Wednesday, December 17, 2008
News CanadaFeds need to protect kids from chemicals
News CanadaFeds need to protect kids from chemicals: group
By KEVIN CONNOR, SUN MEDIA
Feds must do more to protect children from hazardous chemicals inproducts that are making them sick, environmental and medical groupssay.
The Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment --which has been studying the problem for 10 years -- said Ottawa mustchange how it regulates chemicals in products.
"Products we bring into our homes -- from toys to furniture tocleaning products and electronics, from pesticides to air fresheners-- too often contain substances that do or could disrupt the normaldevelopment of the brain and other organs of a fetus or child," saidDr. Lynn Marshall, an environmental physician at Women's CollegeHospital.
"Children are more vulnerable than adults to environmentalcontaminants because their bodies are undergoing rapid development andtheir behaviours -- such as crawling on the floor and putting thingsin their mouths -- put them in contact with contaminants found in thehome, including many that are in ordinary dust."
There are too many unknowns about the risks of the thousands ofchemicals on the market today, the CPCHE said.
The group wants new laws so the producer or importer of a chemicalproducts must prove the product is safe before reaching themarketplace. It also wants the government to have the power formandatory recalls. Too many have not been tested for the dangers theypose, said Barbara McElgunn, a health policy advisor.
Dec 16 2008
Federal Government Action Needed Now to Protect Children fromHazardous Chemicals in Consumer Products
Toronto: A partnership of eleven environmental, public health, medicaland child care groups is calling for improvements in the federalgovernment’s approach to regulating chemicals in consumer products.Improved regulation is one of three key areas identified in FirstSteps in Lifelong Health: A Vision and Strategy for Children’s Healthand Environment in Canada. The Vision and Strategy builds upon eightyears of research and consultation by the Canadian Partnership forChildren’s Health and Environment (CPCHE).
“Products that we bring into our homes– from toys to furniture tocleaning products and electronics, from pesticides to air fresheners –too often contain substances that do or could disrupt the normaldevelopment of the brain and other organs of a fetus or child.” saysDr. Lynn Marshall, a physician with the Environmental Health Clinic atWomen’s College Hospital. “Children are more vulnerable than adults toenvironmental contaminants because their bodies are undergoing rapiddevelopment and their behaviours – such as crawling on the floor andputting things in their mouths – put them in contact with contaminantsfound in the home, including many that are in ordinary house dust.”
Research shows that many of those contaminants come from consumerproducts. The polybrominated flame retardants found in TVs andcomputers, the phthalates found in soft vinyl toys and many personalcare products, and bisphenol A (BPA), the plastic additive found inthe lining of food cans and in many rigid plastic containers, areamong the chemicals targeted by CPCHE for urgent action. CPCHE isrecommending that the federal government improve its regulation ofchemicals and secure the legislative power to issue mandatory recallsof products when problems are discovered.
The partners are also calling on the government to empower parentswith information via labeling and other means. “It is unacceptablethat children continue to be put at risk from lead found in commonconsumer products, such as toys, key chains and costume jewelry,” saysKathleen Cooper, senior researcher with the Canadian Environmental LawAssociation. “We have known for decades about the serious risk thatlead poses to the brain and nervous system, yet the federal governmentstill allows products containing lead to be marketed. If we can’t getit right for lead, what actions can we expect with all the otherchemicals that scientists are increasingly linking to health effects?”
There is much to learn about the risks posed by thousands of chemicalsthat are in commerce today – most of which have not been tested fortheir potential to adversely affect the developing fetus and child.“But lack of full scientific certainty is no excuse for inaction.”says Barbara McElgunn, Health Policy Advisor with the LearningDisabilities Association of Canada. “When it comes to the health anddevelopment of children, it is better to be safe than sorry. CPCHE iscalling on the federal government to take precautionary action toreduce children’s exposures to chemicals that are known or reasonablysuspected to pose health risks.” CPCHE is also calling for moreresearch on how chronic exposure to environmental contaminants may becontributing to worrisome trends in child health in Canada and otherindustrialized countries, including rising rates of asthma, learningdisabilities and other developmental challenges.
CPCHE’s First Steps in Lifelong Health is a comprehensive blueprintfor protecting children’s environmental health in Canada. “The list islong. There is much to do. But the public is increasingly aware of theneed to reduce children’s exposures to toxic chemicals, andgovernments are starting to respond.” says Erica Phipps, PartnershipDirector for CPCHE. “The CPCHE partners look forward to working withgovernments and other stakeholders to build on that momentum.”
First Steps in Lifelong Health: A Vision and Strategy for Children’sHealth and Environment is available on the CPCHE website, in Englishand French, at www.healthyenvironmentforkids.ca
CPCHE will present First Steps in Lifelong Health to the media in apress conference at 10:00 AM EST, Tuesday, 16 December, at the OntarioCollege of Family Physicians, 357 Bay Street (mezzanine), Toronto.Refreshments provided.
To mark the occasion of the release of First Steps in Lifelong Health,CPCHE and Pollution Probe will host an Evening Public Forum (link toinvitation and agenda) on Protecting Our Children from Toxic Chemicalsin the Environment and in Consumer Products, Tuesday, 16 December2008, 7-9 pm, at the Marriott Toronto Downtown Eaton Centre, 525 BayStreet (Yonge and Dundas subway), Toronto.
Distinguished speakers include the Ontario Minister of theEnvironment, the Director General of Health Canada’s Consumer ProductSafety Program, and the Editor-in-Chief of Today’s Parent magazine.Free admission; no registration required.
- 30 -
For more information: Backgrounder
Please direct media inquiries to: Erica Phipps, Partnership Director,CPCHEAvailable on 15-16 December at (416) 926-1907 x252 or (613) 858-4787(cell) Office: (819) 458-3750 Erica@healthyenvironmentforkids.ca
The following CPCHE Partners are available for comment:
Kathleen Cooper, Senior Researcher, Canadian Environmental LawAssociationTel: (705) 341-2488 (cell); (416) 960-2284, ext. 221 firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr. Lynn Marshall, Medical Education Liaison, Environmental HealthClinic, Women’s College Hospital; President & Chair of the Board,Environmental Health Institute of Canada; and Alternate Chair,Environmental Health Committee, Ontario College of Family PhysiciansTel: (905) 845-3462 Lynn.email@example.com
Bob Oliver, Executive Director, Pollution Probe Tel: (416) 926-1907ext. 237 firstname.lastname@example.org
Vision and Strategy for Children's Health and Environment in CanadaResults of CPCHE's National Policy Consultation
Protecting Our Children from Toxic Chemicals in the Environment and inConsumer Products :An Evening Public Forum
Presented by: CPCHE and Pollution Probe
When: December 16
Where:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Venue: Marriott Downtown Eaton Centre Hotel
The Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment (CPCHE)and Pollution Probe invite you to attend an Evening Public Forum onProtecting Our Children from Toxic Chemicals in the Environment and inConsumer Products
Tuesday, December 16, 2008 — 7:00–9:00 p.m.(refreshments at 6:30 p.m.)Marriott Toronto Downtown Eaton Centre — Grand Ballroom A and B(525 Bay Street, Toronto, Yonge and Dundas subway)
Please join us for an evening of information and discussion on howtoxic chemicals in consumer products and the environment can affectchildren’s health, and what can be done about it with Canadianexperts.The evening will also feature CPCHE’s call to action toimprove children’s environmental health in Canada — First Steps inLifelong Health: A Vision and Strategy for Children’s Health andEnvironment in Canada, a document that prioritizes actions to protectthe developing fetus and child from hazardous chemicals in theenvironment and consumer products.Confirmed speakers include theOntario Minister of the Environment, the Director General of HealthCanada's Consumer Product Safety Program, and the Editor-in-Chief ofToday's Parent magazine
DOWNLOAD YOUR INVITATION
7:00 Opening and Welcome — Bob Oliver, Executive Director, PollutionProbe
7:05 Keynote Address — The Honourable John Gerretsen, Ontario Ministerof the Environment
7:20 CPCHE’s Vision and Strategy for Children’s Health and Environmentin Canada — Erica Phipps, Partnership Director,Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment
7:35 Health Canada’s Approach to Protecting Children’s Health fromToxic Chemicals in Consumer Products — Charles Ethier, DirectorGeneral, Product Safety Program, Health Canada
7:45 Panel Presentations — Moderator: Caroline Connell, Editor-in-Chief, Today’s Parent
Health Implications of Toxic Chemicals in the Womb and DuringChildhood: A Physician’s Perspective — Dr. Lynn Marshall,Environmental Health Clinic–Women’s College Hospital; EnvironmentalHealth Committee, Ontario College of Family Physicians; EnvironmentalHealth Institute of Canada
Lead and Mercury: Why are Children in Canada Still at Risk? — KathleenCooper, Senior Researcher, Canadian Environmental LawAssociation
8:00 Questions and Answers
8:40 Otesha Youth Group
9:00 Closing Remarks and Adjourn — Bob Oliver, Executive Director,Pollution Probe
* In consideration of the many people with intolerance to variousfragrances, we are asking people to please refrain from wearingperfume, scented aftershave, or other scented personal care productsto this event.
For more information:
Erica Phipps, Partnership Director, CPCHEerica@healthyenvironmentforkids.ca Tel: (819) 458-3750
BoAnne Tran, Pollution Probebtran@pollutionprobe.org Tel: (416) 926-1907ext. 250
Bethanne Currie, CPCHEbethanne@healthyenvironmentforkids.ca Tel: (519) 376-7237
Tue 16 Dec 2008
The Western Morning News (Plymouth, UK)
Pesticide spraying finding is justified ; Regarding the article (WMNFarming, December 10) headed "Judgment on spraying should beoverturned", by Tim Russ, team leader of Westcountry lawyers ClarkeWillmott, about Georgina Downs v Defra - why should this independentjudgment be overturned?
Regarding the article (WMN Farming, December 10) headed "Judgment onspraying should be overturned", by Tim Russ, team leader ofWestcountry lawyers Clarke Willmott, about Georgina Downs v Defra -why should this independent judgment be overturned?
High Court judge Lawrence Collins is an honest judge who believesjustice ought to prevail in this blatant case of health versus profit.
His is a commendable, impartial and science-based decision.
It is eminently reasonable for him to require the defendant to:
"Take steps to produce an adequate assessment of the risk toresidents. In addition he must carefully reconsider whether theexisting conditions of use are adequate. The need to inform residentsof intended spraying and the composition of pesticides to be used is,I think, clear. Voluntary action is not achieving this.
"Equally I think there is a very strong case for buffer zones, such asalready exist to avoid spraying too close to watercourses in order tominimise the risks of pesticides entering ground water."
Of course the defendant would have been better served if the evidenceincluded submissions by scientists whose credibility was compromisedby their close ties to the industry and the judge disregarded thishandicap.
An example that comes to mind is the deceased Dr Richard Doll, who inhis later years accepted 1,500 a day from Monsanto for giving a cleanbill to various chemicals.
Kazimiera J (Jean) CottamOttawa, Canada
December 16, 2008
EPA faults Oregon pesticide firm in Florence woman's death
Posted by slearn
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a complaint todayagainst a Eugene pesticide company whose spraying led to the death ofa Florence woman in 2005.
The EPA said federal law allows it to seek only $4,550 in penaltiesagainst Swanson's Pest Management, even though the alleged violationsare "extremely serious."
Swanson's employee at the home of Fred and Florence Kolbeck failed toproperly ventilate the home and used two pesticides illegally in June2005, the agency said, including applying Conquer residentialinsecticide concentrate at nearly three times the allowable rate.
Florence Kolbeck, 76, died of cardiac arrest after she and her husbandreturned to their home about 2 1/2 hours after it was fumigated. FredKolbeck was hospitalized for respiratory distress. Six others,including the responding paramedics, experienced respiratory distressor became ill when they entered the home, the EPA said.
Fred Kolbeck settled a $2.5 million lawsuit against Swanson's in Marchfor an undisclosed amount.
Swanson's has 30 days to respond to the complaint. Company officialsdid not immediately respond to a phone call from The Oregonian todayrequesting comment. A company manager said previously that Swanson'shas never had another incident "even remotely close" to the Kolbeckcase.
Chad Schulze, EPA's pesticide enforcement officer in Seattle, saidincreasing the potential fines allowed under federal pesticide lawswould require an act of Congress. The EPA could request the change,Schulze said, but it would be more likely to happen quickly if amember of Congress took up the issue.
Courtesy of Fred KolbeckFlorence Kolbeck, shown in this 50th weddinganniversary photo with her husband, Fred, died in 2005 after enteringher Florence home, which had been fumigated hours earlier.
-- Scott Learn; email@example.com
Categories: Breaking News, Business, EnviroCommentswarkitten says...
4,550 for a human life? Seems fair.Posted on 12/16/08 at 2:09PM
======================Warning Industry Propaganda Below======================
Ontario Pesticide Ban Monitored By Fertilizer Industry
To: Clyde GrahamVice President, Strategy and AlliancesCanadian Fertilizer Institute613firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: May 1, 2008
SUBJECT: ONTARIO’S PESTICIDE BAN AND POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS FORCFIDuring the most recent provincial election the Ontario Liberal Partycommitted to the implementation of a ban on cosmetic pesticide use,citing environmental and health concerns as the impetus. Municipal by-laws had been implemented on an ad-hoc basis across the province, butthis effort was mostly piecemeal and the Government felt there was aneed for a more cohesive and consistent approach. The Government hasnow followed up on this commitment by introducing legislation banningthe cosmetic use of pesticides, including the sale of the product atthe retail level. Once the legislation has been approved, theregulations outlining the specific parameters of what will bepermitted and what will be illegal will be developed. It is expectedthat the regulations will include pesticide/fertilizer mix.
How the Movement Developed
With regard to the banning of pesticides for aesthetic purposes, agrassroots movement arose in the early part of the new millennium thatconsisted predominantly of citizens’ groups concerned aboutenvironmental or health related implications. Attention was furtherdrawn to the issue following a Supreme Court ruling in 2000, whichheld up a Hudson, Quebec by-law banning cosmetic pesticide use. Hudsonwas the first municipality in Canada to undertake such a step, in theearly 1990s.
A coalition of local environmental groups formed Pesticide FreeOntario to increase awareness and pressure municipalities to bancosmetic pesticide use. Approximately 110 groups coalesced under thisbanner, representing most of Ontario’s major municipalities. Thesegrassroots organizations were later joined by national and provincialorganizations that joined the call for a provincial ban on pesticideuse – Pesticide Reform Ontario.
Many of the organizations affiliated with the Pesticide Reform Ontariomovement have the ear of the Provincial Government. These include theDavid Suzuki Foundation, the Ontario College of Family Physicians, theRegistered Nurses Association of Ontario, Ontario Medical Association,the Canadian Cancer Society (Ontario) and the Children’s Hospital ofEastern Ontario (CHEO). CHEO is of particular note given that it islocated in the Premier’s riding. The Director of the CHEO ResearchInstitute, Dr. Alex MacKenzie has been an ardent public supporter ofthe move to ban pesticides as have other prominent CHEO physicians,including its Board of Trustees and heads of several majordepartments. CHEO has been a prominent driver of this initiative.
The involvement of the aforementioned organizations, the Children’sHospital of Eastern Ontario and the medical research, all played arole in making the Government receptive to a cosmetic pesticide ban.
The issue was the subject of some interest in the Premier’s hometown. A pesticide ban was twice considered and rejected by OttawaCity Council, with considerable media and public attention being givento the debate. This was undoubtedly a factor in its being on theGovernment’s radar screen.
The David Suzuki Foundation recently conducted an analysis of Quebec’scosmetic pesticide legislation, which offered suggestions forjurisdictions considering similar bans. It criticized the program forits inconsistency, prohibiting certain active pesticide ingredientswhile permitting others.
The Ministry of the Environment is very cognizant of the criticismsthat have been leveled at the Quebec plan and intends to ensure itsprogram takes these into account.
At this point there is no sign that the Ontario Government is eitherconsidering including fertilizers in this particular piece oflegislation or developing separate legislation to ban fertilizer use.This legislation is intended to affect cosmetic use of pesticidesonly; a conversation with officials at the Ministry of the Environmenthas confirmed this.
Pesticide Reform Ontario issued a five point plan which included acall for the banning of the sale of pesticides and pesticide/fertilizer combinations at the retail level. Though it is important tohighlight this aspect, none of the aforementioned organizations havecalled for a ban on the use of fertilizers, though some likeEnvironmental Defence, Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA) and theDavid Suzuki Foundation advocate limiting their use. Though they havenot issued public statements, both of these organizations havematerials on their websites advocating the use of organic fertilizersover chemical ones. TEA for example recommends using 100% organicfertilizers, claiming that quick release fertilizers, when incorrectlyapplied, harm the natural environment. The Suzuki Foundation advisesgrowing ‘native plants’ to reduce the need for fertilizer andpesticides. The Suzuki Foundation has also condemned the excess use offertilizer by farmers as a contributor to nitrogen pollution.
A thorough review of media, third party organizations and the OntarioLegislature have indicated that there is currently no movement in thedirection of a fertilizer ban internally or externally.
That being said, the Ontario Government also committed to implementingmeasures to address the environmental concerns around Lake Simcoe. Tothat end, they have recently released a discussion paper and formed anAdvisory Committee to develop legislation and measures to protect LakeSimcoe. One of the proposals establishes strict limits on pollutantsthat contain phosphorous, including fertilizers. Phosphorous pollutionis highlighted as one of the key concerns affecting the health of LakeSimcoe. The legislation to protect Lake Simcoe will includelimitations on phosphorous discharges. The Government has estimatedthat a finalized plan will be underway in approximately one year. Theyhave established interim limitations on phosphorous discharges intoLake Simcoe to 7.3 tonnes a year until March of 2009. Limits are fordischarge from municipal and industrial sewage plants. They have alsoprovided suggestions as to how area residents can reduce theirphosphorous foot print – which includes include using lessfertilizer.
The Government is currently in the public consultation phase of thisstrategy – where they are receiving input from stakeholders and theAdvisory Committee established last year. It is expected that thelegislation will be introduced in the very near future.
Co-Chairs of the Advisory Committee are Dr. Peter Dillon and Dr.Jennifer Winter. This is a 10-member panel of experts in waterpreservation and the ecology of lakes and basins. They will advise theGovernment (Ministry of the Environment) on an appropriate managementand a monitoring plan to support the protection strategy. Their roleis to ensure that any protection strategy is supported by soundscience. It is important to note that research has not turned up anyindication that any of the members of the Advisory Panel has advocatedlimiting or banning the use of fertilizers.
The public consultations which have been taking place throughout thewinter, have been framed around the discussion paper, which asksstakeholders to offer input on potential goals, scope, funding,implementation and legislation associated with a protection strategy.
This is an immediate priority for the Government, as is the pesticideban. Again, though there is no indication of movement toward afertilizer ban, it should be noted that the discussion panel andAdvisory Committee may put the issue of phosphorous pollution on thegovernment’s radar.
Manitoba has moved forward with a ban on fertilizers that containphosphorous. Minnesota is the only other jurisdiction in NorthAmerica that has proceeded with this type of action. Some U.S.municipalities have placed restrictions on the use of fertilizers;abating water pollution appears to be the rationale behind this;notably Ann Arbor, Muskegon, Spring Lake, all of which are inMichigan. A U.S. Congresswoman from Michigan is currently pressuringthe Michigan State Government to enact statewide restrictions on theuse of phosphorous fertilizer. A report released by officials inMichigan showed high levels of phosphorous in Lake St. Clair ignitingconcerns in the Detroit media recently about damage to the Lake as aresult. This is of note given that Lake St. Clair borders both theU.S. and Ontario.
Environment Canada has also initiated a study on whether or not itshould ban phosphorous from cleaning agents. Manitoba and Quebec havealready signaled they will move in this direction.
Additionally, in 2006, Statistics Canada released results of a studyon Canadians’ usage of pesticides and fertilizers, which showedAlberta had the highest percentage of households using chemicalfertilizers (45%) and Quebec at the lowest (15%). The study went on toshow which cities in Ontario had the highest and lowest percentage ofhouseholds using fertilizer. Kingston and Thunder Bay came in at thelowest end with Oshawa, Hamilton and London rounding out the highestusage. TSA examined these municipalities as well as Toronto and Ottawato see if there was any indication of a movement to ban fertilizers.There was not.
The City of Toronto promotes the use of natural fertilizers (grassclippings and triple mix). An article appeared in the Ottawa Citizenin the spring of 2007, promoting the use of organic fertilizers.
How the Issue Might Break
Unlike pesticides, the concerns around fertilizer usage are not anissue of human health, but rather related to the purported disruptionthat phosphorous causes to the natural ecosystem. Moreover, the trendappears to be less toward a complete ban of phosphorous fertilizer andmore toward ensuring it is used less often and in a more responsiblefashion. It is unlikely that it would be a priority for some of theaforementioned groups, but it is definitely of peripheral interest toa number of organizations that advance the preservation of the naturalenvironment. Many of these organizations were affiliated with orinvolved in initiating the campaign to protect Lake Simcoe. Theyinclude Environmental Defence, Ontario Nature, Nature ConservancyCanada and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists.
Were a campaign to ban or limit fertilizer use initiated, it is likelythat it would crop up in specific municipalities where a body of wateror some other component of the natural environment was affected. It isprobable that the above-mentioned organizations would engage in such acampaign.
Recommended Next Steps:
CFI will want to monitor both Ontario’s legislation and the ensuingregulations when they are released in draft form.
CFI should also monitor the media for any emerging issues in Ontariomunicipalities which could spark a move toward a fertilizer ban.
We also recommend continued monitoring of other jurisdictions whichcould influence the Ontario Government in favour of limiting the useof fertilizers, most notably Quebec and Michigan.
The movement to ban pesticides developed incrementally, from itsinitial stages at the grassroots level to a provincial and eventuallya national call to action. As research findings increasingly indicateda negative impact on physical health as a result of pesticide use, themovement gained momentum. The organizations’ claims weresubstantiated by considerable medical research, which significantlybolstered their credibility. This points to the need for CFI toclosely monitor local grassroots organizations, particularly in boththe Premier’s and Minister of the Environment’s constituencies, forindications that fertilizer use has become an issue. CFI will alsowant to monitor emerging environmental research on the use ofphosphorous fertilizers.
In order to ‘inoculate’ itself against a similar campaign, CFI willwant to proactively engage some of the organizations that couldpotentially initiate discussions around limiting the use of fertilizerfor the purpose of educating and informing them.
CFI may also want to meet with some of the organizations who wereinvolved in the campaign to protect Lake Simcoe, including the LakeSimcoe Region Conservation Authority, which is one of the oldestConservation Authorities in the province, the Ladies of the Lake, whohave a positive relationship with the Ontario Government.
CFI may also want to establish links with Conservation Ontario, whichis the umbrella organization for the province’s 36 ConservationAuthorities. This organization will be able to provide an overview ofthe pressing issues that local Conservation Authorities are involvedin.
Finally, we recommend monitoring the legislative process for thePesticide Bill as well as any future debates of the legislation forany discussion of fertilizer usage, this will be particularlyimportant at the Committee stage when interested parties andstakeholders are invited to provide input.
Temple Scott Associates Inc.190 O’Connor Street, 5th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2R3Telephone: (613) 241-6000 • Fax: (613) 241-6001http://www.tsa.ca/clients.htm
Pesticide ban: tell us what you think
Written by Amanda Ryder
For years, municipalities across Canada have been wrestling with theissue of pesticide bans. In 2006, Quebec was the first province tostep forward and prohibit the cosmetic use of pesticides onresidential lawns, gardens and parks and the sale of 20 activepesticide ingredients found in lawn-care products.
Most recently, on Earth Day, Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty announcedthat the province is working to ban the sale of 80 chemicals found in300 pesticide products for cosmetic use on lawns and gardens. The banwill likely go into effect in 2009.
Several big box retailers have since followed suit and announced thatthey will voluntarily pull pesticides and herbicides from theirshelves by the end of the year.
So, what do you think about the pesticide ban? Have your customersbeen requesting more environmentally-friendly alternatives? How willthe ban affect your centre? And for centres located outside of Ontarioand Quebec, do you plan to make any changes to your selection ofpesticides?
Comment on this blog and tell us your thoughts.
Lets also not over look that 24D has had more studies done on it thenTylenol or ASA, and health Canada still authorizes them.
But the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the activists aresqueaking. If you think not, the Sierra group, a non profit non taxpaying entity, allocated $127M a few years ago to further theirinterests in banning pesticides.
But hey they are just cosmetic, like paint, and not what farmers aregoing to continue to use. Not that what farms are using is safe, butthe government isn’t going to hurt farmers even if they use a widerrange of pesticides that are generally more toxic then what ahomeowner can buy, let alone use.
In closing I’ll bet dollars to donuts that there will be an increasein retail pesticide sales like Killex and RoundUp prior to theunnecessary ban. Just like in Halifax where there was a 200% increaseprior to their ban. In the cover of darkness homeowners will continueusing them without help or directions from properly trained orcertified professionals. That make me feel much safer. Safer yet arethe home brewed concoctions that have NOT gone through any testing andregardless to their toxicity to human health or the environment theywill be deemed safe as they are not banned. Yup I feel safe already.
I think customers are stocking up on chemicals which is even morescarry.
Doug KingMake It Green Garden Centre
Lawn Applicators Exploit "Grey Areas" of Pesticide Ban
#1Old 04-02-2007, 09:52 PMDucke's AvatarDucke Ducke is offlineLawnSite Member
Join Date: Apr 2007Location: Dartmouth Nova ScotiaPosts: 83New to Site New to landscapingHello all My name is Graham but I have been going by Ducke for years.I am from Nova Scotia Canada. Just up and to the right of Maine.I have been in voled with the building supply and Industrial Supplybusiness for approx 25 years.My last job was purchasing for military aircraft and before thatbuilding and maintaining offshore Oil platforms.But this year I am breaking out of the chains of 9-5 6x 6 cubical andgoing to work with Weed Man as a Lawn Tech, I so look forward togetting out and working with my hands. The forum looks great and Ilook forward to making some new friends.
LawnSite.comOld 05-31-2008, 07:36 PMDucke's AvatarDucke Ducke is offlineLawnSite Member
Join Date: Apr 2007Location: Dartmouth Nova ScotiaPosts: 83We have been Pesticide free here in Halifax Nova Scotia Canada for thelast 5 years.We now have some very nice lawns, some of our best ever.It is a complete new learning curve and those that can adapt and arewilling to learn new tricks will survive,if not well you know whathappens.We have seen a lot of companies close up but a hand full grab thechallenge and made the changesWe are busier now then we have ever been and we now have more staffthen ever before. organic do work and it may take two or three triesto find the right products but they do work and some just as well asthe pesticides.Don't knock the ban It makes sense.It make our job safer 9Not breathing in the toxins all day)and cleaner(not spraying a toxic cloud on someones lawn) for you the applicatorand your customer who lives on their lawn.
Ducke (Graham)__________________Ducke's ODD JOBS. ...........
....No Job is Too Odd ....
LawnSite.comOld 06-04-2008, 10:34 PMDucke's AvatarDucke Ducke is offlineLawnSite Member
Join Date: Apr 2007Location: Dartmouth Nova ScotiaPosts: 83Look guys we thought the same way no one would want to pay more no onewould want to go organic But we have more customers now the we did 5years ago yes we lost some at first who thought they could do it themselves but once their lawns got BAD They came back. it seem like everyyear we loose one or two but we always gain three or four.I hope I uploaded these pictures right.The first one is from 2000the second one is from 2007 with 3 years of pesticide free treatment.I'm no professional Photographer.
Old 07-04-2008, 02:42 PM
Ducke's AvatarDucke Ducke is offlineLawnSite Member
Join Date: Apr 2007Location: Dartmouth Nova ScotiaPosts: 83
Very well said I like that new Park idea sounds also true poor littleJohnny might hurt himself if he plays outside BUT I have seen it allbefore and the local tree hugger,s will talk circle around you andbring out their pictures of puppies and kittens that have been exposedto nuclear waste and everyone will go AAAAAHHHHHHHHH poor things andthen the minority will out vote the majority and the pesticide banwill be in effect and there is nothing that anyone can do other thento find better ways to do things with in the new laws and if you tryto do or say anything against the tree hugger's they make you out tobe the BIG puppy and kitten killing companies that are financed by thebig pesticide conglomerates.We have been there and done that and are still tiring to find the Greyareas and walk the fine line between legal and illegal use of productand yes there are GREY AREAS in all laws you just have to look forthem.Its amazing what can be archived when your industry hooks up with thelocal political candidate that owns the local Sod Farm or Greenhousesor Plant Store etc.... certain conditions can then be made once theyunderstand what its going to do to their livelihood and big Grey areaswill be included in the new law, We have plenty here (Halifax, NovaScotia) none that I'm going to state right now but we use themeveryday and so far so good the activists have not been able to doanything about what we are doing, They keep tiring crying to citycouncil but nothing has been changes yet. The law is the law good orbad for both sides of the battle,Good Luck in your fight.__________________Ducke's ODD JOBS. ...........
....No Job is Too Odd ....
====================== Blog Gadgets
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 (
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
Government lax on cosmetic pesticide regulation: advocate
The Telegram (
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of
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 (
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 (
Judie Squires - health of your families. When
Inquiry implicates BTk
The Telegram (
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 (
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 (
pesticides. Please join me in lobbying our province for a pesticide ban Judie Squires Portugal Cove...