Sunday, December 21, 2008

EU - Massive crackdown on the use of scores of toxic pesticides

December 21, 2008
Massive crackdown on the use of scores of toxic pesticidesNew EU rules, opposed by Gordon Brown, will phase out use of cancer-causing compounds in Britain
Britain is to get its toughest crackdown on toxic substances in foodand the environment, despite determined resistance to the safetymeasures from Gordon Brown.
Scores of pesticides suspected of causing cancer, DNA damage and"gender-bender" effects are to be phased out under new EU rules, whichare being hailed as a revolution in the way the public is protectedagainst poisonous chemicals.
The use of all pesticides in public places is to be dramaticallyreduced, with aerial spraying banned anywhere in the country.
Yesterday environmentalists hailed the measures – to be adoptedfollowing long negotiations between the European Parliament andindividual governments – as a "landmark", while the National Farmers'Union called them "devastating". The agrochemical industry hasbitterly resisted them, backed by the Prime Minister, who has voicedhis concern that they would damage agriculture and food productionwithout significantly benefiting health or the environment.
Almost half of all food eaten throughout Europe has been discovered tobe contaminated by pesticides, with six of the most dangeroussubstances among the 10 most frequently found.
The European Parliament has long been pressing, with strong cross-party support, for radical controls, despite opposition from somegovernments, especially Britain. The new measures are the result of acompromise between the two sides, hammered out last week.
Under the deal, a list of 22 particularly hazardous chemicals used inscores of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides will gradually bephased out to avoid abrupt withdrawal from the market. The chemicalswill be given a further five years' grace if banning them would putcrops in serious danger. Pesticide use is to be kept to "a minimum" inparks, playgrounds, schools and near hospitals. Aerial spraying willbe banned unless given exceptional approval by safety authorities.
Industry will have to release the results of any studies that showharmful effects, and there is to be better protection for bees, whosenumbers have been falling alarmingly across Europe.
The National Farmers' Union said that the measures – which will haveto be finally confirmed by the Parliament and EU leaders early in thenew year – "will have a devastating effect on the horticulturalindustry and will see a reduction in crop yield and quality", andwould also force up prices.
But environmentalists dismissed this as "scaremongering", pointing outthat only a small minority of the 507 substances in pesticides wouldbe banned. Though they would have liked even tougher controls, theystill hailed the agreement as a breakthrough. Hiltrud Breyer, theGerman Green MEP who steered the proposals through the parliament,called them a "milestone for the environment, health and consumerprotection". "The EU is setting a global precedent by phasing outhighly toxic pesticides," she said.
Yesterday, Nick Mole, of the Pesticides Action Network, said: "This isa landmark, the biggest ever crackdown on poisonous chemicals... Itsays that anything hazardous to health or the environment will have togo, rather than taking the position... that if it is used properly itcan be tolerated."
[iCopyright] © 2008 Independent News and Media. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Their Trees Are Truly GreenEco-Conscious Times Lead Some Growers to Shun Chemicals
By Lori ArataniWashington Post Staff Writer
You've traded in those old-fashioned filament lights for ecologicallysound LED bulbs that use one-tenth of the electricity. You'redecorating with fair-trade ornaments made from recycled materials.
But no matter how green your Christmas tree is, Michael Tabor swearsit could be greener. That's why the veteran farmer is growing "eco-trees" with no herbicides or pesticides and selling them at the AdamsMorgan Farmer's Market. His target audience? The eco-conscious holidayshopper, of course.
Tabor says his trees, grown on his 60-acre spread in Needmore, Pa.,are as au naturel as the ones that grow in the wild. But don't callthem "organic.'' Too politically loaded, thank you very much.
"We don't like to use the word organic,'' he said. "We use the word'sustainable.' "
Tabor considers his trees sustainable because he does not use chemicalfertilizers, pesticides or dyes, as some growers do, and because thosethat are cut down are replaced by seedlings. He sells his treesthrough word-of-mouth and on Saturdays in late November and Decemberat the Farmer's Market.
Tabor is one of a handful of tree farmers in the region who havestopped using chemicals. Clover Hollow Christmas Tree Farm in Newport,Va., also offers "green" trees.
But some people, including folks at the National Christmas TreeAssociation, say it's hard to say which tree is the greenest -- theconventionally grown one or the one grown without chemical treatments.Rick Dungey, a spokesman for the association, said Christmas treesgrown with chemicals aren't vastly different from those grown without.
Wade Butler of Butler's Orchard in Germantown, who grows trees usingconventional methods, said herbicides are sprayed on the ground aroundthe trees to get rid of weeds. When pesticides are applied to trees,it's done sparingly, to get rid of insects and worms.
"The idea that trees are coated in chemicals is just not accurate," hesaid.
Dungey said the association doesn't track members' farming methods,but he guesses that there are probably a handful of folks who've madethe decision to use no herbicides or chemicals. Officials at theMaryland Department of Agriculture said they aren't aware of any green-tree trend in the state.
Butler said terms like sustainable and or organic might not be muchmore than clever marketing ploys, noting that his trees are alreadygreener than their petroleum-based artificial counterparts, which willnever break down naturally.
John Feezer, who runs Feezers Farm in Marriottsville in Howard County,doesn't mind the organic label. He decided to go herbicide-free about10 years ago. He said his customers, from such places as FrederickCounty, the District and Takoma Park, began asking about his farmingmethods. Like any good businessman, he spotted a niche: greener trees= more green for him.
"It was a market-driven decision,'' he said.
Growing without herbicides and pesticides does mean more work. Taborand Feezer say they probably mow twice as often as farmers who useherbicides, which of course raises the sticky question of whether thefumes emitted from a gas-powered mower offset the gains from not usingfertilizers.
Feezer and Tabor say their methods also require more cooperation fromMother Nature. Drought years can spell trouble, because the aphids andthe bagworms are a bit more aggressive. For whatever reason, in rainyyears, the critters tend to do less harm to the trees, but then thereare fungus issues.
Both men say the trees look about the same as conventionally growncounterparts. Tabor said some might look slightly less green and havea yellowish or slightly white cast -- so "green" trees aren't actuallyas green. But like those who learn to ignore the blemishes on theirorganic fruit, his customers understand the trade-off between perfectand natural.
Despite the added labor, the price of an eco-tree is about the same asa conventional one. Tabor's trees retail for $50 to $125. Those whoprefer the Charlie Brown variety, which Tabor describes as "trees thatare imperfect and have their own character," will pay $25. Dig yourown up for $45. Those who feel guilty about cutting down a tree arewelcome to return to the farm to plant a replacement. Feezer charges$30 to $70 for his trees.
Both men say that people who want to go green might have to wait untilnext year: Because it's the last weekend before Christmas, they'reclose to being sold out.
Sat 20 Dec 2008
Bangor Daily News
Pesticides panel drops plan for check-ins with neighbors
State regulators on Friday scrapped a proposal that would haverequired farmers to check in annually with neighboring landownersabout whether they want to be informed about aerial application ofpesticides.
Maine's Board of Pesticides Control still will push forward with aplan to create a statewide registry of people who want to be notifiedif pesticides are sprayed nearby. But the board took some of theburden off farmers who, under the original plan, would have beenrequired to make the initial contact with landowners within 1,000 feetof the area to be sprayed.
"I still think it is up to the individual to seek out thatinformation," said Charles Ravis, a board member and professor ofenvironmental science and ecology.
The board has been working for about two years to update Maine'sregulations regarding aerial spraying of pesticides in order tostrengthen protections against exposure to potentially toxicchemicals.
The changes recommended Friday were in response to feedback fromfarmers and other groups that the logistics of notifying so manyneighbors was unreasonably burdensome, especially for largeragricultural operations.
Aerial spraying has received the most attention Down East, where manyblueberry growers rely on chemicals to help combat fruit flies andother pests. But the rules would apply anywhere helicopters and planesare used to disperse pesticides in areas where people might beexposed.
Several groups have been pushing for more stringent notificationrequirements and regulation requirements of aerial spraying, and theLegislature already has heard at least one measure advocating a ban onaerial spraying.
Daniel Simonds, a board member and forestry consultant, said hebelieves the board has an obligation to find the middle ground to makesure that the public knows it has the right to be notified aboutpesticide applications without overburdening farmers.
Both the farm industry and advocates for additional restrictions onaerial spraying have supported the creation of a registry -administered by the board - of people who want to be notified ofpesticide applications.
A draft version discussed Friday would require that registrants benotified anytime pesticides are applied on the ground within 500 feetof their property and within 1,500 feet for aerial application. Theboard will continue to work on the draft and is expected to hearpublic comments on the proposal during a meeting on Jan. 23.
Heather Spalding, associate director of the Maine Organic Farmers andGardeners Association, said her organization wholeheartedly supportedthe registry. But Spalding said she and other MOFGA members were "verydisappointed" that the board decided to essentially re-write thenotification rules after limited discussion on Friday.
"We're a long way from where we want to be," Spalding said. "From myperspective, this is two years of really hard work that has beenthrown out of the window in five minutes ... Our feeling is that theonus should be on the people who are spraying these toxins."
December 21, 2008
Group upset about EPA deal with BayerWeb intro text graph: People Concerned About MIC argues that monetaryfines in the deal are not adequate, and propose that Bayer be forcedto fund a new community health study and pay for gas masks for allresidents.
By Ken Ward Jr.Staff writer
Read about the settlement:
Send a comment: EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed dealwith Bayer until Jan. 16. Comments can be sent to Regional HearingClerk (3RC00), U.S. EPA, Region III, 1650 Arch St., Philadelphia, PA19103-2029.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Kanawha Valley activists are complaining thatfederal regulators are going easy on Bayer CropScience in a recentdeal proposed to settle wide-ranging environmental violations at thecompany's Institute chemical plant.
People Concerned About MIC argues that monetary fines in the deal arenot adequate, and proposes that Bayer be forced to fund a newcommunity health study and pay for gas masks for all residents.
"While the violations represented in this penalty cover a short amountof time, they do not cover conclusively the years of damage that havebeen done to the health and environment of our community," PeopleConcerned spokeswoman Maya Nye wrote in a letter sent earlier thismonth to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Under the settlement, EPA proposes for Bayer to pay a $112,500 fine,spend $660,000 on new pollution controls and monitoring programs, andbuy $240,000 worth of equipment for local emergency response agencies.
The consent agreement would settle allegations made by EPA inspectorsduring a series of inspections made as Bayer was negotiating to takeover the Institute facility from Aventis CropScience in 2001. Duringinspections in May, August and November 2001, EPA officials foundrepeated violations of five different environmental laws meant tolimit air and water pollution, and protect the public from the dangersof hazardous chemical leaks and spills.
The EPA allegations were not specifically related to the Aug. 28explosion and fire that killed two workers and forced thousands ofresidents to take shelter in their homes. Bayer announced the deal -prior to any EPA release of the settlement - in mid-September, ascriticism continued of the company's refusal to provide timelyinformation to local emergency responders about that incident.
Among other allegations, however, EPA accused the Institute plant ofwaiting nearly five hours to report a February 2001 pesticide leak.EPA also alleged that plant officials underreported routine toxicemissions of a total of more than 1,000 pounds of four chemicals inToxics Release Inventory filings for 1999.
"If the primary purpose of the administrative penalty is to serve as adeterrent for future violations, it is clear that this penalty is notharsh enough as Bayer clearly violated some of the same laws duringthe recent explosion in August 2008 as they did during the times ofthe violations represented in this settlement," Nye wrote in herletter to EPA.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Bayer Explosion Kills Two, Shines Light on Communication Problems
No. 10 -- A fireball could be seen for miles after an August explosionat the Bayer CropScience Plant in Institute that killed two veteranemployees.
by Gretchen Mae Stone
A fireball could be seen for miles after an August explosion at theBayer CropScience Plant in Institute that killed two veteranemployees.
Employee Barry Withrow was killed in the explosion. His co-worker,Bill Oxley, was severely injured and later died at the West PennHospital burn unit in Pittsburgh. A third worker, a member of thecompany's emergency response team, was treated at the infirmary forheat stress and released.
Both Withrow and Oxley were 20-plus year veterans at the company.
Occupation Safety & Health Administration inspectors were on site theday after the explosion trying to determine what caused the blast.U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board Chairman and CEOJohn Bresland and a five-member team arrived just days later also withthe goal of learning what happened and how to prevent it fromhappening again.
But finding answers to those questions didn't come in 2008. Fullinvestigations by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board usually take 12 to 18months to complete, according to Amy McCormick, a spokeswoman. OSHAhas six months to finalize the investigation.
In a critique forum, public officials and some responders saidcommunication breakdowns ran rampant among emergency responders duringthe explosion and its aftermath.
Meanwhile, Bayer provided nearly no information about what washappening inside the plant, according to emergency responders fromthroughout the Kanawha Valley.
Kanawha County, municipal and state officials met with firstresponders and Bayer CropScience officials a month following theaccident.
Responders said it was inexcusable that Bayer didn't provideinformation sooner, and that firefighters and officers were in areasthat may or may not have been safe.
Tom Dover of Bayer said a company representative believed he hadissued a standby, but that obviously hadn't happened. In a standby,outside assistance is needed but a communitywide shelter-in-placeorder is not.
"I'm not here to bang Bayer's head up against the wall, but thebiggest frustration for everybody was 'what the heck is goingon?' ...," Kanawha County Sheriff Mike Rutherford said. "For quitesome time, they wouldn't even confirm there was an explosion at theplant, so that was a big problem."
St. Albans Police Chief Joe Crawford said the scene was mass chaos.
"At the sheriff's detachment, it looked like a movie theater," he saidduring the forum. "People driving in there, trying to look directlyacross at what was going on."
Time and time again, emergency responders said their biggest problemwas a lack of communication, not just from Bayer, but also amongcommunities and the county.
"We had the cloud come down over the top of our city, the same way asSt. Albans. If it had been something worse than what it was, it couldhave killed a lot of people. ...," Nitro Police Lt. Joseph Savillasaid at the time.
Bayer purchased the plant in 2002 from Aventis CropSciences. Bayeracquired all of Aventis CropSciences and the processes there haven'tchanged, according to company officials.
The explosion occurred in a new tank primarily containing methylisobutyl ketone, a byproduct of methomyl. Methomyl is used in Larvin,a pesticide and the main product in that section of the plant.
Methy isobutyl ketone is highly flammable but not particularly toxic,according to Kathy Cosco, a spokeswoman for the state Department ofEnvironmental Protection. Other solvents may have been present in thetank, Dover said, but that was normal and should not have been ofconsequence.
The tank had been operational for about a week before the explosion.It was in the West Carbamoylation Center on the west side of theplant.
Copyright 2008 West Virginia Media. All rights reserved.
===============================Warning Industry Propaganda Below===============================
Pest Management 2009 - Annual ConferenceSTRUCTURAL PEST MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION Of ONTARIOWednesday January 21 - Thursday January 22, 2008The Delta Toronto East Hotel, Toronto, Ontario
Conference AgendaWEDNESDAY JANUARY 21, 20097:30 - 2:00REGISTRATIONSponsored by:8:30 - 8:45WELCOME ADDRESS, Ted Berdowski, President of SPMAO8:45 - 9:00Darcy Olds, Bayer Environmental Science - Morning Sponsor9:00 - 10:15HISTORIC BED BUG MANAGEMENT: LESSONS FROM THE PAST“Backed by Bayer”10:15 - 10:30Break, Exhibit HallSponsored by:10:30 - 12:00BED BUG RESEARCH, MANAGEMENT & MAYHEM“Backed by Bayer”12:00 - 1:30LUNCH IN THE EXHIBIT HALLMichael F. Potter - Department of Entomology, University of KentuckyBed bugs have been biting people since the beginning of recorded time.Inbattling today's global bed bug resurgence, much can be learned fromthe past.This intriguing presentation will transport you back to when bed bugswere ascommon as cockroaches, and the most detested of household pests. The2000plus year journey will provide important lessons, insights and answersforManaging infestations today.Sponsored by: Bayer Environmental Science
Michael F. Potter - Department of Entomology, University of KentuckyBedbugs are increasingly causing chaos all around the country. Inseemingly notime, companies went from never having seen a bedbug to them being arathercommon occurrence. In some markets, the phones are ringing off thehook likethey once were for termites. Why have bed bugs returned? What are themostEffective products and methods available for battling infestations?How are othercompanies responding throughout the country? This presentation willtransportyou into bed bug-infested buildings and show why this is such aformidable foe,not to be taken lightly. Cutting-edge research, prevention, andmanagement tipsWill be provided, along with thoughts for staying out of trouble. Itwill alsospeculate on where we might be headed in the future.Sponsored by: Bayer Environmental Science
1:30 - 3:30GREEN RODENT CONTROLKim Kemp - Purina / NestleSponsored by:Kim’s talk will focus on the basic understanding of rodent behavior,relative to largeFood distribution centers, with a basic understanding of rodentbiology.Life Cycles - Reproductive Capabilities - Foraging Habits andStrategies - Identificationof Species - Trapping Strategies for Distribution Centers - InspectionTechniques -Developing a Green Approach to Rodent Management in DistributionCenters - OldMyths and New Findings on the Standard Pest Management Approach toRodent Control- Statistics on how changing your paradigm can be successfullymeasured3:30 - 3:45Break, Exhibit Hall
3:45 pm - 4:15 pmM.O.E. UPDATE / TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS GOODSGeoff Cutten, Senior Pesticides Regulatory Scientist, Ministry of theEnvironmentGeoff will, as always, bring us up to speed on any provinciallegislation that pertainsto our industry and give us an update on Bill 64..
4:00 pm - 5:00 pm COCKROACH CONTROL -BACK TO BASICS5:30 - 7:00 pmRECEPTIONSponsored by: Agrium Advanced Technologies
April 21, 2008
Agriculture braced for ‘cosmetic’ pesticide ban fallout
Farm groups say Ontario Minister of Agriculture Leona Dombrowsky hasgiven an “ironclad guarantee” that agriculture will be exempt when theprovince, under pressure from environmental groups, moves to ban theuse of pesticides from lawns and gardens this spring.
They are still worried, however, that inevitably consumers willquestion the benefits of crop protection products because science hasbeen taken out of the equation. The anticipated law banning pesticideuse for “cosmetic” purposes might be introduced to the legislature asearly as Earth Day, Apr. 22.
“We’ve been reassured that our exemption from this proposed ban isironclad. That’s fine for the short term,” says Jackie Fraser,executive director of AgCare. “We are concerned about the public’sattitude towards pesticide use in general.”
At an Ontario Federation of Agriculture directors meeting in Torontolast week, Peter MacLeod, vice president of CropLife Canada, apesticide maker lobby group, revealed the results of surveys conductedlast fall and again this spring. MacLeod says the surveys show adisturbing trend: consumer concern about the use of pesticides in foodproduction is growing.
The CropLife polls conducted last fall found 61 per cent opposed theuse of these products on lawns and gardens and 31 per cent opposedpesticide use on farms. Only 13 per cent of those polled thought theiruse is vital to growing crops.
In another poll taken earlier this spring for CropLife, 56 per centsaid regulations should be the same for farm/urban environments and 64per cent said pesticides should be banned from all uses.
Fraser hasn’t seen the figures or the questions asked in the CropLifepolls. She is worried about governments making public policy decisionsbased upon uninformed public opinion. The term ‘pesticide’ alone “hasa negative connotation,” she says.
MacLeod asserts there is no science that shows pesticides are a healthhazard when they are used properly.
“We are concerned about taking science out of the regulatory system,”says Fraser.She has not seen details of the surveys conducted by Croplife Canada.“We’re also concerned from an innovation stand point,” Fraser says.She wonders if going to be an investment in new technologies in Canadaif developing companies see the science based view in Canada “assoftening.”
“We are very concerned with this proposed ban. We see it as an issuethat is going to affect agriculture ultimately.”
Twenty years ago AgCare started promoting mandatory training forfarmers spraying crops. This is being held up as the reason thatagriculture is now exempt from a pesticide ban. Fraser says AgCare’sposition is that consumers should also be training in the use of lawnand garden pest controls, “instead of banning products that, frankly,people can use safely.”
Pesticides are regulated by the federal government. Nonetheless,municipal bans on weed and other pest spraying have been popping uplike dandelions on a lawn. The cities of Hamilton and St. Catharinesmoved to ban spraying last fall. Stratford banned pesticides earlierthis month.
All of these bans take effect in the spring of 2009. BF
Title: AGCARE - AN ENVIRONMENTAL VOICE OF REASON: Farmers shouldn'tforget the pesticide banCategory: AGCARE - An Environmental Voice of ReasonDate Added: 2008-11-01Author: LILIAN SCHAER
Article: It’s been somewhat set aside as a done deal, especially withagriculture being granted exemption status, but the farming communityshould not be complacent about the new provincial pesticide banlegislation.
Yes, agriculture was granted an exemption but there is no assurancethat this exemption can’t be or won’t be removed at some time down theroad. Although we won’t really know what it all means in its minutiaeuntil the regulations are released for comment – widely expected inNovember – there is still a bigger picture to keep in mind.
Certain factions like the Canadian Cancer Society are quite activelyworking to have pesticide use banned in food production altogether. Infact, they are hosting a conference in Toronto this month where theyare “exploring” linkages between cancer and pesticide use inagriculture.
When looking at the conference agenda, it is already quite clear whatconclusions they are going to draw and I can say with a fair amount ofcertainty that it won’t be a balanced debate. The Cancer Society is avery organized group with a lot of money and their voice is a powerfulone. It is a huge challenge for agriculture, with our smallorganizations and even smaller budgets, to try to keep up – andespecially when we are trying to fight emotional arguments with cold,hard science.
But we need to keep trying to get our voices heard. AGCare will berepresented at the conference in November, we are working to get ourside of the story heard in the urban media and we are making ourconcerns known to the Minister of the Environment. Here are the threekey points AGCare emphasized to the Minister in a recent letter:
Guarantee of a permanent exemption for agriculture
AGCare recommends that the agricultural use exemption for pesticidesbe made permanent. Pesticides provide great benefits if used properlyand as directed, and they are a very important tool in foodproduction. In Canada, there are fewer farmers every year, the amountof available farm land is decreasing and climate change is threateningour ability to grow crops. At the same time, the world’s population isgrowing faster than ever before. If farmers are to successfully riseto the challenge of producing more food for the growing globalpopulation, we will need every tool available to us. This includespesticides so that we can continue to feed not only ourselves butothers around the world.
Product restrictions must be based on scientific criteriaAGCare feelsthat Bill 64 contradicts the extensive knowledge of Health Canada’sPest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and sends confusing andcontradictory messages to the public about the value of Canada’sregulatory review and scientific evaluation of pesticide products.
The future success of Ontario farmers lies in our ability to becompetitive against farmers in other areas, especially the UnitedStates. A provincial ban on federally approved products will createregulatory uncertainty for developers of pesticides, who needpredictability and scientific rationale to support the innovation ofnew products. We anticipate that this will lead to reduced investmentin product approval in Canada, making it harder for us to compete onan even playing field.
Any product restrictions that are put in place should be developedbased on clear, science-based criteria and should focus on thespecific product rather than the active ingredients.
Use of pesticides on the entire farm property
Bill 64 bans the cosmetic use of pesticides on all lawns and gardens –including those on farm properties. However, pests on a farm lawn orgarden can easily create problems in the fields if they aren’t kept incheck. We have to control pests on all parts of our farms – not juston our fields – to ensure that they don’t impact our crops orlivestock. Farmers who are trained and certified to use pesticidesresponsibly on their farmland can also safely use pesticides – oftenthe same ones – on other areas of their farms like their own lawns andgardens. Farm lawns and gardens should be included in the agriculturaluse exemption.
© 2007. The Grower. All rights reserved.
=============================== Best Blogger Tips
  • Stumble This Post
  • Save Tis Post To Delicious
  • Share On Reddit
  • Fave On Technorati
  • Buzz This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Digg This Post
  • Share On Facebook
Blog Gadgets

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

St. John's Daily Spray Advisory

My Past Articles

More enforcement needed for pesticide spray regulations
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 413 words
Karen Griffin - Judie Squires says someone needs to patrol the companies that spray residential areas for pesticides because she's observed nine violations of the Environmental Protection Act in her Paradise neighborhood alone

Spray woes: Province falling down on monitoring pesticides
The Telegram (St. John's) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 253 words
Judie Squires - environment to become poisoned? A temporary ban on all residential pesticides has to be put into place, to protect us, our wildlife and our environment as a whole. Judie Squires Paradise

Government lax on cosmetic pesticide regulation: advocate
The Telegram (St. John's) - 08-28-2004 - 613 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic the province will ban cosmetic use

Woman doesn't expect cosmetic pesticide ban any time soon
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - 08-30-2004 - 712 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic that the province will ban the

Province lagging behind in pesticide control
The Telegram (St. John's) - 09-04-2005 - 496 words
Squires, Judie - it to do is to prohibit the cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides altogether in order to protect our citizens and the environment. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's

The two sides to pesticide use
The Telegram (St. John's) - 07-16-2006 - 781 words
Judie Squires - health of your families. When Canada's most respected health authorities tell us pesticides threaten our health, we should all be listening. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's

Inquiry implicates BTk
The Telegram (St. John's) - 06-24-2006 - 353 words
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - of trees. The live spores can be inhaled by humans and animals exposed to BT. Judie Squires, secretary of the Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, says despite claims that

Delayed pesticide laws 'disappointing'
The Telegram (St. John's) - 06-24-2006 - 833 words
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - at the end of this year. These products will only be sold to certified dealers. Judie Squires, secretary of the newly formed Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, isn't

Above Articles available through Trancontinental Newsnet

Time for provincial lawn pesticide regulation
The Telegram (St. John's) - 03-14-2009 - 419 words
pesticides. Please join me in lobbying our province for a pesticide ban Judie Squires Portugal Cove...

Online Marketing -