviews of 2,4-D by regulatory agencies such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Commission CAME TO CONCLUSIONS VERY DIFFERENT from those reached by OCFP.
These three agencies − which are mandated to protect human health − agree that 2,4-D IS NOT AN ANIMAL CARCINOGEN, MUTAGEN OR TERATOGEN.
Furthermore, NOT ONE REGULATORY AGENCY IN THE WORLD CLASSIFIES 2,4-D AS A HUMAN CARCINOGEN.
These reviews included all pertinent epidemiologic and toxicology data and offer conclusions based on the weight of the total evidence.
Given their prominence, one can only assume they [ World Health Organization, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Commission ] were not included because they in no way support the OCFP’s conclusion.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute [ NCI ] has spent 20 years and millions of dollars testing for any link between 2,4-D and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Its analysis concluded that there is NO ASSOCIATION between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and EVER HAVING USED 2,4-D.
More importantly, NCI researchers concluded ―
… while some pesticides may present a CANCER RISK to humans, many, maybe even most, PESTICIDES DO NOT.
The OCFP review COMPLETELY IGNORES this landmark study.
The OCFP review has Canadians believe that populations exposed to pesticides can expect a higher rate of cancer and other health problems than the general population. [ ?!?! ]
This simply flies in the face of many studies that demonstrate there is NO SUCH RELATIONSHIP.
To the contrary, a 20-year cohort study of over 33,000 Florida pesticide workers cited by OCFP actually found the overall incidence of cancer among the pesticide applicators to be significantly LOWER than the general Florida population, and the applicators to be in SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER HEALTH.
On page 36 of the [ OCFP ] report, the authors pull one data element from the 1994 Morrison study of 155,000 farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.
But they [ OCFP ] NEGLECT TO INFORM THE READER that this population actually lives longer than the average Canadian, has a lower incidence of cancer, and significantly fewer deaths from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Other major studies have also shown that populations of applicators, farmers, and chemical workers who actually manufacture 2,4-D products have an overall mortality from cancer BELOW that of the general population.
It is puzzling why the authors of the OCFP review chose NOT TO INCLUDE these and similar findings.
It is not in the public interest to MIS-REPRESENT THE SCIENCE when science is the fundamental basis for our decision-making.
Doctors and scientists charged with protecting our health SHOULD MAKE DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.
The OCFP report fails that critical test.
[ Ontario College of Family Physicians ( OCFP ) is an Anti-Pesticide and Environmental-Terrorist Organization. OCFP is also a FUND-RAISING, PROFIT-SEEKING, and LOBBYING organization, and it is NOT a science, research, or health organization. OCFP is presently UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR CHARITY FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY. It is listed among CANADA’S PROMINENT ANTI-PESTICIDE & ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. OCFP is a PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT in the CONSPIRACY TO PROHIBIT against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape. Its ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRORIST ACTS OF SUBVERSION have EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED the Professional Lawn Care Industry. ]
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2004 05 05 — ONLY BAD SCIENCE LINKS 2,4-D TO CANCER — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA — NATIONAL POST
WEB-PAGE – ONTARIO COLLEGE OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS
ORGANIZATION – ONTARIO COLLEGE OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS – DISCREDITED, RADICAL, AND SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT MAD MEN PRETENDING TO BE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE LAZY & STUPID ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
No Carcinogenic Risk
Health Canada
2005 02 21
It can be stated that 2,4-D DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER, which was the conclusion of the Canadian Federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada ( PMRA ) in 2005, indicating that …
… the toxicological database DOES NOT SUGGEST A CARCINOGENIC RISK.
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2005 02 21 — RE-EVALUATION OF THE LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
DISGRACEFUL & UNSCIENTIFIC Article
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health
2006 04 00
In April 2006, a DISGRACEFULLY FALSE and UNSCIENTIFIC article was published in Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health.
The authors made the following statement ―
2,4-D can be persuasively linked to cancers, neurological impairment and reproductive problems. [ ?!?! ]
The April 2006 article was an ASSESSMENT designed to ARTIFICIALLY PROMOTE an Anti-Pesticide Agenda.
It was NOT the result of ANY scientific research.
The two authors who wrote the April 2006 had ABSOLUTELY NO competent expertise, recognized training, or background, in matters concerning pest control products.
Both were well-know Anti-Pesticide Activists who were paid to CONCOCT this article by Canadian Association of Physician for the Environment, a Lobbying and Fund-Raising Organization.
Additionally, both authors had ABSOLUTELY NO affiliation with Canadian Paediatric Society.
Consequently, on September 26th, 2007, Canadian Paediatric Society ( CPS ) OFFICIALLY WARNED Anti-Pesticide Activists TO STOP USING THIS ARTICLE TO VALIDATE THEIR ANTI-PESTICDE AGENDA ―
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 CPS should not be cited as this information.
This has been communicated to the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
[ Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment ( CAPE ) is an Anti-Pesticide and Environmental-Terrorist Organization. CAPE is also a FUND-RAISING, PROFIT-SEEKING, and LOBBYING organization, and it is NOT a science, research, or health organization. It is listed among CANADA’S PROMINENT ANTI-PESTICIDE & ENVIRONMENTAL-TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS. CAPE is presently UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR CHARITY FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY. CAPE is a PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT IN THE CONSPIRACY TO PROHIBIT against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape. Its ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRORIST ACTS OF SUBVERSION HAVE EXTENSIVELY DAMAGED the Professional Lawn Care Industry. The VAST MAJORITY of CAPE members ARE NOT EVEN PHYSICIANS. In fact, CAPE represents an INFINITESIMALLY SMALL number of doctors. CAPE merely represents LESS THAN 4 PER CENT of all doctors in Canada. CAPE DOES NOT operate as a physicians' organization ― it is operated by a handful of Non-Expert Fund-Raisers, like Gideon Forman, who are PAID-FOR-PROFIT as SUBVERSIVE ILLEGAL LOBBYISTS. ]
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2006 04 00 — PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH ON THE HOME TURF — SEARS & WALKER ( ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS )
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2006 04 00 — PAEDIATR CHILD HEALTH VOL 11 NO 4 — SEARS & WALKER ( ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS )
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2007 09 26 — PAEDIATR CHILD HEALTH VOL 11 NO 4 — CANADIAN PAEDIATRIC SOCIETY RESPONSE — SEARS & WALKER ( ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS )
WEB-PAGES – CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT – GLOATING, TREACHEROUS, AND REPUGNANT ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT – LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – RESPONDING TO LUNATIC JIHADISTS – WARREN BELL – GIDEON FORMAN – BARBARA KAMINSKY – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – 2011 00 00 – 2012 00 00 ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
Data Do Not Support Links To Cancer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2007 08 08
On August 8th, 2007, United States Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ) issued the following statement ―
This notice announces EPA’s Decision NOT TO INITIATE A SPECIAL REVIEW for 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP.
Based on extensive scientific review of many epidemiology and animal studies, the Agency finds that the weight of the evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT a conclusion that 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP are likely human carcinogens.
The Agency has determined that the existing data DO NOT SUPPORT a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure.
This conclusion applies to 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP because they were considered for Special Review based solely on their similarity to 2,4-D.
In addition, because they are used significantly less than 2,4-D, their contribution to exposure is minimal relative to 2,4-D.
Because the Agency has determined that the existing data DO NOT SUPPORT a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure, the Agency is not initiating a Special Review of 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP.
This decision was first proposed on March 23, 1988 (53 FR 9590).
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2007 08 08 — DECISION NOT TO INITIATE SPECIAL REVIEW FOR 2,4-D — EPA
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
Evidence Does Not Indicate Link To Cancer
No Differences In Breast Cancer Rates
Cornell University
2007 00 00
In 2007, Drs Renu Gandhi and Suzanne M. Snedeker, Cornell University, issued the following statements ―
Does 2,4-D cause cancer in humans ?
There are NO REPORTS that indicate a direct link between 2,4- D exposure and cancer in humans.
Does 2,4-D cause breast cancer ?
NO DIFFERENCES have been reported in breast cancer rates of women who were previously exposed to 2,4-D through their occupation in either agriculture, manufacture of chlorophenoxy herbicides, or service in Vietnam during the war.
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2007 00 00 — BREAST CANCER RISK — CURRENT EVIDENCE DOES NOT INDICATE LINK — GANDHI & SNEDEKER — CORNELL UNIVERSITY
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
No Links To Cancer
CropLife Canada
2007 00 00
In 2007, CropLife Canada, the trade association that represents the manufacturers of pest control products, took an even stronger position regarding cancer ―
Do pesticides cause cancer ?
There are NO STUDIES WHICH LINK PESTICIDE EXPOSURE TO CANCER.
In fact, health experts ― from the Dieticians of Canada to the Canadian Cancer Society ― consistently advocate a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and grains as one of the best ways to prevent cancer and heart disease.
Pesticides are an important tool that allows us to grow an affordable, abundant food supply of fruit and vegetables.
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2007 00 00 — THERE ARE NO STUDIES THAT LINK PESTICIDE EXPOSURE TO CANCER — CROPLIFE
WEB-PAGE – CROPLIFE CANADA
THE WISDOM OF HEPWORTH, LORNE – THE NATION’S MOST EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT SPOKESMAN – CROPLIFE CANADA ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
Not An Endocrine Disruptor
The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data
2010 00 00
2,4-D is NOT an endocrine disruptor.
The claim that 2,4-D is somehow an endocrine disruptor is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
There is NO EVIDENCE of cancer in animal tests, NO EVIDENCE of reproductive toxicity, NO EVIDENCE of birth defects, it does not metabolize in the body, it is rapidly excreted, and it is NOT PERSISTENT IN THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – LINK
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2010 00 00 — EVALUATION OF REPRODUCTIVE – ENDOCRINE ENDPOINTS ( Report – Poster )
http://www.24d.org/poster/ReproEndo/default.aspx
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — EVALUATION OF SYSTEMIC TOXICITY — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — EVALUATION OF REPRODUCTIVE – ENDOCRINE ENDPOINTS — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENTAL NEUROTOXICITY & DEVELOPMENTAL IMMUNOTOXICITY — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Cancer
Highly Implausible Carcinogenic Outcomes
The 2012 von Stackelberg Study On 2,4-D Herbicide
2012 02 01
On February 1st, 2012, Dr. Katherine von Stackelberg, E Risk Sciences And Harvard Center For Risk Analysis, released a report of a study that determined whether there was ANY VALIDITY to the suggestion from some EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES that both 2,4-D and MCPA may be associated with an increased risk of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma ( NHL ), Hodgkin’s Disease, Leukemia, and Soft Tissue Sarcoma.
The 2012 von Stackelberg Study On 2,4-D Herbicide concluded ―
The combined evidence indicates it is HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE that exposure to 2,4-D and/or MCPA are associated with a risk of developing NHL or other lymphohematopoietic cancers.
The 2012 von Stackelberg Study On 2,4-D Herbicide was published in 2012 in a peer-reviewed scientific publication, the Journal of Toxicology.
According to Dr. Katherine von Stackelberg ―
I wouldn’t hesitate to let my CHILDREN and dogs play on a lawn where lawn care products have been used as long as the products were applied according to their respective labels.
FORCE OF NATURE REPORTS
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2012 02 01 — UPDATE — IMPLAUSIBLE CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES — VON STACKELBERG STUDY ( Reports )
PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORT
PESTICIDE TRUTHS — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2012 12 06 — LATEST RESEARCH REPORTS — PROPER USE OF LAWN CARE PRODUCTS ARE NOT A HEALTH THREAT — HOT TOPICS — TURFGRASS PRODUCERS INTERNATIONAL — VON STACKELBERG ( Report )
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2012 02 01 — A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES & POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FROM EXPOSURE — VON STACKELBERG — 1
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2012 02 01 — A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES & POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FROM EXPOSURE — VON STACKELBERG — 2
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2012 07 11 — A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CARCINOGENIC OUTCOMES — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D — VON STACKELBERG
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Toxicity
Less Toxic Than Pickles
2,4-D Herbicide is in the same cancer-risk category as PICKLED VEGETABLES AND CELL-PHONES.
PROHIBITING pest control products is NEEDLESS since they ARE NOT PROVEN TO BE CARCINOGENIC.
The World Health Organization only lists the common pest control product 2,4-D in the SAME CANCER-RISK CATEGORY AS PICKLED VEGETABLES AND CELL-PHONES.
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 08 11 — PESTICIDES WITH SAME RISKS AS PICKLES — THE FRASER INSTITUTE — GABLER & WOOD
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 08 10 — PICKLES MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH — THE FRASER INSTITUTE — GABLER & WOOD
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Toxicity
Less Impact Than Soap
Environmental Impact Quotient ( EIQ )
The Environmental Impact Quotient ( EIQ ) for SOAP is HIGHER THAN the EIQ for 2,4-D Herbicide.
Scientists at Cornell University have developed the Environmental Impact Quotient ( EIQ ) as a measure of the relative impact of common pest control product ingredients on humans and the environment.
The EIQ is actually LOWER for many artificial pest control products than it is for many other mundane household items and « natural » pest control product alternatives.
To measure a pest control product’s toxicity, scientists use a complex formula to compare the substance and how it is used to get its environmental impact quotient or EIQ rating ― a higher EIQ means more toxic.
The herbicide 2,4-D has an EIQ rating of 18.
Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient is 15, and common soap is 19.5.
Pyrethrin, an insecticide made from chrysanthemums, is 37.
Sulphur has an IEQ of 45.
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 08 11 — PESTICIDES WITH SAME RISKS AS PICKLES — THE FRASER INSTITUTE — GABLER & WOOD
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 08 10 — PICKLES MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH — THE FRASER INSTITUTE — GABLER & WOOD
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Toxicity
Harmless Enough To Drink ?
2,4-D is NO MORE DANGEROUS THAN TABLE SALT, and, in fact, tastes like SALT WATER.
In the early 1940s, Doctor R. Milton Carleton was the CO-DEVELOPER OF 2,4-D HERBICIDE.
Carleton usually CARRIED A FLASK AROUND WITH HIM THAT CONTAINED 2,4-D FROM WHICH HE WOULD DRINK ON REQUEST « just to prove it was harmless ».
Anyone who knew the distinctive FISH SMELL of 2,4-D knew that Carleton was ACTUALLY DRINKING THE REAL STUFF.
The toxicity of 2,4-D is NOT VERY HIGH when compared to something, perhaps, that we are all familiar with — TABLE SALT.
Pest control products like 2,4-D are LESS TOXIC THAN TABLE SALT.
Carleton was NOT HARMED BY DRINKING 2,4-D ― and HE LIVED TO THE AGE OF 87, and almost up to the end, drove annually to his summer home off the U.S. East Coast.
No one is suggesting you use them on your fish and chips, but this puts things into some sort of perspective.
Story from Art C. Drysdale.
FORCE OF NATURE REPORT
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2000 09 00 — WISDOM OF DRYSDALE — BIRTH & DEVELOPMENT OF 2,4-D — CARLETON & AMES ( Report )
WEB-PAGES – THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE
THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE, ART C. – PROFILE & REPORTS ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE, ART C. – AUDIO RECORDINGS – PART 1 – AUTUMN to MISCELLANEOUS ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE, ART C. – AUDIO RECORDINGS – PART 2 – ORCHIDS to WINTER ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF DRYSDALE, ART C. – RE-DIRECT LINKS TO REPORTS AND AUDIO RECORDINGS ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Toxicity
Less Toxic Than Table Salt
Three-way herbicide products like Killex Turf Herbicide, that contain 2,4-D, have a LOW TOXICITY, with Oral LD50 greater than 5000 mg per kg.
This LD50 value indicates that these products, even in their concentrated pre-diluted form, are safer than household items such as baking soda, caffeine, ethanol, and TABLE SALT.
In toxicology, the Median Lethal Dose, LD50 ( abbreviation for the « Lethal Dose, 50 per cent » ), is a value that represents the dose that is fatal for 50 per cent of an experimental group of laboratory animals, in most cases rats.
THE HIGHER THE LD50 VALUE, THE LEAST TOXIC THE PRODUCT.
The toxicity of 2,4-D is not very high when compared to TABLE SALT.
TABLE SALT would be lethal at 3000 milligrams per kilogram.
Pest control products that contain 2,4-D are LESS TOXIC THAN TABLE SALT.
FORCE OF NATURE REPORTS
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2012 08 10 — NEWFOUNDLAND — LESS TOXIC THAN TABLE SALT — TORDON 101 ( Reports )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Toxicity
Measuring The LD50 Value
In order to prove that 2,4-D is SAFE, its TRUE LEVEL OF TOXICITY can be measured in the laboratory.
In toxicology, the Median Lethal Dose, LD50 ( abbreviation for the « Lethal Dose, 50 per cent » ), is a value that represents the dose that is fatal for 50 per cent of an experimental group of laboratory animals, in most cases rats.
THE HIGHER THE LD50 VALUE, THE LEAST TOXIC THE PRODUCT.
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Toxicity
Comparative Examples
2,4-D is NO MORE DANGEROUS THAN TABLE SALT.
The LEVEL OF TOXICITY has been measured as ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY ( LD50, rat ) for so-called green alternatives, conventional pest control products that contain 2,4-D, as well as household items.
All information concerning green and conventional pest control products was obtained from material safety data sheets.
Overall, the measurements have indicated that most green alternatives and household items are NOT SAFER when compared to conventional pest control products.
THE LOWER THE LD50 VALUE, THE MORE TOXIC THE PRODUCT.
Relatively Harmless ( LD50 15000 + )
29700 ― sucrose ( table sugar ), edible food additive
Practically Non-Toxic ( LD50 5000 – 15000 )
11900 ― ascorbic acid ( vitamin C ), edible nutrient
7060 ― ethyl alcohol ( ethanol ), edible beverage constituent
5000 + ― Killex Turf Herbicide ( 2,4-D, mecoprop, & dicamba ), conventional herbicide product for selective weed control in turf
Slightly Toxic ( LD50 500 – 5000 )
4220 ― sodium bicarbonate ( baking, soda ), household product
3000 ― sodium chloride ( table salt ), edible food additive
2598 ― Tordon 101 ( 2,4-D & picloram ), conventional herbicide product for non-selective roadside vegetation control
1994 ― acetaminophen ( Tylenol ), analgesic
Moderately Toxic ( LD50 50 – 500 )
200 ― acetylsalicylic acid ( Aspirin ), analgesic
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Scientifically Safe
Leading Authorities
Anti-Pesticide Activists CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the fact that pest control products are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC, and CAUSE NO HARM.
Anti-Pesticide Activists also CONVENIENTLY IGNORE the expertise of ANY leading authority on matters concerning pest control products.
They do so when it suits THEM !
These LEADING AUTHORITIES are educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies from around the world.
They are considered as being many or all or the following …
● Experts
● Highly-Rated
● Independent
● Leaders
● Non-Profit
● Respected
● World-Renowned
They have publicly stated that, or have validated the concept that, in one form or another, pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
These agencies are NOT unduly influenced by any stake-holder in those industries manufacturing and using pest control products.
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 Consumer Specialty Products Association ( CCSPA )
● Canadian Medical Association
● CropLife Canada
● Environment Alberta ― Government of Alberta
● Government of British Columbia
● Government of Quebec
● 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.
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
History
Controversy With The Professional Lawn Care Industry
For several decades now, the name 2,4-D has been mired in controversy.
In the early 1980s, Anti-Pesticide Terrorist-Organizations across the country began pressuring Municipal and Provincial Government Officials to PROHIBIT against pest control products.
The 1980s also symbolized the golden era for the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Both the acquisition of customers and the accumulation of profits were phenomenally easy.
From the point of view of Anti-Pesticide Activists, Professional Lawn Care businesses were spraying products, such as 2,4-D, with perceived impunity.
These activists formed Terrorist-Organizations in all main urban centers.
They mandated themselves as the protectors of the community and the environment, and allowed themselves to ACCUMULATE WEALTH, CELEBRITY, and POWER because of controversy.
They focused their attention on pest control products used to maintain turf areas, such as golf courses, parks, residential lawns, and sports fields.
These Anti-Pesticide Activists were typically UNRECEPTIVE TO SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, and routinely tried to pressure Municipal and Provincial Government Officials into enacting legislation that would severely restrict, or entirely PROHIBIT the use of pest control products applied to urban green spaces.
In the 1980s, succeeding in getting Municipal and Provincial Government Officials to legislate PROHIBITION was IMPLAUSIBLE.
However, obtaining enactment of Sign-Posting laws was not.
The idea behind Sign-Posting was simple.
A Professional Lawn Care business would « post », or display, a sign on a property following an application of pest control product.
Activists argued that people were somehow routinely being poisoned by products used by Professional Lawn Care businesses.
Activists have also argued that CHILDREN ( and even pets ) DO NOT READ THE SIGNS POSTED.
This issue was addressed in 2006 by Health Canada ―
To minimise any unnecessary exposure, it is good practice for parents to keep their children and pets off treated lawns until residues are dry.
However, it should be noted that the risk assessment was based on children entering treated areas on the day of treatment.
The unique physiology, behaviours and play-habits of children, such as their body weight and hand-to-mouth contact while playing on treated grass WERE ALSO CONSIDERED when determining how much exposure they could encounter.
The combined oral and dermal exposure indicated NO UNACCEPTABLE RISKS FOR CHILDREN on lawns, even when residues are at their highest levels.
Hence, Sign-Posting would provide the community with a sense of being protected by the information readily-available on the back of the signs.
Moreover, Anti-Pesticide Activists specifically turned their attention to 2,4-D.
2,4-D was an ideal target.
Its history was replete with controversial events and damaging insinuations.
Its relationship with Agent Orange was the perfect ammunition.
If 2,4-D was being applied excessively on turf areas, Anti-Pesticide Activists reasoned that sign-posting would provide people with the Right-To-Know as to its use throughout their community.
In 1985, in the Province of Quebec, negotiations took place between Provincial Government Officials and the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Their discussions centered on Sign-Posting.
The industry had been adamantly opposed to sign posting for years, but was relenting.
One year later, in 1986, Sign-Posting was adopted on a VOLUNTARY BASIS for the first time in Canada.
Quebec’s Professional Lawn Care Industry agreed to post a sign after every application of pest control product.
The design and dimensions of the signs ultimately adopted by the industry were originally created by William H. Gathercole.
Once sign posting was adopted throughout the province of Quebec, Anti-Pesticide Activists were aghast.
In large urban centres, it became obvious that one out every three residential lawns was being treated by a Professional Lawn Care business.
Lawn care ingredients, like 2,4-D, were being applied everywhere they looked.
Activists then pleaded with politicians and the media that something more had to be done.
SATIATED with the VICTORY of Sign-Posting, Anti-Pesticide Activists next DEMANDED PROHIBITION against pest control products.
In 1990, the Town of Hudson, located forty kilometres west of Montreal, enacted a PROHIBITION against the use of pest control products within its boundaries.
The town professed that its by-law was somehow necessary for the « protection and health, life, and property of its citizens ».
The controversy regarding the safety of 2,4-D was a major factor.
Comparisons were inevitably drawn between 2,4-D and Agent Orange.
In 1997, a report from Quebec’s Poison Control Centre revealed that NO CASE of pest control product poisoning had been directly linked with the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Moreover, 88 per cent of poisonings occurred when pest control products were used IN THE HOME.
Yet, the emergence of these facts provided only a temporary set-back to the zeal of Anti-Pesticide Activists.
In response to the Hudson PROHIBTION, the Professional Lawn Care Industry launched a media campaign designed to demonstrate the safety of their pest control products.
In 1991, Hudson revised its PROHIBITION such that it would no longer apply to the two golf courses located within its territory.
However, the PROHIBITION remained in force for Professional Lawn Care businesses as well as do-it-yourself home-owners.
Ultimately, Hudson’s PROHIBITION could only be reversed by legal means.
The Quebec Professional Lawn Care Industry CONTESTED Hudson’s PROHIBITION through the Quebec Superior Court and Appeals Court.
Once rejected by both these courts, the industry moved its arguments to The Supreme Court Of Canada.
In 2001, The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the PROHIBITION enacted by the Town of Hudson.
The Supreme Court concluded that the purpose of the Hudson by-law was to minimize the use of allegedly harmful pest control products in order to somehow protect the health of its citizens.
Since Anti-Pesticide Activists had already used the media to disseminate strong, albeit FALSE, allegations regarding the safety of 2,4-D and other lawn care ingredients, the industry could not reverse the tide of public sentiment.
Despite carefully researched documentation to the contrary, the industry had to face defeat.
As two decades of conflict between lawn care companies, municipalities, and Anti-Pesticide Activists raged, the truth about 2,4-D was being established elsewhere.
In early 2005, the Federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada ( PMRA ) announced that it had re-evaluated the use of 2,4-D on residential lawns and other turfgrass areas.
It concluded that 2,4-D DID NOT ENTAIL AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH, and indicated that …
… the toxicological database DOES NOT SUGGEST A CARCINOGENIC RISK.
This conclusion took into consideration children playing on turf areas treated with 2,4-D.
Additionally, PMRA examined children in relation to their behaviors, play-habits, and unique physiology, with particular attention to their body weight and hand-to-mouth contact.
This re-assessment was consistent with the re-evaluation made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency earlier in the same year.
FORCE OF NATURE REPORT
FORCE OF NATURE — QUEBEC PROHIBITION — 2010 02 00 — PERMITTED ACTIVE INGREDIENTS — HISTORY OF PROHIBITION IN QUEBEC ( Report )
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2006 08 16 — LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D — RE-EVALUATION NOTE — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2005 02 21 — RE-EVALUATION OF THE LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Discovery In 1945
The original patent on 2,4-D was issued in 1945 to Dr. Franklin D. Jones, a plant physiologist.
Dr. Jones was working with the naturally occurring plant auxin, indole acetic acid ( IAA ).
Since IAA proved too unstable to work effectively, Dr. Jones developed a synthetic version of IAA ― namely 2,4-D.
IAA IS PRESENT IN ALL PLANT MATTER and HUMANS INGEST IT DAILY whenever fruit, vegetables, and cereals are consumed.
Recognizing its importance, in 2004 The Henry Ford organization in Dearborn, Michigan, identified 2,4-D as ONE OF THE 75 MOST IMPORTANT INNOVATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS 75 YEARS.
Few discoveries of any variety have done as much to increase food production throughout the world.
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
History
Summary Of Significant Dates
1940. The first hormone weed killer discovered. It was the first forerunner to 2,4-D.
1940. Pokorny synthesized 2,4-D. It was reported as a chemical curiosity.
1941. MCPA was discovered as a weed killer. It was the second forerunner to 2,4-D.
1941. 2,4-D was tested for increasing plant growth, and not yet as a weed killer.
1942. Use of 2,4-D as a military herbicide for World War II was discussed and rejected.
1944. 2,4-D was patented in Canada and the United States.
1944. For the first time ever, 2,4-D was sprayed on a dandelion-infested lawn.
1944-45. 2,4-D was first used in spray trials conducted with military aircraft.
1945. The original patent on 2,4-D was issued to Dr. Franklin D. Jones, a plant physiologist.
1945. 2,4-D first introduced in U.S. Growers were invited to test it on their crops.
1945. The U.S. annual production of 2,4-D was measured at 800 Imperial tons.
1946. 2,4-D was first registered with the Canadian and U.S. governments.
1950. The U.S. annual production of 2,4-D was measured at 23,000 Imperial tons.
1951. Combination of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T esters found to be effective as a defoliant.
1959. 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T combination was used in first large-scale defoliation test.
1961. The U.S. annual production of 2,4-D was measured at 43,000 Imperial tons.
1962. U.S. military began spraying 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, and cacodylic acid in Vietnam.
1965. Herbicide Orange (2,4-D and 2,4,5-T) was used for the first time in Vietnam.
1968. Killex became available in Canada. Comprised of 2,4-D, mecoprop, dicamba.
1970. DDT forced to withdraw from market. 2,4-D and others now easier targets.
1970. U.S. government announced suspension of 2,4,5-T. 2,4-D was unaffected.
1971. U.S. Surgeon General prohibited Herbicide Orange for home use.
1971. U.S. military ended operations related to spraying herbicides in Vietnam.
1979. Environmental Protection Agency discontinued 2,4,5-T in the United States.
1983. Canadian government ordered 2,4-D manufacturers to eliminate dioxins.
1984. Study showed that 2,4-D molecules bond to the surface of turfgrass leaves.
1985. Canadian patent expired for regular Killex. Copycats appeared quickly.
1986. Sign posting adopted in several Canadian jurisdictions when using 2,4-D and other turf products.
1986. Kansas survey with farmers linked general herbicide use with lymphoma.
1987. Canadian Centre For Toxicology was unable to associate 2,4-D with cancer.
1989. Canadian government showed long-term use of 2,4-D did not damage soil.
1989. Solomon & others showed that applicator exposure to 2,4-D was permissible.
1990. The U.S. annual production of 2,4-D was measured at 21,000 Imperial tons.
1990. Town of Hudson prohibited the use of 2,4-D and other lawn care products.
2001. Supreme Court upheld Hudson prohibition of 2,4-D and other lawn products.
2004. The Henry Ford organization identified 2,4-D as ONE OF THE 75 MOST IMPORTANT INNOVATIONS IN THE PREVIOUS 75 YEARS.
2005. Canadian and U.S. governments concluded that the use of 2,4-D on turfgrass areas did not entail an unacceptable risk of harm to human health.
2007. Cornell University reported that here were NO REPORTS that indicates a direct link between 2,4- D exposure and cancer in humans.
2007. CropLife Canada reported that there are NO STUDIES THAT LINKED PESTICIDE EXPOSURE TO CANCER.
2012. Katherine von Stackelberg, E Risk Sciences And Harvard Center For Risk Analysis concluded that the combined evidence indicated it was HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE that exposure to 2,4-D was associated with a risk of developing cancers.
THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – LINK
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2012 07 11 — HISTORY OF 2,4-D ( Report )
http://www.24d.org/History/default.aspx
FORCE OF NATURE REPORTS
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2000 09 00 — WISDOM OF DRYSDALE — BIRTH & DEVELOPMENT OF 2,4-D — CARLETON & AMES ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2011 05 26 — TERROR TALK — QUEBEC PROHIBITION IRREFUTABLY INVALIDATED ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2011 07 00 — ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2,4-D IS THE MOST HATED PESTICIDE — AGENT ORANGE — WEAPONS OF TERROR ( Report )
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 00 00 — 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOXYACETIC ACID — ANSWERS.COM
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2007 09 26 — HISTORY OF THE TURFGRASS INDUSTRY & 2,4-D — OVMA — SLIDE SHOW
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2006 04 26 — HISTORY OF 2,4-D — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Prohibited By Other Nations
Health Canada
2004 09 17
In Canada, pest control products, or pesticides, are regulated by Health Canada under the Pest Control Products Act, and are among the most stringently regulated substances in Canada.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) is the branch of Health Canada that administers the Act on behalf of the Minister Of Health.
The primary objective of the PMRA is to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products.
On September 17th, 2004, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada ( PMRA ) responded to the issue of nation prohibition with following statement ―
Federal re-evaluation of pesticide 2,4-D.
2,4-D is no longer used in Sweden or Norway and its use is severely restricted in Denmark.
[ HOWEVER, IN 2011, SWEDEN DID APPROVE THE CONTINUED SALE AND USE OF 2,4-D. ]
Environmental effects are cited as the primary reason for these actions as 2,4-D has the potential to enter groundwater, the primary source of drinking water in these countries.
However, subsequent to these actions, the European Commission, upon completion of their re-evaluation of 2,4-D on October 1, 2001, concluded that it was acceptable for continued use the European Union, of which both Sweden and Denmark are members.
As part of the re-evaluation of 2,4-D, the PMRA has compiled all available drinking water data from various regions and sources across Canada.
These data indicate that the levels in drinking water do not pose unacceptable risks for the Canadian population.
It is important to recognize that of the many studies published, some report associations between adverse health effects and 2,4-D exposure, while many others report a lack of association.
As most of these papers acknowledge, epidemiology studies on their own are difficult to interpret because biases and confounding factors often preclude any convincing link between specific pesticide exposures and effects.
For example, influences from other chemicals and the physical environment encountered at the same time as pesticide exposures and recall bias from the individuals examined are two factors that can strongly influence the study result.
Without an actual exposure calculation, it is difficult to assess whether pesticides could have been responsible for an adverse health outcome.
This is why the PMRA also relies on the more scientifically exact method of quantitatively estimating risk by comparing exposures to the results of toxicity studies in laboratory animals.
The proprietary studies used are conducted to internationally accepted standards and include toxicity studies done on a number of laboratory animal species for comparative purposes, as well as studies of exposure from all routes and methods of exposure.
Safety factors ( typically 100 to 1000 fold ) are built into the assessment to account for different sensitivities between humans and experimental animals and among humans ( age, gender and individual sensitivities to pesticides ).
In general, this is the same approach that is currently utilized by the various international pesticide regulatory authorities including the US EPA and other OECD countries.
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2004 09 17 — FEDERAL RE-EVALUATION OF PESTICIDE 2,4-D — PETITION BY COTTAM GHOST-WRITERS
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2006 08 16 — LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D — RE-EVALUATION NOTE — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Prohibited By Other Nations
The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data
2006 04 25
2,4-D is banned in some countries. [ ?!?! ]
According to The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data, this is a MYTH !
Hera are some facts ―
2,4-D is registered for use in over 100 countries.
The most recent country to approve its continued sale and use was Sweden in 2011.
In some countries, the market size or product use restrictions do not warrant the cost of maintaining registrations.
The European Commission, conducted a major re-evaluation of 2,4-D which was completed in October 2001, concluding that 2,4-D was acceptable for continued registration in all European member countries.
THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – LINK
LINK — 2,4-D TASK FORCE — 2006 04 25 — REVIEWS BY EUROPEAN COMMISSION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION CONFIRM 2,4-D NOT A HEALTH RISK ( Report )
http://24d.org/newsroom/body.aspx?pageID=2&contentID=113
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2006 08 16 — LAWN AND TURF USES OF 2,4-D — RE-EVALUATION NOTE — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Review & Assessment
Not Of Concern
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data
2005 06 00
In 2005, United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA )concluded its seventeen-year comprehensive review and assessment of 2,4-D.
Over the course of 17 years, The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data developed and submitted to EPA
more than 300 Good Laboratory Practice ( GLP ) toxicology, environmental and residue studies which EPA scientists
reviewed to assess the safety of 2,4-D.
It reported in its 304 page Re-Registration Eligibility Decision For 2,4-D ( « RED » ) that the short and long-term effects of using 2,4-D were « not of concern » when users followed product label instructions.
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2005 06 00 — RE-REGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION FOR 2,4-D — EPA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2005 09 25 — 2,4-D VERDICT — NO RISK WHEN USED APPROPRIATELY — EPA — GOLFDOM
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Review & Assessment
No Reasons For Restrictions
Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee
2007 04 25
On April 25th, 2007, according to the Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee ( OPAC ), under the chairmanship of the renowned Dr. Clayton M. Switzer …
OPAC has concluded after in-depth consideration of the scientific evidence, there is NO REASON FOR US TO RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF 2,4-D.
2,4-D will continue to be classified according to the current classification guidelines.
Dr. Switzer is a Professor at the University of Guelph, and former Dean of the Ontario Agricultural College.
Dr. Switzer was Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food from 1984 to 1989.
Dr. Switzer is past president of the Ontario Institute of Agrologists, member of the Agricultural Institute of Canada, member of the International Turfgrass Society, and a recipient of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal.
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 08 09 — ONTARIO PESTICIDES ADVISORY COMMITTEE — LETTER TO SWITZER FROM WHITLOCK
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Review & Assessment
No Unacceptable Risk
Health Canada
2008 05 16 & 2008 06 16
In May 2008, Health Canada stated that …
Products containing 2,4-D DO NOT POSE UNACCEPTABLE RISKS TO HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
Risks to HOMEOWNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN from contact with treated lawns and turf are NOT OF CONCERN.
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — RE-EVALUATION DECISION — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA — 1
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — RE-EVALUATION DECISION — PMRA — HEALTH CANADA — 2
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 05 16 — RE-EVALUATION DECISION — HEALTH CANADA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 05 16 — QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT 2,4-D — HEALTH CANADA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 01 28 — 2,4-D. INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT QUEBEC BAN WOULD BE LIFTED
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Review & Assessment
2,4-D Is Safe
Response To Health Canada Re-Evaluation
2008 06 16
Health Canada actually said 2,4-D WAS SAFE when used as directed — a logical statement that accompanies most human activity.
We don’t drive cars off cliffs because that is not safe.
Any automobile is not safe when driven unsafely.
Another favourite of junk science activists is the corporate smear.
Official science is « industry » science, and therefore not to be trusted.
According to activists, Health Canada decisions are « predicated on industry-supplied, highly controlled » studies.
Not true.
In fact, Health Canada evaluates the science as science, not on the basis of who supplied it.
Additionally, industry-supplied science can often be superior, if only because industry studies are often accompanied by full « raw data », something that doesn’t always come with other published studies.
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — THE REPORT THAT NOBODY READ — CORCORAN — FINANCIAL POST
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — THE LAWN IS SAFE — NATIONAL POST — 1
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — THE LAWN IS SAFE — NATIONAL POST — 2
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 06 05 — NO ONE CAN PROVE THAT PESTICIDES ARE « SAFE » — ARYA ( ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATIC )
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Review & Assessment
No Unacceptable Risk
Quebec Prohibition INVALIDATED
2011 05 25
Because of the outcome of a LAWSUIT against Quebec’s Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION, pest control products like 2,4-D were deemed SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and prohibitions were IRREFUTABLY INVALIDATED.
In 2009, Dow AgroSciences sought a REPEAL of Quebec’s 2004-2006 PROVINCIAL PROHIBITION by INITIATING A LEGAL CHALLENGE against the Canadian federal government under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ).
On May 25th, 2011, Dow AgroSciences, the manufacturer of the pest control product 2,4-D, SETTLED THE NAFTA CHALLENGE CASE with the Canadian government.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a tri-lateral trade block in North America.
As part of the agreement, a VICTORY for Dow, the Government of Quebec was HUMILIATED into making a STATEMENT saying that …
2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment.
Quebec was the first province to FALSELY ALLEGE that pest control products containing 2,4-D were POSSIBLY carcinogenic.
Other jurisdictions outside of Quebec also CONSPIRED to IMPOSE the Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITIONS against 2,4-D under the FALSE PRETEXT that it was a so-called carcinogen.
In fact, ABSOLUTELY NO regulatory body in the world classifies 2,4-D as a human carcinogen ― 2,4-D is probably the MOST STUDIED and BEST UNDERSTOOD of ANY chemical ― not just pesticide ― in existence.
The 2004-2006 PROVINCIAL PROHIBITION in Quebec DESTROYED the Professional Lawn Care Industry.
Because of the 2004-2006 PROVINCIAL PROHIBITION in Quebec, OVER 60 PER CENT of the businesses operating in the Professional Lawn Care Industry were ANNIHILATED, and HUNDREDS OF BUSINESSES DISAPPEARED INTO TOTAL OBLIVION.
Six years after the 2004-2006 PROHIBITION, the remaining businesses operating in the Professional Lawn Care Industry in Quebec LOST UP TO 70 PER CENT OF THE BUSINESS THEY ONCE HAD.
2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment.
2,4-D is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and CAUSES NO HARM.
FORCE OF NATURE REPORTS
FORCE OF NATURE — QUEBEC PROHIBITION — 2011 06 03 — CARNAGE — BUSINESS FAILURE — MONTREAL, QUEBEC — PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC LOST UP TO 70 PER CENT OF THE BUSINESS IT ONCE HAD ( Reports )
FORCE OF NATURE — QUEBEC PROHIBITION — 2011 06 03 — CARNAGE — BUSINESS FAILURE — LOST UP TO 70 PERCENT OF BUSINESS ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2011 05 26 — TERROR TALK — QUEBEC PROHIBITION IRREFUTABLY INVALIDATED ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 06 17 — QUEBEC — DOW SUING BECAUSE OF BANS — OTHER NATIONS THAT HAVE BANNED 2,4-D — AGENT ORANGE — NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT ( NAFTA ) ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 06 02 — QUEBEC — CAN 2,4-D AFFECT HUMAN HEALTH ? — ENVIRONMENTALIST BATTLE — NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT ( NAFTA ) ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2009 04 29 — QUEBEC — NDP SUCCEEDS IN PUSHING FOR HEARINGS ON 2 4-D — NORTH AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT ( NAFTA ) — JACK LAYTON SPEECH ( Report )
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 09 26 — NAFTA SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH QUEBEC — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 07 15 — QUEBEC ACKNOWELEDGES 2,4-D SAFETY — ONTARIO BAN — LANDSCAPE ONTARIO
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 05 26 — QUEBEC BACKS DOWN ON 2,4-D, SAYS IT IS NOT HARMFUL TO HUMANS — FINANCIAL POST
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2011 05 25 — DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC AND GOVERNMENT OF CANADA SETTLE NAFTA CLAIM
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 04 09 — DOW SUES CANADIAN GOVERNMENT OVER QUEBEC'S PESTICIDE BAN — CANWEST NEWS
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 04 09 — DOW FORMALIZES NAFTA CHALLENGE TO QUEBEC PESTICIDES BAN
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 04 05 — SUPPORT FOR QUEBEC’S POSITION BANNING 2,4-D — HOLLAND LETTER TO MINISTER DAY
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 04 03 — WILL DOW CHALLENGE QUEBEC PESTICIDE LAW — GLOBE & MAIL
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 04 03 — WILL DOW CHALLENGE QUEBEC PESTICIDE LAW — GLOBE & MAIL — COMMENTS
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 03 29 — WILL NAFTA EXTERMINATE CANADIAN PESTICIDE BANS — CTV
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 03 29 — NAFTA THREAT WON'T STOP QUEBEC BAN ON LAWN PESTICIDES — GAZETTE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 03 29 — NAFTA THREAT WON’T STOP QUEBEC BAN ON LAWN PESTICIDES — NATIONAL POST
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 10 24 — DOW AGROSCIENCES FILES NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUBMIT NAFTA CHALLENGE IN CANADA
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2008 08 24 — NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUBMIT A CLAIM OF ARBITRATION — DOW AGROSCIENCES
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
Pesticide Bans Are A Farce
Residents Are Obtaining 2,4-D Through The Internet
Because of PROHIBITION, residents are forced to improvise ways of obtaining pest control products like 2,4-D.
Home-owners simply ORDER BANNED PRODUCTS FROM ELSEWHERE IN CANADA and have them delivered by courier.
And the simplicity of the Internet has allowed this practice to go unchecked.
For example, Canadianlawncare Ltd. are wholesalers of pest control products like 2,4-D.
Home-owners can get 2,4-D delivered at home through Canada Post ?
PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORTS
PESTICIDE TRUTHS — 2011 08 31 — ONTARIO — WEED CONTROL PRODUCTS NOT WORKING ? — LOOKING FOR OPTIONS ? — CONTACT ZAIN — 2,4-D — ROUNDUP — MERIT — CANADA POST DELIVERS TO YOUR DOOR ( Report )
or
http://www.lawnweedcontrol.ca/
FORCE OF NATURE REPORT
FORCE OF NATURE — VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW — 2011 05 19 — SKIRTING PROHIBITIONS — HEALTH CANADA ( Report )
REFERENCES
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — KILLEX FOR SALE DESPITE PROHIBITION — 1
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — KILLEX FOR SALE DESPITE PROHIBITION — 2
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data
This organization was established to address the regulatory data requirements of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ).
The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data was formed to work closely with the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ).
Its role is to fund new research and provide information to each agency as required by their respective pesticide re-registration and re-evaluation programs.
The 2,4-D Task Force is made up of those companies owning the technical registrations on the active ingredient in 2,4-D herbicides.
They are Dow AgroSciences ( USA ), Nufarm, Ltd. ( Australia ) and Agro-Gor Corporation ( USA & Argentina ).
The Task Force does not conduct the research required by EPA and PMRA, it simply funds the scientific research needed to meet all agency requirements and keep 2,4-D registrations in the United States and Canada constantly up to date.
All research funded by the Task Force is conducted under stringent Good Laboratory ( GLP ) Practice guidelines.
In an effort to provide the public with the most accurate and up-to-date information, The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data takes the additional step of submitting the research findings to scientific journals for peer review and publication.
As well, given its long history of use, 2,4-D has been WIDELY STUDIED by independent researchers and regulators around the world for decades.
To learn of the history and benefits of 2,4-D, explore the web-site [ see below ] to find out more about the success of a product that has garnered over 65 years of research and evaluation to become the ONE OF THE MOST TRUSTED SELECTIVE HERBICIDES available to consumers, turf managers, farmers, ranchers, and other users wishing to protect their green spaces and crops from undesirable vegetation.
THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – LINK
WEB-SITE
FORCE OF NATURE REPORTS
FORCE OF NATURE — 2,4-D HERBICIDE — 2012 09 00 — UPDATE — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA — REVISED WEB-SITE — MYTHS VERSUS FACTS ( Reports )
REFERENCE
REFERENCE — 2,4-D — 2009 04 14 — THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA — WEB-SITE — WELCOME
――――――――――――――――――――
2,4-D Herbicide
The NORAHG Library of References
2,4-D Herbicide
2012
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 07 11 — A Systematic Review of Carcinogenic Outcomes — Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 04 18 — Federal Register Notice of Denial of the NRDC Petition — EPA
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 04 10 — The Latest on Common Pesticide — Huffington Post — NORAHG RESPONSE
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 04 07 — EPA's Response To Issues Raised In Public Comments
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 03 05 — Oregon Exposure Investigation — The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 03 01 — 2,4-D Task Force II Responds To NRDC Lawsuit
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 02 23 — Get Off My Lawn — NRDC Lawsuit — NORAHG RESPONSE
Reference — 2,4-D — 2012 00 00 — Sports Turf — The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data
2,4-D Herbicide
2011
Reference — 2,4-D — 2011 12 22 — Positive Test in Children — Lane County, Oregon — NORAHG RESPONSE
Reference — 2,4-D — 2011 12 05 — Pesticides & Health – Myths vs. Realities — The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data
Reference — 2,4-D — 2011 10 12 — 2,4-D To Make A Comeback — Milloy
Reference — 2,4-D — 2011 07 15 — Quebec Acknoweledges 2,4-D Safety — Ontario Ban — Landscape Ontario
Reference — 2,4-D — 2011 07 06 — BREAKDOWN — Rob Kyle Anmore — Coquitlam, BC
Reference — 2,4-D — 2011 05 25 — Dow AgroSciences LLC and Government Of Canada Settle NAFTA Claim
Reference — 2,4-D — 2011 04 20 — Ontario — Water — 2,4-D — Forman ( Anti-Pesticide Lunatic )
2,4-D Herbicide
2010
Reference — 2,4-D — 2010 02 26 — Abitibi’s $500-Million Lawsuit An Outrage — NAFTA — Chapter 11
Reference — 2,4-D — 2010 02 20 — Authors Attempt Death By Rubber Duck ( Anti-Pesticide Lunatics )
Reference — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — Killex For Sale Despite Prohibition — 1
Reference — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — Killex For Sale Despite Prohibition — 2
Reference — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — Evaluation of Systemic Toxicity — The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data
Reference — 2,4-D — 2010 00 00 — Clear-Choice — Reduced AI Formulation — Label
2,4-D Herbicide
2009
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 10 22 — Ban On Pesticides May Face NAFTA Test — Globe & Mail — 1
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 10 22 — Ban On Pesticides May Face NAFTA Test — Globe & Mail — 2
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 04 09 — Dow Formalizes NAFTA Challenge To Quebec Pesticides Ban
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 04 05 — Support For Quebec’s Position Banning 2,4-D — Holland Letter to Minister Day
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 04 03 — Will Dow Challenge Quebec Pesticide Law — Globe & Mail
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 04 03 — Will Dow Challenge Quebec Pesticide Law — Globe & Mail — Comments
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 03 29 — Will NAFTA Exterminate Canadian Pesticide Bans — CTV
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 03 29 — NAFTA Threat Won't Stop Quebec Ban On Lawn Pesticides — Gazette
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 03 10 — NDP Succeeds In Pushing For Hearings On 2 4-D Pesticides — Peter Julian
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 03 04 — Letter from Premier Brad Wall — Saskatchewan
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 01 00 — Responses to Major Comments — California Env Prot Agency
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 00 00 — 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid — Answers.com
Reference — 2,4-D — 2009 00 00 — 2,4-D In Drinking Water — State of California
2,4-D Herbicide
2008
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 10 28 — Big Daddy Dow And The Weed Killer Of Doom — El Dragon
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 10 22 — U.S. Chemical Company Challenges Pesticide Ban — Dow — embassymag.ca
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 09 28 — Stop Using Babies As Lobbyists — Howard Mains — Financial Post
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — The Report That Nobody Read — Corcoran — Financial Post
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — The Lawn Is Safe — National Post — 1
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — The Lawn Is Safe — National Post — 2
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — Re-Evaluation Decision — PMRA — Health Canada — 1
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 06 16 — Re-Evaluation Decision — PMRA — Health Canada — 2
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 05 16 — Re-Evaluation Decision — Health Canada
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 05 16 — Questions and Answers about 2,4-D — Health Canada
Reference — 2,4-D — 2008 00 00 — Dioxins — Since 1983, There Is No Longer A Problem
2,4-D Herbicide
2007
Reference — 2,4-D — 2007 09 26 — History of the Turfgrass Industry & 2,4-D — OVMA — Slide Show
Reference — 2,4-D — 2007 08 08 — Decision Not to Initiate Special Review For 2,4-D — EPA
2,4-D Herbicide
2006
Reference — 2,4-D — 2006 09 30 — Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment — USDA
Reference — 2,4-D — 2006 04 26 — History Of 2,4-D — The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data
2,4-D Herbicide
2005
Reference — 2,4-D — 2005 09 25 — 2,4-D Verdict — No Risk When Used Appropriately — EPA — Golfdom
Reference — 2,4-D — 2005 06 00 — Re-Registration Eligibility Decision For 2,4-D — EPA
Reference — 2,4-D — 2005 00 00 — Journal of Pesticide Reform — NCAP ( Anti-Pesticide Lunatics )
Reference — 2,4-D — 2005 00 00 — 5 Reasons Against Weed & Feed — Beyond Pesticides ( Anti-Pesticide Lunatics )
2,4-D Herbicide
2004
Reference — 2,4-D — 2004 07 23 — False Advertising — National Post
Reference — 2,4-D — 2004 05 05 — Only Bad Science Links 2,4-D To Cancer — National Post
Reference — 2,4-D — 2004 04 00 — Dow Profile — PANNA ( Anti-Pesticide Lunatics )
2,4-D Herbicide
2003
2,4-D Herbicide
2002
Reference — 2,4-D — 2002 01 30 — NAFTA — Lindane — Environmentalists Urge Pesticide Fight
2,4-D Herbicide
2001
Reference — 2,4-D — 2001 00 00 — NAFTA — Memorandum Of Argument — The Attorney General Of Canada
2,4-D Herbicide
2000
2,4-D Herbicide
1999
2,4-D Herbicide
1998
2,4-D Herbicide
1997
Reference — 2,4-D — 1997 06 15 — Mexico To Stop Using 2 Pesticides — NAFTA Panel Wins Ban On DDT & Chlordane
2,4-D Herbicide
1996
Reference — 2,4-D — 1996 00 00 — Carpet Residues — Nishioka et al ( Anti-Pesticide Lunatic )
2,4-D Herbicide
1995
Reference — 2,4-D — 1995 00 00 — New Perspectives On An Essential Product — Hammond
2,4-D Herbicide
1994
2,4-D Herbicide
1993
2,4-D Herbicide
1992
Reference — 2,4-D — 1992 12 00 — Canine Malignant Lymphoma — Solomon et al
2,4-D Herbicide
1991
2,4-D Herbicide
1990
Reference — 2,4-D — 1990 00 00 — Homeowner and By-Stander Exposure — Solomon et al — Page 89 & 99
Reference — 2,4-D — 1990 00 00 — Dioxins & Furans — Canadian Environmental Protection Act
2,4-D Herbicide
1989
2,4-D Herbicide
1988
2,4-D Herbicide
1987
2,4-D Herbicide
1986
2,4-D Herbicide
1985
2,4-D Herbicide
1984
2,4-D Herbicide
1983
2,4-D Herbicide
1982
2,4-D Herbicide
1981
Reference — 2,4-D — 1981 09 00 — Not Carcinogenic — Dow Chemical Findings
2,4-D Herbicide
The NORAHG Library of Force Of Nature Reports
2,4-D Herbicide
Manufacturers’ Labels For 2,4-D & Related Products
Label — 2,4-D Amine 600 — 2011 11 22 — Loveland
Label — Banvel 483 Herbicide Solution — 2011 08 17 — BASF
Label — Banvel Herbicide — 2011 08 17 — BASF
Label — Killex 500 Liquid Turf Herbicide Concentrate — 2011 08 09 — Green Cross
Label — Killex Liquid Turf Herbicide Concentrate — 2011 08 09 — Green Cross
Label — MCPA Amine 500 — 2009 12 21 — Dow
Label — Mecoprop-P Herbicide Liquid — 2012 12 19 — Loveland
Label — Par III Turf Herbicide Solution — 2011 11 22 — Loveland
Label — Pro Tri-Kil Turf Herbicide — 2012 09 21 — Agrium
――――――――――――――――――――
DISCOVER WHAT ANTI-PESTICIDE AND ENVIRO-LUNATIC TERRORISTS ARE DOING AND SAYING ABOUT SUBVERSIVELY IMPOSING THEIR LIFE-STYLE CHOICES AGAINST OUR SOCIETY.
Force Of Nature ― The Whole Truth From An Independent Perspective.
Communities and businesses are being HARMED and DESTROYED and RAPED by PROHIBITIONS pest control products used in the Urban Landscape, and other ACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM.
We are living in the 9|11 Era of Anti Pesticide and Environmental Terrorism where at least ONE SUBVERSIVE ACT OF TERROR is Perpetrated EVERY SINGLE DAY by Enviro Lunatic Activists.
We are living in the DARK AGE OF ANTI PESTICIDE TERRORISM where sound science is trumped by FAKE SCIENTISTS, JUNK SCIENCE and UNVERIFIABLE SECRET EVIDENCE through FABRICATION, INNUENDO, and INTERNET RUMOUR ― scientific research PROVES that pest control products CAUSE NO HARM and can be USED SAFELY.
An informed public is better able to protect itself and its communities and businesses from so-called activists who are THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE ANY ADVICE about pest control products or the environment.
NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm and destroy the Green space industry, and the well being of our communities.
NORAHG morally represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people associated with turf and ornamental plant maintenance who are OPPOSED to Anti Pesticide PROHIBITION and the CLOSURE or ABANDONMENT of green spaces under the RIDICULOUS PRETEXT of somehow « saving » the environment.
NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON PROFIT NON PARTISAN organization that does not accept money from corporations or governments or trade associations, and represents NO VESTED INTERESTS WHATSOEVER.
NORAHG is dedicated to reporting the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.
NORAHG pledges to deliver comprehensive reports that are worthy of peoples’ time and of peoples’ concern, reports that might ordinarily never have breached the parapet.
NORAHG was the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991. Mr. Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.
Force Of Nature was launched by NORAHG for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet on January 1st, 2009 ― however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone FORCE OF NATURE Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.
On January 1st, 2009, Force Of Nature Reports were launched for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet ― however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone Force Of Nature Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.
On March 15th, 2010, Uncle Adolph independently launched The Pesticide Truths, an easy-to-use Web-Site that collects relevant reports of information right-off-the-press.
Pesticide Truths and Force Of Nature, in some ways, are like Google for everything concerning the SURVERSIVE ACTIVITIES of Anti-Pesticide and Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists.
——————–
Here are more Reports and Web-Pages regarding 2,4-D HERBICIDE and other conventional products …
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – 2,4-D HERBICIDE – EVALUATIONS & ASSESSMENTS ( Web-Page )
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – 2,4-D HERBICIDE – THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – REVISED WEB-SITE – MYTHS VERSUS FACTS – UPDATE – 2012 09 00 ( Reports )
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – DDT AND OUR WORLD OF POLITICIZED SCIENCE ( Web-Page )
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – GLYPHOSATE HERBICIDE ( ROUNDUP ) – WEIR – HUBER – WEST COAST ENVIRONMENTAL LAW – HEALTH CANADA ( Web-Page )
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – HERBICIDE ORANGE A.K.A. AGENT ORANGE ( Web-Page )
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – IMIDACLOPRID INSECTICIDE ( MERIT ) – BEE COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
NORAHG has archived more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site …
THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE
PESTICIDE BANS ARE A FARCE ( Report )
REAL TRENDS AGAINST PESTICIDE BANS ( Web-Page )
CARNAGE CAUSED BY CATASTROPHIC ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION – MAIN WEB-PAGE
GOLF DESTRUCTION – GOLF IS NEXT ( Web-Page )
WHITE PAPER – THE MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES ( Part 2 ) – LEADING SCIENTIFIC HEALTH AND POLICY EXPERTS
COMPLAINT CHANNELS – COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS ( Web-Page )
THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )
PESTICIDE TRUTHS REPORTS ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
