Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Ontario to prohibit 85 cosmetic pesticides...And More

March 3, 2009

Hamilton Spectator

Ontario set to implement pesticide ban
Rules for sale of restricted-use products to be phased in

Moira Welsh
Toronto Star

Environmental groups lobbying the Ontario government for a powerful
cosmetic pesticide ban say the province is set to announce sweeping
new regulations that will outlaw hundreds of chemicals from use on
neighbourhood lawns.

The Ministry of the Environment is expected to make its proposed list
of banned chemicals public tomorrow. If it's approved, most of the 85
targeted substances (found in roughly 250 products) would be barred
from sale and use for cosmetic purposes, said Gideon Forman, executive
director of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

"We have a very high level of confidence that it is going to be a very
substantial list ... it will be the best in North America," Forman
said.

The ban would likely take effect near Earth Day, April 22. Stores will
be forced to remove some products from their shelves or inform
customers that certain others are for restricted use only, such as
killing poison ivy.

The banned pesticides are found in products that kill slugs, grubs,
earwigs and caterpillars, along with dandelions, clover and a variety
of other weeds. Among the products are familiar brand names, such as C-
I-L Weedout, Killex Lawn Weed Control and Wilson Garden Doctor
Insecticide.

Banned products sitting in garages and basements must be disposed of
through municipal hazardous-waste collection. A public education
program will inform Ontarians that they must throw out their leftover
products, and use only the "restricted" products for the prescribed
purposes. Errant users will first receive a warning, but fines for
landscapers and homeowners will be put into effect once the program is
widely known.

There was strong resistance to the ban from the landscaping industry
but many, already under pressure from municipal restrictions, are
moving to organic substances, including corn gluten meal, which is
thought to suppress weed germination in grass.

Many pesticide vendors were aware that a ban would be in place this
spring; national chains with leftover products will probably ship them
to stores in provinces that do not ban the pesticide.

Quebec was the first province to institute a ban, with roughly 20
prohibited items. New Brunswick is considering a ban.

The rules for sale of the restricted-use products will be phased in,
but by 2011, stores will be required to limit access to the
pesticides, keep them locked behind glass or cages, and ensure that
customers are aware of limitations on use before taking them home.

The Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act, passed by the Ontario government last
June, was criticized by some because it supersedes a patchwork of
existing municipal bylaws and does not stop the owners of golf
courses, farms or managed forests from spraying pesticides.

Leanne Clare, spokesperson for the David Suzuki Foundation, said the
foundation has been lobbying governments across Canada to ban both
sale and use of the chemicals.

http://www.thespec.com/printArticle/523309

Peterborough Examiner - March 3, 2009
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1459474

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

March 3, 2009

Toronto Star,

Ontario to prohibit 85 cosmetic pesticides
Rules would restrict sale, use of roughly 250 gardening products

by Moira Welsh

Environmental groups lobbying the Ontario government for a powerful
cosmetic pesticide ban say the province is set to announce sweeping
new regulations that will outlaw hundreds of chemical products from
use on neighbourhood lawns.

The Ministry of the Environment is expected to make its list of banned
chemicals public tomorrow.

If approved, most of the 85 substances – found in roughly 250 products
– would be barred from sale and use for cosmetic purposes, said Gideon
Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

The prohibitions – the latest step in the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act,
passed last June – would likely take effect in mid-April. Stores would
be forced to remove some products from their shelves or inform
customers that the use of others is restricted to certain purposes.

The pesticides in the proposed ban are found in products that kill
slugs, grubs, earwigs and caterpillars, along with dandelions, clover
and a variety of other weeds. Among the products on the proposed list
were brand names such as C-I-L Weedout, Killex Lawn Weed Control and
Wilson Garden Doctor Insecticide.

Ontarians must dispose of banned products through municipal hazardous
waste collection, and use restricted products for only prescribed
purposes. Errant users would first receive a warning, but fines would
later be introduced.

The rules for sale of the restricted products will be phased in. By
2011, stores will be required to limit access to the pesticides,
keeping them locked behind glass or cages and ensuring that customers
are aware of limitations on use before taking them home.

There was strong resistance to the ban from the landscaping industry
but many, already under pressure from municipal restrictions, are
switching to organic substances.

The Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act was criticized by some because it
supersedes existing municipal
bylaws and does not stop owners of golf courses, farms or managed
forests from spraying pesticides.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/595528

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

Monday March 2nd, 2009

NB Telegraph Journal

All pesticides pose risks

In response to "Group concerned by ban on pesticides" (Feb. 26), it's
telling that nowhere in this letter does the writer say pesticides are
safe. That's because, when it comes to toxic lawn chemicals, the word
"safe" cannot be used.

All pesticides pose risks and when it comes to those whose only
purpose is changing a property's appearance, the risk simply isn't
worth it. That's the view of the majority of New Brunswickers, 80 per
cent of whom support a lawn pesticide ban.

It's also the view of the province's most respected health
authorities, including the Canadian Cancer Society and the New
Brunswick Lung Association.

GIDEON FORMAN

Executive Director Canadian Association of Physicians for the
Environment

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/588945

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

03/02/2009

Study: Combining pesticides makes them more deadly
By JEFF BARNARD AP Environmental Writer


GRANTS PASS, Ore.—Common agricultural pesticides that attack the
nervous systems of salmon can turn more deadly when they combine with
other pesticides, researchers have found.

Scientists from the NOAA Fisheries Service and Washington State
University were expecting that the harmful effects would add up as
they accumulated in the water. They were surprised to find a deadly
synergy occurred with some combinations, which made the mix more
harmful and at lower levels of exposure than the sum of the parts.

The study looked at five common pesticides: diazinon, malathion,
chlorpyrifos, carbaryl and carbofuran, all of which suppress an enzyme
necessary for nerves to function properly.

The findings suggest that the current practice of testing pesticides—
one at a time to see how much is needed to kill a fish—fails to show
the true risks, especially for fish protected by the Endangered
Species Act, the authors concluded in the study published Monday in
the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

"We need to design new research that takes into effect the real-world
situation where pesticides almost always coincide with other
pesticides," co-author Nathaniel Scholz, a research zoologist at the
NOAA Fisheries Service Northwest Fisheries Science Center, said from
Seattle.

Inge Werner, director of the aquatic toxicology laboratory at the
University of California at Davis, was not involved in the study. She
said while the idea was not new,
Advertisement
the findings were definitive, even at levels that don't kill fish
outright.

"We may not see the big fish kills out there anymore like we used to,"
she said from Davis, Calif. "But the subtle, sublethal effects that
basically render them unfit for survival in the wild are much more
important. In certain areas, pesticides really are a very important
factor" in salmon survival.

Jeffrey Jenkins, professor of environmental and molecular toxicology
at Oregon State University, was not part of the study. He said the
study was well done, but it would take more research to push the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to change its pesticide testing
standards as they relate to fish, which are defined by law.

Last year, NOAA Fisheries issued findings under the Endangered Species
Act that diazinon, malathion and chlorpyrifos jeopardize the survival
of all 28 species of Pacific salmon listed as threatened or endangered
in the West.

The three chemicals, found by the U.S. Geological survey to
contaminate rivers throughout the West, interfere with salmon's sense
of smell, making it harder to avoid predators, locate food and even
find their native spawning streams and reproduce. At higher
concentrations, they kill fish outright.

NOAA Fisheries and EPA must evaluate 34 more pesticides by 2012 under
terms of a settlement reached in a lawsuit brought by Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and others.

In the study, scientists combined the pesticides two at a time at
various concentrations, then exposed juvenile coho salmon in tanks for
four days. Many of the fish died outright.

Fish that survived were killed, and their brains analyzed for the
levels of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which allows impulses to
move between neurons in the brain. In every fish, the levels of the
enzyme were below the level considered healthy.

Earlier research found that lower levels of the enzyme affected the
ability of fish to feed and swim, which would affect their ability to
survive, Scholz said.

The researchers suggested that the reason harmful affects of
combinations of chemicals were greater was that they also suppressed
another enzyme, which helps the body rid itself of toxins.

The amounts of the individual pesticides were calculated to have a
standard effect on the fish nervous systems, and in some cases were
higher than would be expected to be seen in the environment, Scholz
said. Some combinations produced effects that added up to the sum of
the parts. But as the doses of the individual pesticides increased,
the effects became more synergistic—in effect multiplying rather than
just adding.

The results indicated that similar effects would occur at much lower
levels, and future research will consider just how little exposure is
needed to harm fish, he added.

Another new avenue for research will be how pesticides combine with
other water quality problems, such as warm water, to harm salmon,
Scholz said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11822166

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

Monday March 2nd, 2009

The Fredericton Daily Gleaner

Try an honest exploration of facts

Re: Story published Feb. 18 called

Support grows for banning cosmetic pesticides

It's interesting that in the wake of polling results from the anti-
pesticide contingency, not a single story has reported the results of
the provincial government's online polling on the matter.

That polling showed the majority of New Brunswick residents do not
support a ban on either the use or sale of pesticides and that they
also believe the existing regulatory processes adequately protect both
human health and the environment.

What is really needed - certainly more than polling figures - is an
honest exploration of the facts, something the activists are failing
to do as they campaign to eliminate pesticides from Canadian cities.

What the activists fail to mention is that before any pesticide can be
sold in Canada it must undergo a comprehensive scientific review and
risk assessment by Health Canada, which is staffed with over 350
subject matter experts.

Through this process pesticides receive a greater breadth of scrutiny
than any other regulated product and only those products that meet
Health Canada's strict health and safety standards are registered for
sale and use.

In fact, just last year Health Canada released the findings of an
extensive review of 2,4-D, one of the most widely used products in
weed control. The review concluded "risks to homeowners and their
children from contact with treated lawns and turf are not of concern."

Perhaps this is why the activists are hinging their argument on public
polling rather than on hard, scientific evidence. The best they can
come up with is a theory, but no proof.

CropLife Canada is concerned about the assault on pesticides because
it is about much more than simply eradicating dandelions. How long, we
wonder, before the anti-pesticide crusaders turn their attention to
agriculture?

The agricultural use of pesticides contributes significantly to
ensuring Canadians have access to an affordable and abundant supply of
grains, fruits and vegetables - foods that are important contributors
to lifelong health.

CropLife Canada believes decisions regarding our health and
environment are important and that they should be made based on
defendable scientific evidence. We hope New Brunswick residents will
agree.

Lorne Hepworth

President

CropLife Canada

Ottawa, Ont.

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/search/article/589055

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

Thursday February 26, 2009 09:29 EST
Profile on turfgrass industry available

Principle researcher Dr. Glenn Fox of the University of Guelph
announced the completion of Economic Profile of the Ontario Turfgrass
Industries. The project shows the economic profile of the Ontario
turfgrass industry and identifies strategic policy and research issues
facing the industry. This two year study is documented in the final
report can be viewed here.

For more information, visit the Ontario Turfgrass Research Foundation
website at www.otrf.ca

http://www.horttrades.com/displaynews.php?n=605

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

March 2,2009

Local

Pesticide Ban Still Concerning Farmers

The provincial ban on cosmetic pesticides generated a lot of
discussion at the annual Meet The Members Conference in Clinton.

Huron Bruce M-P-P, Carol Mitchell, says her government understands the
very distinct differences between pesticide use in agriculture and
cosmetic pesticide use in urban centres.

She says the fact that farmers are licensed to use pesticides and
regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture is the reason they're exempt
from the legislation.

Mitchell adds she understands some farm groups are still uncomfortable
with the exemption.

Farmers know the current government understands their situation, but
she believes they're concerned that a new government could come in and
suddenly include farmers in the ban.

http://www.am920.ca/news.php?artID=29761

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

From the mailbag: Do pesticides cause weight gain?

"I posed the question to ... Joe Schwarcz."

By JUNE THOMPSON, The GazetteMarch 3, 2009


I love it when I get asked really neat questions. Not to say they are
not all neat in some way, but I usually get asked things like what's
the best diet, how do I get to my ideal weight (if I had the answer to
that one, I'd be there myself, no?!), stuff about exercise and the
like.

That's why I love this question from K. Hynes:

"I know this might sound strange, but bear with me: We're hearing more
and more about eating organic ... which I love the idea of, but it is
so expensive.

"However, what concerns me more is the chemicals and pesticides in
foods ... could they be making us fat? Kids are getting bigger and
bigger, and because there is more and more pesticide use, could it
actually be the culprit behind weight gain?"

I thought this needed a scientific mind, so I posed the question to my
colleague, The Right Chemistry's Joe Schwarcz. Here's his response:

"Average calorie consumption has certainly increased over the last 20
years, but not by enough, according to some researchers, to account
for the dramatic increase in obesity. Something else is going on, they
say. That something else just may be exposure to chemicals that have
hormone-like behaviour. And there seems to be plenty of these. The
usual suspects include chemicals in detergents (nonylphenol
ethoxylates), pesticides (atrazine, DDT, lindane),

antifouling paints (tributyl tin) and plastics (bisphenol A,
phthalates).

"The notion that hormone-like activity should be connected to weight
gain is not off-the-wall. After all, hormones are commonly used to
make cattle gain weight more quickly. While there is no direct
evidence that humans are being affected by the tiny amounts of
endocrine disruptors, as these chemicals are called, there are some
animal studies that point to this possibility."

Schwarcz cited the work of Retha Newbold at the U.S. National
Institutes of Health, who studied diethylstilbesterol (DES), the
estrogen-like compound that was once used to prevent miscarriage in
women, unfortunately with tragic consequences.

"DES daughters," had an increased risk of clear cell adenocarcinoma, a
rare cancer. When Newbold was studying how DES might interfere with
hormone systems, she made a surprising discovery, Schwarcz said:
"Injecting pregnant mice with tiny amounts of DES resulted in unusual
weight gain by their offspring, although food consumption and activity
levels in the exposed mice were no different than in controls."

Diethylstilbesterol is not the only compound that has shown such an
effect, Schwarcz noted. "Other researchers have connected in utero
exposure to bisphenol A, phthalates and perfluorooctanoic acid with
weight gain.

"Bruce Blumberg of the University of California actually coined a new
term for such substances, calling them 'obesogens.' His original
interest was in the hormone-like effects of tributyltin, a fungicide
used in paints, especially those used to protect ships' hulls from
barnacles. Blumberg was taken aback when female mollusks exposed to
the chemical grew male sex organs. Better see what this does to mice,
he thought. Well, when pregnant mice were treated with tributyltin,
their offspring showed unusual weight gain."

Still, as Schwarcz pointed out, humans are not giant rodents. "Human
evidence for the obesogen theory is hard to come by. Surprisingly,
some support comes from, of all people, smokers. Smoking generally is
associated with weight loss, but when women puff away during pregnancy
(as unbelievable as that is), their offspring are twice as likely to
be obese by the time they reach school age. In animal models, prenatal
exposure to nicotine produces a similar effect. Just how chemicals can
interfere with a fetus's genes isn't clear, but there is increasing
evidence that what happens in the womb has a huge impact in later
life."

Hmm. It certainly makes you stop and think. Thanks, Joe, for such an
informative answer - and K. Hynes for such a thought-provoking
question!

jthompson@thegazette.canwest.com

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Health/From+mailbag+pesticides+cause+weight+gain/1346773/story.html Best Blogger Tips
  • Stumble This Post
  • Save Tis Post To Delicious
  • Share On Reddit
  • Fave On Technorati
  • Buzz This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Digg This Post
  • Share On Facebook
Blog Gadgets

No comments:

Post a Comment

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

St. John's Daily Spray Advisory

My Past Articles

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Above Articles available through Trancontinental Newsnet

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

Online Marketing - OnToplist.com