Friday, March 20, 2009

Industry (Scotts Canada) lobby against healthy decisions.

See below -------- Re: Scotts Canada Ltd.

Policies or Program Speaking and meeting with elected government
officials and ministerial advisors about pesticide use in Canada. As
some provinces and municipalities have moved towards limiting the use
of cosmetic pesticides, we are proactively engaging with federal
government officials to inform the debate and to lobby against any
potential country-wide bans.

-----------------------

Mar 01, 2009

Toronto Star

Ignatieff communications director Jill Fairbrother is much younger
than Zsohar, but goes on about her as if she was her BFF. "Zsuzsanna
talks about politics and family, loves movies and fashion, and looks
for stuff on E-Bay." Fairbrother shops in Little India with Zsohar and
savours her rose chicken, Parmesan and chicken risotto and chicken
broth with vegetables. "No matter what is going on in her life, she's
never too busy to care about what's going on in your life."

http://www.thestar.com/article/594750

=============================

Thursday, November 20 2008

Rae, Ignatieff dump Green Shift

JULIET O'NEILL, Canwest News Service

Ignatieff's spokesperson Jill Fairbrother said yesterday that
Ignatieff would keep the policy goals of environmental sustainability
and economic prosperity.

"That's here to stay," she said. "The question is how to get that
right. Liberals heard from people across the country, from fishermen
in the east to those who make their living transporting goods, that
they have serious concerns about this, so there's a lot of dialogue
still to be had to come up with a solution that works for everyone."


http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=d3a2594b-d4cc-4dd7-8aab-027484155674&k=64469


=============================


Some of the women behind Ignatieff. (Left to right) Mary Kancer, who
works in Ignatieff’s constituency office, Office of the Leader of the
Opposition (OLO) staffers Lisa Kirbie and Lindsay Doyle, Jill
Fairbrother, Igantieff’s director of communications, and OLO staffer
Marci Surkes.


http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/11/ladies-night-at-stornoway/img_57383/

=============================

Active Registration Active Registration: 781400-16956-2
Return to Public Registry
Lobbyist: John Capobianco
Consulting firm: Edelman Canada
Client: Scotts Canada Ltd. Name change history
Version: 781400-16956-2
Type: Registration update
Active from: 2008-08-15

A. Registrant
Consultant lobbyist name: John Capobianco Lobbyist business
address
Consulting firm: Edelman Canada
214 King Street West, Suite 600
Toronto, ON M5H 3S6
Canada
Position: Senior Vice President
Telephone number: 416-979-1120 Ext. 237
Fax number: 416-979-0176

Former public office holder: No

B. Information about Client
Client: Scotts Canada Ltd.
2000 Argentia Road
Plaza 5, Suite 101
Mississauga, ON L5N 2R7
Canada
Telephone number: 905-814-7425 Ext.: 228
Fax number: 905-814-7392

Principal representative of the client: Jill Fairbrother
Position title: Director, Regulatory & Stakeholder

Parent: ScottsMiracle-Gro
14111 Scottslawn Road
Marysville, OH
United States of America 430 41

Coalition: The client is not a coalition.
Subsidiary: The client does not have any subsidiaries that could
be affected by the outcome of the undertaking.
Direct Interest: The client's activities are not controlled or
directed by another person or organization with a direct interest in
the outcome of this undertaking.

Was the client funded in whole or in part by any domestic or foreign
government institution in the last completed financial year, or does
the client expect funding in the current financial year? No


C. Lobbying Activity Information
Federal departments or organizations which have been or will be
communicated with during the course of the undertaking: Members of
the House of Commons, Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Environment
Canada (EC), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Industry Canada
(IC), Health Canada (HC)
Communication techniques that have been used or are expected to be
used in the course of the undertaking:
Grass-roots communication, Oral communication, Written
communication
I arranged or expect to arrange one or more meetings on behalf of my
client between a public office holder and any other person in the
course of this undertaking: Yes

Information about Subject matter: Industry, Health, Agriculture,
Environment

Details Regarding the Identified Subject Matter
Categories Description
Policies or Program Speaking and meeting with elected government
officials and ministerial advisors about pesticide use in Canada. As
some provinces and municipalities have moved towards limiting the use
of cosmetic pesticides, we are proactively engaging with federal
government officials to inform the debate and to lobby against any
potential country-wide bans.

Return to Public Registry

https://ocl-cal.gc.ca/app/secure/orl/lrrs/do/_ls70_ls75_ls62_ls6c_ls69_ls63_ls53_ls75_ls6d_ls6d_ls61_ls72_ls79?_ls6c_ls61_ls6e_ls67_ls75_ls61_ls67_ls65=_ls65_ls6e_ls5f_ls43_ls41&_ls72_ls65_ls67_ls44_ls65_ls63=550699&_ls73_ls4d_ls64_ls4b_ls79=1237521125357&_STRTG3=tr

=============================


"We will also prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, as
recommended by the Canadian Cancer Society."
(Source: Michael Ignatieff, Speech, September 27, 2006
http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/about/speeches/911_the-environmental-revolution)

There are 7 core objectives of my sustainable development strategy:
#3 - We will also prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic
purposes, as recommended by the Canadian Cancer Society.

The Environmental Revolution (Speech)
Michael Ignatieff, September 27, 2006
http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/about_speeches_info.aspx?id=452

=======================

10/5/06

The Strand

Ignatieff's environmental plan would tax junk mail, inefficient cars
Student protesters criticize the leadership hopeful's statements on
torture

By: Nadya Bell, CUP Ottawa Bureau Chief

OTTAWA (CUP) -- Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff
promised to tax junk mail, implement the Kyoto Accord and clean up the
Great Lakes in a speech at Carleton University on Sept. 27.

Students filled the room, but seats in the front were taken up by over
a dozen federal Members of Parliament who showed up to support
Ignatieff.

"Under my leadership, the effort to restore a sound environment and
build a sustainable Canadian economy would be the very core of the
next government's program," Ignatieff said.

Introducing a National Sustainable Development Act covering all
federal policy would be his first act as prime minister, Ignatieff
said.

"Our environment touches on all aspects of our lives: The economy, our
health, social development, research and innovation and, above all,
national unity. It is time that our federal policy making reflect this
integration," he said.

"We can no longer put environmental policy in a box, on the side."

Cars would be a target, with higher taxes on less efficient cars and
California-style emission laws. Ignatieff said a healthy-food policy
would prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes and a
national bio-monitoring program would test Canadians' exposure to
toxic substances.

Touching on the often-ignored issue of wasteful flyers, Ignatieff said
he would implement a junk mail tax. It would be "collected through
Canada Post, with revenue forwarded to municipalities to cover the
costs of recycling the 13 billion pieces of junk mail Canadians
receive each year," he said.

Prime Minister Harper's environmental policy was attacked by Ignatieff
as "smoke and mirrors," although the Conservative government's
strategy, due sometime this fall, has not yet been released.

During the speech, masked students stood in the audience holding signs
reading, "Ignatieff supports torture, Canadians don't."

They referred to the article Evil Under Interrogation: Is Torture Ever
Permissible? by Ignatieff, in which he raises the possibility of using
torture on terrorists. The article is part of his larger work, The
Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror.

Ignatieff did not draw attention to the students during his speech,
but when asked afterwards what his reaction was he said he supported
the students' right to free speech, even though he said the
allegations are false.

John McCallum, former Liberal cabinet minister, sat at the end of a
long line of members of Parliament waiting to hear Ignatieff's speech.
"We're here to support Mike," he explained.

Other members present included Liberal MP Ruby Dhalia, former
fisheries minister Geoff Regan, and Pablo Rodriguez, a Quebec Liberal
MP.


Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff and his wife Zsuzsanna
Zsohar whisper before his speech.

© Copyright 2008 The Strand

http://www.thestrand.ca/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=d82a6dec-25ca-494c-b442-368047d1a63c

=======================

May 16, 2006 - An NDP opposition motion concerning restrictions on non-
essential pesticide use designed to protect the health of all
Canadians from the unwanted exposure to synthetic lawn toxins fails to
receive the sufficient support of the current federal government.
Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, former Minister of Health, The
Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh and the former Minister of State, (Public
Health), The Honourable Dr. Carolyn Bennett and Michael Ignatieff all
voted in support of the NDP motion. The breakdown by party of the vote
is as follows:

Yeas Nays Party
28 0 New Democratic Party
59 32 Liberal
0 124 Conservative
0 50 Bloc Québécois
0 1 Independent
87 207

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/024_2006-05-16/HAN024-E.htm

YEAS

Members
Alghabra
Angus
Atamanenko
Bagnell
Bains
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bennett
Black
Blaikie
Bonin
Brown (Oakville)
Chan
Charlton
Chow
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
D'Amours
Davies
Dewar
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dosanjh
Dryden
Folco
Fry
Godfrey
Godin
Guarnieri
Holland
Ignatieff
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Khan
Layton
LeBlanc
Malhi
Maloney
Marston
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
McDonough
McGuinty
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
Merasty
Minna
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nash
Neville
Owen
Pacetti
Patry
Peterson
Priddy
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Rodriguez
Savage
Savoie
Scarpaleggia
Scott
Siksay
Silva
Simard
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Tonks
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed

Total: -- 87

=======================

Liberal Party of Canada - Policy On Cosmetic Use of Pesticides

At the annual convention of the Liberal Party of Canada on March
16-19, 2000 in Ottawa the delegates adopted this priority resolution:

Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the federal
government to introduce an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of
chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been
scientifically proven safe and the long-term consequences of their
application are known.

2000 Liberal Biennial Convention - Adopted Resolutions
Adopted Resolutions Biennial Convention 2000
1. Tax Credit for Text Books
2. Legalization of Marijuana
3. Band Council Financial Accountability
4. Clean Air
5. Child Poverty
6. Culture and Cultural Exception
7. Hate Crimes
8. Remembrance Day
9. Health Care
10. Student Debt
11. Elections Act Reform
12. Support/Tax Relief for Caregivers
13. Seniors' Housing
14. Aboriginal Health Institute
15. Canadian Unity
16. Globalization of the Economy
17. Atlantic Canada: Catching Tomorrow's Wave.
18. Employment Insurance Act
19. Canadian Armed Forces
20. Aboriginal Youth Strategies
21. National Housing
22. Mackenzie Highway extension
23. Devolution/Decentralization of the Northern
Affairs Program
24. Infrastructure Program
25. Tax and Debt Reduction
26. War Affected Children
27. Canadian Agriculture Safety Net
28. Taxation Reductions to Support Families
29. Homelessness
86. Canadian Farm Incomes
31. Federal-Provincial Balance of Powers
41. Aboriginal and Treaty Rights Tribunal
48. Employment and economic stimulation
60. Contract/Part-time Workers
64. Asia-Pacific Political Co-operation on Peace and
Security
76. Education
84. Canadian Wheat Boards Position with Regards to
Transportation Reform
88. Potato Inspection Fees
100. Health Care
102. Same-Sex Spousal Benefits
113. Moratorium on cosmetic pesticide use
--
113. Moratorium on cosmetic pesticide use

WHEREAS chemical pesticides are inherently toxic products designed to
kill various life forms;

WHEREAS reliable ecological, non-toxic methods of pest control exist;

WHEREAS reports published in scientific journals point to strong
associations between chemical pesticides and serious health
consequences including: birth defects, brain cancer, breast cancer,
childhood leukemia, stomach cancer, learning disabilities and non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma;

WHEREAS the U.S. National Cancer Institute published a report
highlighting the role of pesticides in cancer causation;

WHEREAS approximately 80 percent of all Canadians live and work in
(sub) urban areas which allow cosmetic use of pesticides;

WHEREAS homeowners and the chemical lawn care industry use products
that have never been adequately tested or monitored for their chronic,
synergistic (in-combination) and other effects on human and animal
health in residential areas where young children, pregnant women,
elderly and other susceptible Canadians are exposed to pesticides;

WHEREAS many of the "safety tests" used to test these products are
fundamentally inadequate;

WHEREAS Canada's Minister of Health is charged with "the promotion or
preservation of the health of the people of Canada";

WHEREAS the health risks of chemical pesticide use are of growing
concern to the Canadian public;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the federal
government to introduce an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of
chemical pesticides until such a time as their use has been
scientifically proven to be safe and the long-term consequences of
their application are known.

=============================
Warning Industry Propaganda Below
=============================

May 2008. Vol. 118, Iss. 5; pg. 7, 3 pgs

Municipal World

PESTICIDE DEBATE: Is our landscape merely cosmetic?

by Jill Fairbrother.

During the last provincial election campaign, Ontario's Liberal Party
promised a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides as part of its
election platform. On October 10, Premier McGuinty won a second
majority; not long afterwards, the commitment was included in the
Speech from the Throne with the indication that legislation would be
introduced in the spring of this year.

The term "cosmetic use" has been adopted over the past several years
by groups that oppose the use of pesticides in lawn and garden. But,
what exactly is cosmetic use? And, what exactly has been banned in
those communities that have passed laws?

Pesticide Laws to Date

A review of Ontario's municipal pesticide by-laws from Caledon to
Waterloo reveals that every community allows for some use of
conventional pest control products under certain conditions. And, all
permit the unrestricted use of at least some naturally-derived or
alternative pesticides at any time. What are commonly reported as
cosmetic bans are, in fact, restrictions on the use of conventional
products and the acceptance - and in some cases the promotion of-
natural products in their place.

Pesticides used to protect our drinking water, our food crops, our
pools, and our golf courses are typically permitted where cosmetic use
is restricted. How, then, has it come to pass that the protection of
our landscape is viewed as cosmetic, or non-essential? If one agrees
that a pesticide should only be applied when it is absolutely
necessary, at what point does the potential loss of turf, trees,
plants, and flowers deem treatment necessary? At what point does the
benefit to healthy green space amount to more than cosmetics?

Our Landscape and the Environment

To answer the question, it seems we must first address the economic,
social, and environmental value of green space. In an era of
unprecedented concern for our environment, our landscape is prized.
The determination to preserve it has occupied non-government
organizations and governments of all stripes and at all levels alike.
During the first term of the Ontario Liberal Government, Premier
McGuinty was heralded for protecting 1.8 million acres of land in the
Golden Horseshoe from development, supporting a healthier environment
for us all. The Nature Conservancy of Canada, Greenspace Alliance, and
Ontario Nature are but three organizations devoted to the protection
of landscapes. The reasons are clear: healthy green space makes a
critical contribution to our environment, our health, and our quality
of life.

Healthy green space provides the oxygen we breathe. It traps
pollutants and absorbs rainwater, reducing runoff and erosion. It
muffles noise and reduces glare compared to hard surfaces. Perhaps
most important, given the times in which we live, green spaces
dramatically cool our environment. A study by Brigham Young University
comparing surface temperatures on a June day between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
found natural turf by far the coolest with an average of 25.7°C.
Concrete compared at 34.5°C, bare soil at 36.8°C, and asphalt at
43.1°C. Perhaps most surprising was the finding that artificial turf
measured 47.4°C on average, and peaked at 69.4°C compared to natural
turf, which measured 31.4°C at its hottest. One need only recall the
feeling of relief on a hot summer's day when you move your bare feet
from hot pavement to cool grass, to appreciate the difference turf
makes - particularly in urban centres, where hard surfaces are more
prevalent than in rural areas.

If our landscape is valued for the critical contribution it makes to
our environment, to say nothing of the benefits it provides with
respect to health, recreation, and quality of life, then one would
think the decision to protect green spaces when they are threatened by
invasive pests should be easily made. And yet, the debate in some
communities is fierce.

Distinguishing Cosmetic Use from Curative or Necessary Use

Cosmetic use of a pest control product is generally understood to mean
use that promotes the appearance of the plant only. But, clearly there
is a point at which pests threaten not only the health, but ultimately
the viability of turf, trees, flowers, or vegetables. At some point,
then, what was viewed as cosmetic use becomes essential or necessary
use. These levels or points of infestation - be it of insects, fungus,
mold, or invasive weeds - have been determined by experts. In Ontario,
levels at which treatment is advised are set by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The Ontario Pesticide Advisory
Committee, governed by the Ontario Pesticides Act, further advises the
government on matters of pest control.

When it comes to weeds, few would argue that some can pose a threat to
our health and the health of our children. While one man's weed may be
another's flower, removing poison ivy, thistles or stinging nettles,
and controlling ragweed, clearly promotes a safer environment. And
yet, the same products that control these noxious weeds also control
dandelions and other broadleaf weeds that commonly invade turf, and
the treatment of which, some would argue, amounts to cosmetic use.

Pesticides are used in many ways in modern society to protect our
health and our environment. Chlorine is used in drinking water to
eliminate harmful bacteria. Special shampoos are used to kill head
lice on humans. Flea collars and powders protect pets. Restaurants use
pesticides to control disease carrying insects and vermin. Perhaps
most importantly, production of an abundant and affordable supply of
fresh fruits and vegetables is protected by our farmers through the
judicious use of insect and weed control products in agriculture. All
of these are examples of prudent pesticide use, and none are likely to
be deemed cosmetic.

Who Decides What is Safe?

In Canada, as in every other member country of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, decisions regarding what
ingredients are permitted in pest control products are made based on a
stringent review of scientific studies. Under Canadian law, the onus
is on a company that brings a product to market to demonstrate that it
can be used safely, that it works, and that it adds value. The
research required to prove this costs millions of dollars and takes
years of study in labs and in field, under a wide range of conditions.
Independent, peer-reviewed studies from all over the world are also
closely considered by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory
Agency (PMRA). These studies, while conducted by the companies that
make these products, are done using Good Laboratory Practices, which
are prescribed by federal law. To publish data that is erroneous or
misleading in any way is a criminal offence.

The PMRA evaluates short-term and long-term exposure, aggregate and
cumulative exposures, and considers adults, children, infants, and
embryos. Regarding Canada's federal laws, the PMRA says that a
pesticide will not be allowed in Canada unless there is reasonable
certainty that its use will do no harm. Further, a pesticide's value
must be proven before it is registered, to ensure that the public is
not exposed to any risk, no matter how small, if the product does not
serve a useful purpose.

Science: A Solid Foundation

Regulatory agencies and scientists around the world have completed a
number of reviews of the risks and the benefits of pesticides. The
Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, the European
Union, and the World Health Organization have all recently affirmed
their confidence in the science behind pesticides. Whether the product
is a synthetic chemical or a naturally-derived one, whether it
controls fleas, ticks, weeds or fungus, regulatory agencies the world
over evaluate all pesticides and all of their ingredients to assess
safety. To segregate one product type or one use from another is a
false pretext, and one that brings into question the entire foundation
on which safety is predicated.

The National Cancer Institute of Canada completed an evaluation of
pesticides, and issues ranging from dietary exposure to incidental
exposure through home and garden use, concluding "that exposure of the
general population to pesticide residues is minimal and below those
levels already deemed safe by government regulatory agencies."
Further, "the panel recognizes the importance of pesticide use toward
enhanced crop production and food quality and the associated impact on
the declining costs of fruits and vegetables, concomitant increase in
consumption and resulting positive effect on declining cancer rates."

As a society, we rely on science, and on research and development of
new products to improve our health, longevity, and quality of life. As
a result, we are living longer, and healthier lives today than at any
point in human history. As we consider our natural environment, our
health, and the health of our planet, determining when it is necessary
to protect the quality and the viability of our landscape becomes much
more than a question of cosmetics.

[Author Affiliation]
Jill Fairbrother is the Director of Stakeholder Relations for Scotts
Canada, part of The Scotts-Miracle-Gro Company. She can be reached at
<jill.fairbrother@scotts.com>.

Copyright Municipal World May 2008

http://www.municipalworld.com

=====================

Jill A. Fairbrother
Fairbrother & Partners Incorporated
29 Fourth Street
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M8V 2Y2


Ontario Lobbyists Registration Office
http://oico.on.ca/Integrity

Jill Fairbrother
Director of Stakeholder Relations
Scotts Canada Ltd.
Toronto, ON
(905) 814-7425, ext. 228
cell: (416) 788-0539
jill.fairbrother@scotts.com

Sean C Kirby
Prospectus Associates
Client: Scotts

=====================

Saturday, May 17, 2008

The Ottawa Citizen

Minus the pesticides
Alternative lawn and garden products will keep both politicians and
your lawn happy

by Patrick Langston

Is your backyard about to become bug and weed central thanks to
Ontario's ban on cosmetic pesticides? Not necessarily, according to
Scotts Canada, whose EcoSense (www.ecosense.ca) line of alternative
lawn and garden products will keep Premier Dalton McGuinty and your
property happy.

The new provincial legislation doesn't kick in until 2009, but Scotts
is busily marketing everything from Non-Selective Weed Control
($29.95, 5L.), a vinegar-based spray for driveway and other non-lawn
weeds and grasses, to an outdoor yellow jacket trap ($12.99) that uses
natural pheromone to lure sex-obsessed wasps and hornets to their
death.

Mind you, you'll need to invest more effort than in the old spray-and-
relax days of chemical-laden insecticides and herbicides.

"Be proactive to prevent pest problems," says Jill Fairbrother,
director at Scotts.

Feeding and cleaning your green spaces regularly will help. When pests
do show up, you'll likely need to apply alternative products like
insecticidal soap several times to kill them.

So far, says Fairbrother, there are no alternative products to
dispatch lawn weeds. Your best solution is to choke them out by over-
seeding in the spring and fall, and applying a fertilizer like Scotts
EcoSense Natural Lawn Fertilizer ($17.99, 9kg.) in the spring, twice
in the summer, and again in the fall.

The fertilizer will stimulate root growth and enable the lawn to
better withstand droughts. When weeds do appear, dig them out.

Are pristine lawns and gardens possible using the alternative products
that Scotts and other companies produce? Absolutely, says Fairbrother,
provided you invest the extra time.

Besides, there are lots of folks who can co-exist with a few weeds and
the odd plant-chomping bug.

Even alternative lawn and garden products should be used judiciously,
cautions Fairbrother.

"When a pest is present at such a level that you're likely to lose
your plants, lose your trees, that's when it's appropriate to use a
federally registered product."

And remember, "You need to follow label directions."

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

http://tinyurl.com/3hc76r

=====================

ONTARIO STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL POLICY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA POLITIQUE SOCIALE

Monday 9 June 2008 Lundi 9 juin 2008

http://tinyurl.com/3reqa4

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT

COSMETIC PESTICIDES BAN ACT, 2008
LOI DE 2008 SUR L’INTERDICTION DES PESTICIDES UTILISÉS À DES FINS
ESTHÉTIQUES
610

SCOTTS CANADA LTD.

The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): I would now invite our next presenter
to come forward, and that is Ms. Fairbrother, the director of
regulatory and stakeholder relations for Scotts Canada. I’d invite you
to begin now.

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: Thank you, Dr. Qaadri, and distinguished members
of the committee. Scotts is the world’s leading provider of lawn and
garden products for the homeowner, the do-it-yourself lawn and garden
person. We make conventional products like Roundup, which has been
discussed here extensively today, as well as natural alternatives.
When this issue first came about, about seven years ago, Scotts
developed a line of lawn and garden products called EcoSense, which
are based on the active ingredients that the municipal bylaws prefer.

That said, I think it’s important to point out that the only reason
that Roundup is banned by municipalities with bylaws is because those
bylaws only permit naturally derived ingredients to be used. Roundup
is used extensively by conservation authorities and zoos around the
world to control invasive vegetation because it is absolutely benign
when it comes to human health and animal health. It’s recognized by
Health Canada as a reduced risk—that is, an extremely low-toxicity
herbicide—and that’s why it’s the herbicide of choice in many delicate
ecosystems.

Scotts spends significant dollars to educate homeowners on best
practices for lawn and garden care. We promote best practices like
over-seeding, use of a lawn soil, and regular feeding for healthy
lawns that use less water and are thicker and more able to crowd out
weeds.

This government, in its last term, brought in widely heralded
legislation to protect the greenbelt, and we agree with the protection
of healthy green space. It makes an incredible contribution to our
environment by cooling the environment, reducing erosion, reducing
runoff and providing the oxygen we breathe.

With respect to Bill 64, we understand that eliminating the non-
essential use of pesticides is key for this government, and we support
that goal. That’s what our education for homeowners has been focused
on: teaching people to have a healthy lawn and garden without
pesticides. But when it’s essential to protect health or to protect
landscape, to protect your property and the health of your family, we
believe that it’s important that people have tools available to help
them do so.

What does that mean? Essential use, to us, means that when invasive
pests are present at such a level that the risk of injury, allergies,
bites, stings or the entire loss of a plant, tree, shrub or other
landscape is likely, then it’s reasonable to take action to care for
your health and that landscape.

We believe that Bill 64 provides a framework for groundbreaking
change. While Health Canada and every other OECD country that has a
regulatory body that governs pesticides and the World Health
Organization all agree that safe-on-lawns, safe-on-food pesticides
don’t pose any unreasonable risk to health or the environment, we
recognize that this government’s going to bring about change, and
that’s change that’s supported by many Ontarians. We’re anxious to
work with the government on achieving the transition that will bring
about positive change and not result in any unintended consequences.
We’re very concerned that people don’t resort to home-brewed pesticide
recipes, in the view that they may be safer than products that are on
store shelves, when those products that are on store shelves have been
thoroughly evaluated by Health Canada.

The doctors and nurses who appeared here earlier referred to Dr.
Sheela Basrur and her report to the city of Toronto, and I would urge
members of this committee to read that report. Dr. Basrur recommended
a multi-stakeholder approach that focused on education to achieve a
90% reduction in the amount of pesticides used in the city of Toronto.
She did not recommend a bylaw; she recommended a three-year education
approach. I would urge members of this committee to read that report
since it was referenced here today.

I’ll stop now and take any questions you may have

The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Ms. Fairbrother. We have a
generous amount of time. We’ll begin with Mr. Tabuns—about two minutes
or so.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: In your submission, you are essentially arguing for
a greater range of exemptions for the use of pesticides, using them
where there are problems with potential bites or stings, stinging
nettles on a lawn etc.

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: Well, the bill calls for exemptions to protect
health and safety, and then other exemptions as required. I believe
that there are levels of infestation at which loss of landscape or
risk of health is imminent and that those are the exemptions that make
sense.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: So you would say that there should be an exemption
in this act so that if a lawn was threatened with grubs, people would
be able to spray?

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: Yes.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I understand. Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): The government side.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Jill, for the presentation today.
Is Roundup a product of Scotts or do you have a product that’s similar
to Roundup?

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: No, we make Roundup. We sell Roundup and the
acetic acid, which is the natural alternative. We make them both.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Okay, wonderful. Scotts is a brand that I
think most of us in this room would recognize. When you go into a Home
Depot, quite often they advertise quite heavily. I was in one the
other day and saw a wide range of products and I didn’t see any
pesticides at all. I thought that was interesting. I was wondering if
you could tell us, are you seeing a change in consumer habits when it
comes to a demand for environmentally cleaner products, if I can put
it that way?

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: Certainly we are. If you were in a Home Depot,
you would have seen pesticides. You would have seen, for example, the
Scotts EcoSense line. They’re natural alternatives; they’re still
pesticides and they’re still registered with Health Canada. We are
working at finding alternatives, particularly for weeds in lawns and
insect infestations, as Mr. Tabuns asked about. We’re working on the
new reduced-risk chemistry. It’ll be registered with Health Canada and
we hope that, when the time comes, it will be accepted by Ontario.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: How close are you to introducing them to the
public now?

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: We’ve introduced many alternatives already. With
respect to weed control on lawns, it may be another year or two.

The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Thank you, Mr. Flynn. Ms. Scott.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you very much for appearing here before us. We
were talking about Roundup and its natural alternative, acetic acid. I
just wonder if you could expand a little bit. Sometimes it’s more
harmful to the person to use the natural alternative than it is, in
this case, to use Roundup.

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: Recognizing that Health Canada has evaluated
everything and prescribes what’s on the label of every product,
Roundup and acetic acid is one example where there are warnings on the
acetic acid that it’s corrosive, warnings that it can be harmful to
eyes. Those warnings are not required on a Roundup label, so it’s one
where the toxicity of the Roundup is lower than the acetic acid, or
the associated risks are lower with the synthetic alternative.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you for that. Also, I know that the 2004
report by the Ontario College of Family Physicians was brought up a
lot today. Do you feel that that report was based on scientific
evidence?

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: I believe that it was based on a selection of
epidemiological evidence, but I don’t believe that it was based on the
weight of scientific evidence that is available globally. The World
Health Organization is probably the most respected body globally, and
they’ve made the determination that whether you’re talking about lawn
and garden use or use on our food, pesticides are safe.

Ms. Laurie Scott: Thank you.

The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Mr. Shurman.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’m listening to the presentations today and I’m
hearing science at the municipal level, science at the provincial
level and very little about science at the national or even the
international level. Can you give me some idea of where you get your
science from, in terms of definitive effect—cause and effect—on the
use of your products?

Ms. Jill Fairbrother: Yes. We rely on the body of evidence that’s
available globally. As a company, we would use active ingredients that
are manufactured and registered with Health Canada. They’re made by
companies like Bayer, Dow and DuPont, so they have those active
ingredients tested and registered with Health Canada and other
regulators around the world. When they’re then formulated in small
amounts, I would say—for example, a typical bottle of Killex, which is
a herbicide with which you would spot-spray weeds on your lawn—

The Chair (Mr. Shafiq Qaadri): Ms. Fairbrother, with respect, I will
have to intervene there. Thank you, Mr. Shurman, for your concluding
question, and thank you for your deputation on behalf of Scotts
Canada.

http://tinyurl.com/3reqa4

=====================

Jill A. Fairbrother
Fairbrother & Partners Incorporated
http://lawnandlandscape.texterity.com/lawnandlandscape/200607/?pg=50

=====================

See comments from Scotts representative on page 28:

Another turning point came when the Canadian Cancer Society took a
public position against the ornamental use of pesticides said, Jill
Fairbrother, director of regulatory and stakeholder relations, for
Scotts Canada. "(The anti-pesticide push) was no longer an activist
movement, but it was legitimized and went mainstream."

Pest Control Technology Magazine - July 2007 (Cover Story)
Could it Happen Here? Canadian cites are banning the cosmetic use of
pesticides in growing numbers. Some say it is only a matter of time
before the U.S. Pest Control Industry comes under fire.

by Anne Nagro
anagro@giemedia.com

for the full article go to the following page by page links:

http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=1
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=24
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=25
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=28
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=31
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=33
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=36
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=37
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=38
http://pct.texterity.com/pct/200707/?pg=40

=====================

"Jill Fairbrother is one of the paid Scott's representatives who is
funded to travel back and forth across Canada lobbying municipal
councils against pesticide bylaws."

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/environment/RATE/write_the_papers.htm

=====================

Oakville

February 5, 2007 (Special Meeting) reconvened February 6, 2007
Revised Pesticide Motion & By-law (pdf)
Agenda Pages (pdf)
Item 1 (pdf)
Regulation of Pesticide Use
Reading of By-laws (pdf)

Delegate Presentations From the February 5, 2007, Special Council
Meeting Re: Regulation of Pesticide Use

Jill Fairbrother, Scotts Canada - Presentation to Oakville Council
(pdf, 1.3 MB)

http://www.oakville.ca/councilagenda.asp

=====================

THE CCSPA FORMULATOR • 2007 (March)

Products Under Fire
Page 17

By Jill Fairbrother
Director of Stakeholder Relations Scotts Canada Ltd.

In 1990,the tiny hamlet of Hudson, Québec, passed Canada's first
anti-pesticide bylaw. A local lawn care operator, Spraytech,
challenged the new regulation on the grounds that municipalities, they
believed,did not have the right to ban the use of products that are
registered by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
and further regulated at the provincial level. Some ten years
later,the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that municipalities do have
the right to pass regulations that go above and beyond, as long as
they do not contradict federal and provincial regulations.

Hudson, Québec, was at the fore of an issue led by such
organizations as the Canadian Environmental Law Association,the
Canadian Association of Physicians for
the Environment,the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Federation.
Over time,many municipalities in Québec adopted local bylaws;and in
August of 2002, André Boisclair, then Environment Minister for the
dying Parti Québécois Government in Québec,passed the most restrictive
regulations for pest control products in any jurisdiction in the
world. Despite an acknowledgement that there was no scientific basis
on which to do so,just days before the Government fell,a three-year
phase in of new regulations was passed.

It included a complete ban on combination fertilizer and herbicide
products in year one,the positioning of certain synthetic products
"out of reach of the consumer" in year two,and the removal from the
marketplace entirely of a number of federally registered synthetic
pest control products in year three.

The challenge for a company,indeed an industry,confronting such
action is both significant and ongoing. Maintaining customer
confidence in the face of negative publicity and restrictive
regulations involves dedication to transparent and timely
communications.In the case of Scotts Canada,the company made key
decisions at the outset designed to protect the company's corporate
reputation,leadership position and long-term success in the consumer
lawn and garden market. Key among these decisions was to provide
customers with the benefit of Scotts ' global network of research and
development experts.Scotts shared its experience in other
jurisdictions, especially in Europe,where similar regulations were
implemented in the 1980's. And finally, Scotts
expanded its product portfolio to include soils and grass seed in
order to provide consumers with thetools they need to help maintain a
healthy lawn.

Members of Scotts' sales and marketing teams traveled to Europe to
see first hand how "out of reach of the consumer " was implemented in
a variety of retail formats.Next,they met with customers to apprise
them of the European experience,its implementation challenges,and the
impact on sales as consumers adjusted to new regulations.The Scotts
team was able to share more than 15 years of key learnings with
Canadian customers who were grappling with pending Québec regulations.

Anticipating that consumers would search for a weed and feed
solution for their lawns during the first year under the new laws,
Scotts worked with customers to move regular Turf Builder fertilizer
and Killex weed control spot spray solution next to each other on the
store floor.Typically,these items are merchandised in different areas
of the store. When brought together with educational signage promoting
regular fertilizer with spot spraying of weeds when
necessary,consumers successfully migrated to the new solution.

In year two, when restricted access products were moved into
locked cages and sales associates required higher levels of training
and certification,two retailers, Wal-Mart and Costco, exited the
category. In year three, as most federally regulated synthetic
products were taken off the market in Québec, CBC News reported that
some Québec consumers crossed the border to buy their lawn and garden
care products. Others adapted and moved to purchase the non-restricted
alternative pest control products formulated using active ingredients
from Québec's accepted list.

Over the past five years, Scotts Canada has grown its business by
embracing change and leading the market on product innovation and
consumer communications. The Scotts EcoSense line of alternative pest
control products provides pest solutions using active ingredients
accepted by most municipalities and the province of Québec. The
naturals market is expected to more than double in Canada by 2009.
Scotts' experience indicates that when you take a longer-term view and
provide customers and consumers with good information, your business
can evolve successfully in a changing regulatory environment. As
public opinion influences public policy,the best advice is to keep
your finger on the pulse and get ahead of the game!

http://www.ccspa.org/publications/formulator2007.pdf

========================

Oct 2005. Vol. 115, Iss. 10; pg. 9, 2 pgs

Municipal World

PESTICIDES IN CANADA: Science vs. Community Concern

by Jill Fairbrother.

We've just come through another Canadian summer, and just as sure as
flowers in springtime, debate cropped up in some communities about the
safety of certain lawn and garden products. Maybe it's time we looked
at why, despite a recent finding by Health Canada's Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA) that the most common lawn and garden weed
control products are safe for use on lawns when label directions are
followed, some municipalities continue to face vocal opposition to
their use.

Pesticides are used in many ways in modern society to improve or
protect our quality of life. Chlorine is used in drinking water to
eliminate harmful bacteria. Special shampoos are used to kill head
lice on humans. Flea collars and powders protect pets. Restaurants use
pesticides to control disease carrying insects and vermin. And,
perhaps most importantly, production of an abundant and affordable
supply of fresh fruits and vegetables is protected by our farmers
through the judicious use of insect and weed control products in
agriculture. All of these are examples of pesticide use. And yet, the
issue of pesticide use in public parks and on residential lawns and
gardens continues to make headlines in some Canadian communities.

The issue of pesticide use in public parks and on residential lawns
and gardens continues to be a contentious one in some Canadian
communities.

Science of Pest Control

Health Canada's PMRA is the federal agency that evaluates the science
behind any pest control product for its impact on human and animal
health, as well as the environment, before allowing its use in Canada.
This testing covers short-term and long-term exposure, individual and
cumulative effects, and considers adults, children, infants and
embryos. Under Canadian law, the onus is on a company that brings a
product to market to demonstrate that it can be used safely, that it
works, and that it adds value. The research required to prove this to
a reasonable certainty costs millions of dollars and takes years of
study in labs and in field, under a wide range of conditions. It
should come as no surprise that much of this required science is
funded by the companies that make the products. That is the normal
cycle of research and product development required to bring most new
products to market. However, it is important to realize that
independent, peer-reviewed studies from all over the world are also
closely considered by Health Canada's PMRA. And, federal law
prescribes the methods by which all of these tests must be
administered. To publish data that is erroneous or misleading in any
way is a criminal offence.

Regarding Canada's federal laws, the PMRA says that a "pesticide will
not be allowed on the market unless there is reasonable certainty that
no harm will result." Further, it is required that "a pesticide's
value as well as its risks be acceptable before it is registered to
ensure that the public is not exposed to any risk, no matter how
small, if the product does not serve a useful purpose."

Regulatory agencies and scientists around the world have completed a
number of reviews of the risks versus the benefits of pesticides. The
Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, the European
Union and the World Health Organization have all recently supported
the continued, responsible use of pest control products. The National
Cancer Institute of Canada completed an evaluation of pesticides and
issues ranging from dietary exposure to incidental exposure through
home and garden use concluding "that exposure of the general
population to pesticide residues is minimal and below those levels
already deemed safe by government regulatory agencies." Further, "The
Panel recognizes the importance of pesticide use toward enhanced crop
production and food quality and the associated impact on the declining
costs of fruits and vegetables, concomitant increase in consumption
and resulting positive effect on declining cancer rates."

Reasonable Choice

As a society, we rely on science and on research and development of
new products to improve our health, longevity and quality of life. We
must be doing something right, because on average we are living
longer, healthier lives today than at any point in human history.

Those who oppose the use of pesticides in lawn and garden care accept
their use in many other areas in our communities: pools, hospitals,
water supplies, paint, and insect control among them. When it comes to
protecting the health of our communities, we rely on science. Should
your community choose to allow for the protection of green space using
federally registered pest control products, you can do so knowing that
scientists and regulators in most of the developed world agree it's a
perfectly reasonable choice to make.

Copyright Municipal World Oct 2005

http://www.municipalworld.com

========================

Sat 09 Jul 2005

Stratford Beacon-Herald

WEED CONTROL IN CITY PARKS: SCIENCE VS. COMMUNITY CONCERN

In the letters to the editor of July 6, a writer questioned the
Stratford Parks Board regarding the use of a weed control product on
prized parkland. Pesticides are used in many ways in modern society to
improve or protect our quality of life. Chlorine is used in drinking
water to eliminate harmful bacteria. Special shampoos are used to kill
head lice on humans. Flea collars and powders protect pets.
Restaurants use pesticides to control disease carrying insects and
vermin. And, perhaps most importantly, production of an abundant and
affordable supply of fresh fruits and vegetables is protected by our
farmers through the judicious use of insect and weed control products
in agriculture. All of these are examples of pesticide use. And yet
the issue of pesticide use in public parks and on residential lawns
and gardens continues to make headlines in some Canadian communities.

Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is the
federal agency that evaluates the science behind any pest control
product for its impact on human and animal health, as well as the
environment, before allowing its use in Canada. This testing covers
short-term and long-term exposure, aggregate and cumulative exposures,
and considers adults, children, infants and embryos. Under Canadian
law, the onus is on a company that brings a product to market to
demonstrate that it can be used safely, that it works and that it adds
value. The research required to prove this to a reasonable certainty
costs millions of dollars and takes years of study in labs and in
field, under a wide range of conditions. Independent, peer-reviewed
studies from all over the world are also closely considered by Health
Canada's PMRA. And federal law prescribes the methods by which all of
these tests must be administered. To publish data that is erroneous or
misleading in any way is a criminal offence.

Health Canada's PMRA has just completed a comprehensive re-evaluation
of the most common weed control ingredients and concluded they are
safe for use on lawns by homeowners, simply following label
directions. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States,
the European Union and the World Health Organization have all recently
re-evaluated and come to the equivalent decisions.

As a society we rely on science and on research and development of new
products to improve our health, longevity and quality of life. We must
be doing something right, because on average we are living longer,
healthier lives today than at any point in human history.

Those who oppose the use of pesticides in parks and on lawns accept
their use in many other areas of society -- pools, hospitals, water
supplies, paint, and insect control among them. And yet the same
principles of science that determine these are acceptable uses also
determine that a herbicide can be used safely to control weeds.

You may choose to love your weeds or to hand pull them. But if you
choose to treat an infestation with a federally registered product
following label directions as the Stratford Parks Board did, you can
do so knowing that scientists and regulators in most of the developed
world agree it's a perfectly reasonable choice for you to make.

Jill Fairbrother

========================

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

The Halifax Daily News

Making pests of ourselves - Big multinationals target trouble-making,
anti-spray Halifax

By David Swick.
dswick@hfxnews.ca

http://www.canada.com/halifax/dailynews/story.asp?id={3D2E29E3-90AA-40C9-8A1F-59424FE46CBA

"SCOTTS CO., a major pesticide interest based in Ohio, recently had
two representatives in town to talk to councillors. They may be the
first visitors of many. Pesticide companies - and their friends on
council - are mighty unhappy about the upcoming April 1 no-pesticide
deadline.

The company's concern is best expressed by its director of training,
development and regulatory affairs, Bill Hoopes, who is also the
immediate past-president of the Professional Lawn Care Association of
America. Speaking at a forum in Nashville in November, Hoopes urged
contractors, associations and industry leaders to fight pesticide
legislation in Canada.

"The perception is that Canada is Europe," i.e., too far away to
affect the U.S., Hoopes said, quoted by Lawn & Landscape magazine. In
fact, what happens in Canada could greatly affect pesticide use in the
U.S., he said. "Canada can be a bell cow."..."

RELATED ARTICLES/QUOTES:
"It's not about money," says Jill Fairbrother representing the Scott
company. "It's about the regulatory framework." (Source: CBC Nova
Scotia, Pesticide maker urges city council to drop ban, February 7,
2003)

"Three years ago, Halifax regional council voted to ban pesticides
entirely starting April 1, 2003, as a way of helping people who get
sick when neighbours spray their lawns.
But Scotts Canada Ltd. says it wants councillors to put off that ban
until summer, when Health Canada is due to release a report on the
health risks of some of the most common pesticides.
"We have new information that we'd like council to consider," Jill
Fairbrother, director of stakeholder relations for the Ontario
company, said yesterday." (Source: The Halifax Daily News, Pesticide
company hopes for ban delay, February 8, 2003)

"Evidence of direct harm from pesticides has not been proven, argued
Jill Fairbrother, representing Scotts Canada Ltd., a producer of lawn
and garden products including pesticides. Ms. Fairbrother said Canada
has some of the most stringent pesticide testing standards in the
world and the country employs 300 scientists who evaluate their safety
before they are put on the market.
A link to cancer, she said, has not been proven. "No pest control
protectant has ever been classified as a carcinogen anywhere in the
world." (Source: Stratford Beacon Herald, Views aired on use of
pesticides, January 22, 2003)

"Benefits of pest control to our health and home environments are
real" "Pest control products are strictly regulated (new PCP Act)".
Jill Fairbrothers, Scotts Fertilizer (Source: City of Guelph Pesticide
Committee Report December 2002)

"CCSPA members welcome the objectives of ensuring that consumer and
environmental protection are fully served. But it seems that the
legislators and regulators have forgotten that a major determinant of
human and environmental health is economic well-being. Too many public
and private sector resources are being expended to placate ill-in-
formed public perception, with no evidence of concomitant benefits.
For the consumer specialty products sector, this has been particularly
evident where municipalities introduce by-laws to prevent home owners
from using registered and regulated lawn, garden and household
products on their own property. Unfortunately it is popular sentiment,
not evidence, that drives much regulatory action - without any clear
assessment of need or benefit." (Source: The CCSPA Formulator, Page 9,
February 2002)

("The Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association (CCSPA) is a
trade association representing the consumer, industrial and
institutional specialty products industry. We promote the interests of
member companies by providing a national voice, encouraging ethical
practices, negotiating with governments, and fostering industry
cooperation.")

======================== 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

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 - OnToplist.com