Home ›

LETTER: Attempt to create pesticide 'hysteria'?

by Contributor on 11 Jun 2012
in
LETTER: Attempt to create pesticide 'hysteria'?

To the editor,

I have to say, the article by Ms. Daghofer and Ms. Sears (PhD) (I could not find her name in the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's researchers list) was an interesting read. Apparently the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides is placing a blind faith in Health Canada's Pest management Regulatory Agency.

What a telling statement "placing blind faith" is, it tells me that someone has said harrumph, and lashed out because the evidence and superior arguments they thought they had, were not enough to convince the committee.

What the decision really says is that these special interest groups have not produced any evidence or data to even create a smidgen of doubt in the minds of the Committee members. Not even enough to suggest to the Committee members that a moratorium needs to be implemented in order to gather more information.

The authors then proceed to suggest that the PMRA should be conducting business in a different manner, implying that the present procedures are faulty. They are aware that the PMRA operates under Health Canada, a body which regulates products (medicines) that aim to kill and otherwise control bacteria, parasites, infections, the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells in the body, and I'm sure a host of other things.

Are they suggesting that the procedure they would like to see implemented by the PMRA be different than the procedure used by Health Canada? The PMRA should be using more stringent measures for products used to kill weeds then Health Canada should use on drugs used to kill things in humans? I'm not a doctor anymore than the authors are applicators, so I may be getting a schooling, and that's all right with me, I am always learning.

I commend them in their concerns, but it seems that attempting to create hysteria by publishing articles such as this displays nothing more than disgruntled individuals, with some intent in mind, who can not present valid science, documentation, or data  and must now revert to scaring the public so as to achieve their purpose. It seems that the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides  saw the same thing.

Henry Van Der Molen

Vernon

Mr. Van Der Molen is a contract sprayer with Supergreen Lawn and Tree Care.

Comments

Pesticide 'hysteria'

by cottamkj on 12 Jun 2012 at about 08:52.

Re: Attempt to create pesticide 'hysteria'? letter by Henry Van Der
Molen, published in the Rossland Telegraph on June 11, 2011.

We note that Mr. Van Der Molen is a contract sprayer with Supergreen
Lawn and Tree Care, hardly an impartial by-stander, which explains his
support for B.C.'s status quo.

I am retired middle-level public servant who is familiar with the
Ottawa pesticide approval scene. Indeed the Special Committee on
Cosmetic Pesticides did place a blind--and highly misguided faith--in
the Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

(Van Der Molen doesn't understand how Health Canada operates. The drug department is completely separate from the PMRA and has absolutely nothing to do with pesticide approvals. In fact the drugs department director, who recently retired, happens to be a close friend of mine.)

Here is an accurate description how the PMRA operates. No independent
research is pursued at the PMRA, where staff consists mainly of
toxicologists (rodent specialists) and very few epidemiologists (human specialists).


The PMRA has no labs of its own and fully depends on data submitted by
the industry. Vital data--e.g. information on the controversial 2,4-D
dioxin--may be withheld from the PMRA by the industry with complete
impunity.

The Standing Committee on Health of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session,
were told in April 2005 that the PMRA is not to be trusted. Among PMRA's
shortcomings were listed the inappropriate use of safety factors in
human health risks assessment concerning seniors, pregnant women,
children and fetuses as well as ignoring cumulative and combined
exposures. Note that the PMRA is partially funded by the pesticide
industry.

On the other hand, Dr. Meg Sears is an independent biochemist. She found the 2008 review of the omnipresent herbicide 2,4-D by the PMRA
completely inadequate and pointed out that, among other things, the PMRA ignored 2,4-D's links to breast and prostate cancers. (Notice of
Objection to a Registration Decision, 2008.)

There is absolutely nothing hysterical about Daghofer's and Sears'
article. What their article provides is solid facts and valid science.

I quote, "We note that Mr.

by etherial on 12 Jun 2012 at about 21:25.

I quote, "We note that Mr. Van Der Molen is a contract sprayer with Supergreen Lawn and Tree Care", who are we? The following?

Retired mid level public servant, Russian and European History teacher, and many other things does not Jean, Kazimiera, cottamkj, or anyone else writing under her name a pesticide professional or scientist make. In fact I find it sad that I have to identify myself and you do not.

How do I know this is not the person I know? Jean (or at least someone whose emails were consistent in speach and nuance) and I have emailed eachother over the years (not in the last several months, but then she is getting up there (Sorry Jean :) )) and although fiesty, not condescending once she gets to know you. The comment on my knowledge of Health Canada would not have been made in that manner. She would have answered my question, if it were possible. I am well aware that the PMRA and Health Canada each play a distinctive role apart from each other.

I am pleased that she is good friends with a former Health Canada drugs director, perhaps she can elicit an answer from him/her. Is the approval procedure for pesticides different than the approval procedure for drugs?

What are the 350 scientists in the PMRA doing? Surely they aren't being paid to sit around.

If you (all) have evidence, as you (all) seem to imply, on the 2,4-D dioxin, where is your scientific data? It can't be anywhere in evidence, or you would have produced it. You have been unsuccesful at the PMRA where any evidence should be brought. With failure there, you have courted the populace with your unfounded ideas, and been somewhat succesful, but the cause is faltering. No one should act without the facts, you don't have them, the Special Committee obviously could not act.

I'll me quite honest, I blindly follow Health Canada's PMRA recommendations and have been doing so since I started working with pesticides over 35 years ago. To the best of my knowledge I have no health issues, and go for regular checkups. I have a bunch of grandchildren on whom I dote, I would cause them no deliberate harm. I treat the lawns on which my grandchildren play, and do so in confidence.

I am partial only because I have seen no reason to disbelieve the PMRA. Since using the pestides you (all) would like to see banned is only a part of my business, I don't see this as a threat to my entire livelihood, but it does threat that of those who work for me should I need to down size. Or are you looking to ban ALL pesticides.