Saturday, March 7, 2009

Vancouver mayor eyes city hall lawn for vegetable garden....And more

March 6, 2009

The Chicago Tribune

DDT ban more than just 'political'

James Economos wrote ("Post-DDT dilemma," Voice of the People, March
4) that the increase in bedbugs is due to the "political" move of
banning DDT. The truth is DDT was banned in 1972 in the U.S. because
it contributed to the near extinction of birds such as the peregrine
falcon and bald eagle.

Chronic low-dose exposure has been associated with premature birth and
low birth weight in babies who were exposed before birth, and with
reduced duration of milk supply in nursing mothers. DDT is a
persistent chemical, which stays in the flesh of animals and rises in
concentration as the animals get higher on the food chain. Americans
still carry DDT in their bodies, over 30 years after the ban on its
use. Furthermore, countries that still use DDT have noted that malaria-
carrying mosquitoes are becoming resistant to this pesticide.

Dr. Economos also attacked the global warming "myth." Apparently, Dr.
Economos, who is a dentist, feels more informed than the tens of
thousands of scientists who have painstakingly studied this
phenomenon. He warns of disastrous results, if we keep listening to
the ban-DDT-stop-global-warming crowd. The true disasters will occur
if we don't.

--Gary Katz,0,4199276.story


CBC Ontario Today

Yesterday on Ontario Today Minister John Gerretsen and pesticide
industry lobbyist Lorne Hepworth went head --to-head between noon to
1pm over Ontario's pesticide ban. For some unknown reason CBC's
Ontario Today has audio available of almost everything from March 6th
expect the piece on the pesticide ban. It might help if folks email
Ontario Today and ask why it isn't posted yet/

CBC Radio - Ontario Today

Friday March 06, 2009

Pesticide Ban
If you take pride in your perfect lawn, you may have to learn to live
with unsightly weeds. The Ontario Government is extending its ban on
pesticides. We'll hear from the province's Environment Minister, and
from landscapers who oppose the ban.
No Audio Available
[Runs 0:00]

30 Day Archive

Missed a story or want to hear a story again? Items are added daily in
our story archive! Audio is archived for a total of 30 days.
Transcripts and or tapes of CBC programs are available. (click here
for more information). In order to listen to the archives on this page
you must have Real Audio installed. (click here to install)

30 Day Archive
Join the BIGGEST conversation in the province every weekday
between noon and 2 p.m.

To join the call-in during the show dial 1.888.817.8995 anywhere
in Ontario or
TalkBack line - 1.888.591.4111.

Listen Live weekdays at noon
12:00 to 2:00 p.m. on CBC Radio One

Your voice send us your comments on recent stories and your story


March 6, 2009

Vancouver Sun

Vancouver mayor eyes city hall lawn for vegetable garden

By Doug Ward,

VANCOUVER -- Barack Obama’s got nothing on Gregor Robertson when it
comes to having green cred with the local food movement.

Organic food activists in the Unites States have been urging the new
president to install a community garden at the White House.

A few days ago, Vancouver’s new mayor announced that a portion of the
city hall lawn, just north of the main city hall building, will be
converted into a community garden for people to grow food.

“Vancouver has really beat Obama on this one,” said Mike Levenston,
executive-director of the City Farmer Society.

The idea of bringing agriculture to 12th and Cambie comes from
Robertson’s Greenest City Action Team, which has been charged with
making Vancouver the greenest city in the world.

“If we want Vancouver to be a truly sustainable city, city hall needs
to lead the way,” said Robertson.

It’s not a total surprise that Vancouver would be one of the first —
if only — large North American cities to have a community garden at
its city hall. The city that’s home to the authors of the 100 Mile
Diet is a hotbed of community gardening.

“The demand for community gardens here is huge,” said Karen Wristen of
the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, who will be
designing the city hall garden.

City of Vancouver food policy coordinator Devorah Kahn said the
concept of community gardens goes back to at least the Second World
War when people were encouraged to grow food along the Arbutus

The recent surge in the popularity of urban agriculture was caused
partly by the city’s densification, she added. “When people don’t have
their own private area to grow food, they look for spaces where
gardening can happen.”

Kahn said that the grow-local movement appeals to people who want
organic, pesticide-free food or are looking for a way to save money in
tough economic times.

“People can grow what they want to eat and have it available even when
their financial resources are stretched.”

Support for community gardens at city hall crosses party lines. The
previous Non-Partisan Association-dominated council committed the city
to creating 2,010 new garden plots by 2010 as an Olympic legacy.

Kahn said that 1,620 new plots have been created since that policy was
passed in 2006. “So we are on the road of getting to our goal.”

City Farmer Society’s Levenston said that city hall’s promotion of
community gardening in recent years means fewer people are engaging in
“guerrilla gardening” by growing food on vacant lots.

“I don’t hear a lot about guerrilla gardening anymore. I just hear
about the desire for more community garden space,” said Levenston, who
runs a demonstration garden in Kitsilano.

The demand for community gardens has prompted some downtown developers
to install temporary gardens on land left vacant until the market

The Onni Group of Companies, for example, has set up gardens on its
property at the corner of Pacific Avenue and Seymour Street.

Onni spokesman Mike Clark said there was a long waiting list of people
who wanted access to the plots. Many of the people who live in
downtown Vancouver’s “concrete jungle” once had a backyard and want
the ability to garden again, he added.

Onni now plans to include a rooftop garden on the condo development
that will be eventually erected on the site, said Clark.

The developer’s interest in community gardens extends beyond providing
a public amenity. By turning the land over to gardeners, Onni was able
to get the land reclassified by the B.C. Assessment Authority from
Class 6, which is business or commercial, to Class 8, which is
recreational or non-profit.

This amounted to a cut in property tax for Onni on that site of about
70 per cent, said Onni tax specialist Paul Sullivan.

Vision Vancouver councillor Andrea Reimer, a former community gardener
who now grows food in her backyard, is happy that developers are
allowing vacant land to be turned into public gardens.

Nevertheless, she added, the amount of property tax money being lost
through reclassification could fund even more garden plots that would
be permanent.

Tax expert Sullivan bristles at suggestions that developers like Onni
are unfairly shifting the tax burden onto other commercial properties.

Sullivan said the property tax dollars being lost by turning vacant
land into gardens are “insignificant” when compared to the property
taxes lost every year in Vancouver when commercial properties convert
to residential uses.

“Onni is providing a city amenity at no cost to the city,” said

“What’s the alternative? Putting up a fence and letting people throw
garbage on the site as it sits fallow?”

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

City Farmer Society.


Saturday, March 07, 2009

Burnaby Now

Environmental awards nominees wanted

The city's environmental awards program includes a new category this
year to recognize residents who are going the extra distance to make
green choices.

The new Green Choices award will join a roster of awards that
recognize various environment-related efforts in the city and is
specifically intended to honour those who make choices in their own
homes or gardens that improve the health of Burnaby's environment.

At a recent council meeting, councillors gave the thumbs-up to move
forward with planning for this year's Environment Week, June 1 to 7,
and to put out the call for nominations.

Coun. Dan Johnston, who is the chair of the city's environment
committee, noted that the new award essentially replaces an earlier
award category called Chemical-Free Lawns and Gardens.

He said that with council's adoption last year of the pesticide use
control bylaw, city residents are already limited from cosmetic
pesticide use.

Other award categories are communications, community stewardship,
planning and development, youth and business stewardship.

Nominations for the awards are due by April 9, and winners will be
announced in May.

For more information on the program, see or call
© Burnaby Now 2009


BPA in soft drinks- is it really ok?

by Dianne Saxe

child w pencil BPA in soft drinks is it really ok?Health Canada just
published the results of its survey of bisphenol A (BPA) in canned
drink products. Seventy-two canned soft drink products (all carbonated
except for four tea products), representing a Canadian market share of
84% or more, were analysed for BPA. Health Canada isn’t concerned;
should you be?

The assay method could detect 0.045 mcg/L (note: 1 mcg/L = 1 part per
billion). Two samples of each product were analysed (each sample was
divided into two subsamples) and the results averaged.
BPA was detected in samples from all but two products; the exceptions
were tonic water products containing quinine, a chemical that may
interfere with the BPA assay. BPA concentrations were reported as
being “low” - ie.,

* < 0.5 mcg/L (75% of products);
* < 1 mcg/L (85% of products);
* average BPA concentration (all products): 0.57 mcg/L

Take a look at the Table that accompanies the study - find how much
BPA is in your favourite brand of pop!
Health Canada opines that the range of concentrations (0.032 - 4.5 mcg/
L) could be due to differences in the coatings of the drink cans
(e.g., type used, amount) or sterilization conditions (e.g.,
temperature, length of time) used by the different companies. The
report also suggests that exposure of the cans to sunlight (e.g.,
during storage) could increase the concentration of BPA that leaches
into the drinks.
Health Canada tells us not to worry. The provisional tolerable daily
intake (TDI ) is 25 mcg/kg of body weight per day. Health Canada
provides a nice calculation that indicates that to reach this TDI, the
average 60 kg adult would have to drink 940 cans of soft drinks per
day. But take a look at a few of our calculations, below, based on a
higher intake of sodas with higher BPA concentrations.
Why are we concerned?

* Health Canada tells us that this is a “snapshot” of what’s in
the drinks - i.e., perhaps not a representative sample. What would a
more comprehensive study reveal?
* Is Health Canada’s safety limit (TDI) robust? Some authors
suggest that much lower concentration thresholds need to be set, as
even very low concentrations of BPA could be harmful.
* What are the reasons for the huge range in BPA concentrations
in the various products? Can liners? Exposure to heat or sunlight
during storage? Something else?
* Why should consumer products like canned drinks contain any
chemicals like BPA?
* Remember that soft drinks are just one source of BPA - we are
being exposed to this chemical through many other consumer products.

In our September blog about BPA, we wrote that one of missing pieces
of the BPA puzzle is how much BPA is actually present in consumer
products - it is encouraging that studies like this one are being done
and reported to the public. In October 2008, we reported that the
federal government had decided to take a precautionary approach in
characterizing the risk from BPA. But is that really what they’re
doing with soft drinks?
What are we drinking?
Here’s Health Canada’s calculation for a 60 kg person
1 can/day with BPA 0.057 mcg/L :
0.57 mcg/L x 0.355 L = 0.202 mcg BPA/can.
This means 0.202 mcg/60 kg person = 0.003 mcg/kg/day or 0.012% of the
But what if the person drank 6 cans of the more BPA-laden soda each
day? A couple of brands of soda contained BPA in a concentration of
1.1 mcg/L:
1.1 mcg/L x 0.355 L = 0.39 mcg BPA/can.
Six cans would contain 2.34 mcg BPA.
2.34 mcg/60 kg = 0.039 mcg/kg/day or 0.156 % of the TDI

A couple of brands of soda contained BPA in a concentration of over 4
mcg/L - the highest concentration was 4.5 mcg/L:
4.5 mcg/L x 0.355 L = 1.6 mcg BPA/can.
Six cans would contain 9.6 mcg BPA.
9.6 mcg/60 kg = 0.16 mcg/kg/day or 0.64% of the TDI


Wed. Mar. 4 2009

Bisphenol A found in canned soft drinks News Staff

The first comprehensive testing of bisphenol A (BPA) levels in canned
soft drinks in Canada has found that most contain the controversial

While the levels are low, some environmentalists say the levels may
very well be enough to cause harm to children, especially those who
drink a lot of pop or energy drinks.

The study, the largest test of its kind, was conducted for Health
Canada as it investigates Canadians' exposure to BPA, which has been
linked to cancer and reproductive problems.

The study tested bisphenol A levels in 72 samples of canned drinks,
including carbonated, non-carbonated, diet, non-diet, fruit-flavoured
and energy drinks. The survey represented at least an 84 per cent
market share of canned soft drinks sold in Canada.

The chemical was found in almost all of them, and was particularly
high in the energy drinks sampled.

The only exceptions were two samples of tonic water. The researchers
suggest the quinine in tonic may have interfered with BPA extraction.

BPA was detected at levels between 0.032 and 4.5ìg/l (micrograms per
litre). The highest levels of BPA -- 4.2 and 4.5ìg/l -- were detected
in two energy drinks - drinks that are popular with teens and
university students who often used them to stay alert as they cram for

The authors calculated that an adult weighing 60 kg consuming one
canned soft drink per day would, at the average BPA level found,
consume only 0.0034ìg/kg body weight per day and 0.027ìg/kg body
weight per day at the highest BPA level.

The study was released quietly in the Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry in January and the Health Canada authors downplayed the
findings, saying the levels detected are well below current
recommendations from Health Canada of a tolerable daily intake (TDI)
of 25ìg/kg body weight per day.

"The average concentration that was detected was about 0.5 parts per
billion," Dr. Samuel Godefroy of Health Canada told CTV News. "Just to
give you an idea, a part per billion is a billionth of a gram per
gram. In this case, it would be one microgram per litre of a soft
drink. So these are considered to be very low levels."

He said the average Canadian adult would have to consume more than 900
cans per day -- drinking the worst soft drink measured for BPA -- just
to reach Health Canada's tolerable daily intake, "which is still
considered to be a safe exposure."

But environmentalists, such as Aaron Freeman of Environmental Defence,
say the levels are still worrisome, given that pop and energy drinks
are most often consumed by teens and youngsters, whose body weight
tends to be much lower.

"The people who are drinking these beverages are mostly young people
and the health effects particularly affect young people. The younger
you are, the more vulnerable you are to the effects of bisphenol A,"
he tells CTV News.

"If you take into account that a young person might drink one or two
of these a day, the math is different."

Freeman says children are more vulnerable to BPA because they have
smaller bodies that metabolize chemicals more quickly, "so the same
level of bisphenol A going into a child's body results in higher

Last year, Health Canada banned plastic baby bottles that contain BPA.
Its own studies on cans of baby formula found BPA levels ranging from
2.3 parts per billion to 10.2 parts per billion - more than the levels
found in soft drinks.

What are safe levels?

Frederick vom Saal, a biologist at the University of Missouri and an
expert on BPA, suggest that Health Canada's TDI level is far too high,
noting that a growing number of studies involving animals have found
harmful BPA effects at concentrations far below Health Canada's limit.

Vom Saal calls Health Canada's belief that there is little danger in
the small exposure "simple-minded."

BPA is thought to be a hormone disruptor that can interfere with the
normal functioning of the reproductive system of both people and
wildlife and lead to the growth of pre-cancerous cells.

Aluminum beverage cans contain BPA in their linings to prevent
spoilage and protect beverages from direct contact with the aluminum.
The Health Canada study authors say the variations in levels the study
found might be due to differences in can coatings, can sterilization
conditions, or exposure to heat during storage.

Refreshments Canada, the industry group for soft drink manufacturers
in Canada, has said only a minute amount of BPA is used in can
linings, and the presence of BPA is eliminated during the bottling

"No BPA has ever been detected in our beverage products in off-the-
shelf testing by either the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) or
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)," the group said in
statement on its website. "Based on the extensive scientific research
available, there is no need for concern about the safety of aluminum
beverage cans."

These recent Health Canada tests suggest there are, in fact, small
amounts of BPA in soft drink cans. Freeman believes any amount is too
much and Canadians need to reduce the exposure to BPA wherever they

"We don't have a choice. Often, we don't know whether a container has
it or not. so it's really about political leadership. We need to tell
leaders to get BPA off the market; we need to get it out of food and
beverage containers entirely," Freeman says.

Until then, Environmental Defence recommends that Canadians choose
glass bottles over cans with BPA linings and use stainless steel for
drinking water bottles.

In October 2008, the federal government designated BPA as "toxic" to
human health and the environment and announced a ban on the sale of
plastic baby bottles that contain bisphenol A. It also allocated an
additional $1.7 million to fund further research projects on BPA.

Warning Industry Propaganda Below

Friday March 6, 2009

Ontario pesticide ban becomes law on April 22

Ontario's cosmetic pesticides ban takes effect April 22, 2009. The
McGuinty government made the announcement on Mar. 4, stating, "The ban
protects Ontario families and children from the unnecessary risks of
cosmetic pesticides by only allowing the use of certain lower-risk
pesticides for controlling weeds and pests in lawns and gardens."

LO executive director Tony DiGiovanni reacted by saying, "Although
Landscape Ontario agrees with the intent of the of the legislation,
the government actions are callous, insensitive, extreme and
disrespectful to a growth industry that employs over 66,388 full-time
people ( 22,000 in the turfgrass sector alone). Many safe and
effective products have been taken away from the industry and public.
It is unrealistic to expect such drastic changes by April."

The provincial announcement stated that the ban will prohibit the sale
and use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on lawns, gardens, parks
and school yards, and includes many herbicides, fungicides and
insecticides. Over 250 products will be banned for sale and more than
80 pesticide ingredients will be banned for cosmetic uses.

DiGiovanni said, "Many jobs will be put at risk at a time when
government should be helping growth industries to expand and create
more employment. I am not aware of any other sector in history that
has been treated with absolutely no empathy. We could have helped the
government achieve its goals over time through public and industry
education. This legislation should have been phased-in in partnership
with the industry. Instead they have chosen to take a chance with
people's livelihood."

Ontario's minister of the environment John Gerretsen stated in the
announcement that his government had fulfilled its commitment to ban
the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides in Ontario. "I'm proud to say
that, when the ban takes effect on Earth Day, we will have eliminated
this unnecessary risk to our environment, our families, and especially
our children."

There are exceptions for public health or safety reasons such as
fighting West Nile Virus, killing stinging insects like wasps, or
controlling poison ivy and other plants poisonous to the touch. Other
exceptions include agriculture and forestry.

The ban takes the place of existing municipal pesticide bylaws in
different areas of the province. "It also establishes one clear set of
rules, which makes it easier for Ontario businesses to follow," says
the provincial government's press release.

"I am hoping that they see the error of such an extreme approach. We
will be there to help when they do," concluded DiGiovanni.

For additional information, visit


March 7, 2009

Cornwall Standard Freeholder

Pesticide ban a bad move

Re: Ontario's pesticide ban

It's a shame that the Ontario government is unwilling to do the hard
work of giving due consideration to the many sides of a thorny issue
when there is a vocal minority to appease. Such is the case with
Ontario's decision to ban pesticide use on lawns and gardens -a
decision that is both short-sighted and misguided.

Pesticides are ably regulated by Health Canada and they exist to give
Canadians safe and effective tools for dealing with pest problems.
Contrary to what some say, there is nothing "cosmetic" about these
products being used appropriately to protect people, property or

Pesticides help to enhance Canadians' quality of life. Too bad the
Ontario government has chosen to ignore that fact.

Lorne Hepworth, president, CropLife Canada, representing the plant
science industry



Pesticide ban is shameful

To the editor:

It's a shame the Ontario government is unwilling to do the hard work
of giving due consideration to the many sides of a thorny issue when
there is a vocal minority to appease.

Such is the case with Ontario's decision to ban pesticide use on lawns
and gardens - a decision that is both short-sighted and misguided.

Pesticides are ably regulated by Health Canada and they exist to give
Canadians safe and effective tools for dealing with pest problems.

Contrary to what some say, there is nothing 'cosmetic' about these
products being used appropriately to protect people, property or

Pesticides help to enhance Canadians' quality of life. Too bad the
Ontario government has chosen to ignore that fact.

Lorne Hepworth
President, CropLife Canada


March 7, 2009

The Ottawa Citizen

PhDs, clean out your desks

By Dan Gardner,

T hese are tough times. We all need to economize, especially
governments. So I have a suggestion for finance ministers coping with
swelling deficits.

Fire all the scientists.

All of them. Just go through the ranks of the civil service, find
everyone with a PhD, and tell them to clean out their desks. Unless
their PhD is in philosophy or something. Those people can keep their
jobs in the mailroom.

Who needs them, right? Not John Gerretsen. This week, Ontario's
environment minister announced his government's ban on the sale and
use of pesticides will come into force on April 22. That's Earth Day.
Apparently the minister is going to save Gaia.

What makes this announcement particularly promising is that Gerretsen
confirmed that one of the pesticides that will be banned

is 2,4-D. One of the world's most common herbicides, 2,4-D has been
used since the Second War and there's a small mountain of research on

And what does that small mountain say about 2,4-D? Well, like all
science, the evidence is often contradictory. And it's extremely
complex. Figuring out what it all means on balance is a very tough job
that can only be done by highly trained people in broad consultation
with other highly trained people.

If ever there were a good reason for governments to employ scientists,
assessing the safety of 2,4-D would be it.

And as it turns out, the federal government does employ scientists to
assess the safety of pesticides. They work for Health Canada's Pest
Management Regulatory Agency.

It further turns out that those scientists conducted a comprehensive
review of the research on 2,4-D. And by "comprehensive," I mean very,
very expensive.

Last spring, after the Ontario government announced its intention to
ban pesticides, but before it settled which pesticides would be
banned, PMRA released the conclusion of its very, very expensive
review: "There is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health,
future generations, or the environment will result from use or
exposure to this product."

That seems pretty clear. But Gerretsen and his government weren't
interested. They went ahead and banned 2,4-D anyway.

This clearly demonstrates that governments don't need scientists.
They're a waste of money, what with their big salaries and their labs
and computers. Fire the lot of them.

Think of the money we would have saved if, instead of funding PMRA to
review the science on 2,4-D, the federal government had told all those
Poindexters to get a real job. Drive a cab or something. Whatever.
Just take your PhD and your Bunsen burners and hit the bricks.

Of course this doesn't mean governments should abandon science. Oh no.
Science is a good thing. Everybody loves science. Even the McGuinty

In fact, when he introduced the pesticide ban, Gerretsen cited reviews
of the scientific literature produced by environmental activists and
groups like the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

Admittedly, the soon-to-be-unemployed scientists at the PMRA looked at
the same material and found it to be deeply flawed. In fact, when I
spoke to Leonard Ritter, a professor at the University of Guelph and a
leading expert on pesticides, he suggested some of the people doing
that work weren't qualified. "I don't offer patients advice on when
they should have their gall bladder taken out. And I sometimes think
it would be better if physicians, largely family physicians, who
really have no training in this area at all, it would be better to
leave the interpretation of the data to people who are competent to do

Still, let's not get all worked up about "competence" and "agendas."
What matters is that by firing all the government scientists and
letting third parties tell politicians what the science says,
taxpayers will save a bundle.

Now, I know that conservatives may object. But that's only because, in
this case, the interested third-parties informing government policy
happen to be folks conservatives don't like. But different governments
can turn to different third-parties. So sometimes it will be
corporations deciding what the science says.

That will balance things out -- and keep costs down. Everybody wins.

Everybody except government scientists, of course. But who needs them?

Dan Gardner blogs at and writes
Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


February 23, 2009

The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data Comments in Response
to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Petition to Revoke All
Tolerances and Cancel All Registrations for the Pesticide 2,4-D, may
be found here: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0877-0350 1.pdf

February, 2009

Update on the NRDC Petition to Cancel 2,4-D

The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data and the many users
of 2,4-D are proud of the more than 300 state-of-the art GLP mammalian
toxicity, ecotoxicity, environmental fate and residue studies that
support 2,4-D registrations. EPA’s recent Re-registration Eligibility
Decision of 2,4-D thoroughly reviewed this data base against the
demanding registration, food and children safety standards of FIFRA
and FQPA of 1996. As well, other governmental authorities, such as
Canada’s PMRA and the EU’s pesticide regulatory authority have given
2,4-D a clean bill of health. Simply put, few pesticides, indeed few
substances, have been so thoroughly tested and so often reviewed by
authorities worldwide as the herbicide 2,4-D. The NRDC petition
raises no new issues that have not been thoroughly considered by
others before and, significantly, raises no new evidence. The Task
Fore will submit its own comments on the NRDC petition that will
carefully respond to each allegation. We are confident that the
Agency will deny the petition and re-confirm its 2005 decision that
when used according to its label directions 2,4-D meets FIFRA and FQPA
standards for registration and residue tolerances.


March 06, 2009

Quesnel Cariboo Observer

Wear personal protective equipment when handling pesticides on the

Reduce the risk of pesticide poisoning by wearing protective equipment
whenever you are handling or applying pesticides. Pesticides most
frequently enter the body through the skin, however they can also
enter through the eyes, the nose or the mouth.

Always read the product label first. The information will help you to
assess the type of protective clothing to wear and the measures to
follow in case of an accident or a spill. Check the product
formulation: oil-based liquids are easily absorbed through the skin
and require that you protect yourself accordingly.

Dusts, wettable powders and broken particles from granules are easily
inhaled and may require that you use a respirator. Some labels may
also indicate the type of respirator to use. And bear in mind that
dust masks do not offer enough protection to be used around

While some regular heavy-weight work clothes made of tightly woven
fabrics may offer some protection, specialized chemical-resistant
clothing provides much better protection.

Wear gloves; always protect your hands with gloves whenever you handle
pesticides - including unopened or empty containers and all
contaminated equipment and clothing.

Protect your feet; wear unlined neoprene or butyl rubber boots, making
sure your pant legs are over your boots. Always clean your boots
before removing them.

And don’t forget that your eyes, your head as well as your neck also
require the same protection.

If you use pesticides on your farm, do your research and learn the
proper handling and management of pesticides.

Ensure your safety and that of your family and your co-workers.


March 6th, 2009

The Sarnia Observer

Council debates aerial spray for gypsy moths


Sarnia’s mayor is cool to a proposed aerial spray which would kill a
growing pest in Sarnia’s largest park.

The pesticide spray would kill gypsy moths that are flourishing in
Canatara Park, Oak Acres and Cardiff Park. City council will consider
a staff proposal to spray the parks at it’s Monday meeting. Bradley
said the plan, which will cost the city $75,000, is sure to be

“Even when we’ve proposed limited spraying within city parks we’ve
received letters and calls of concern,” Bradley said.

====================== 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 -