Another Point Of View On The Subject Of Pesticides

Back in April BC Golf News posted an item that was making headlines in Ontario. on the topic of the use and banning of pesticides. Recently we received a reply from an individual wishing to make a contribution on the subject and it is worthy of receiving some attention at this time.

First, however, here is the original story as it appeared on our site:
Ontario's Pesticide Ban Being Monitored By BC

Now, from his email, we present the comments of K. Jean Cottam, PhD, Ottawa, ON

(Note: BC Golf News offers no opinion on this subject and the opinions offered are merely those of the contributor) 

I am honorary Canadian observer on the Pesticide Working Group based in Washington, D.C.

A minor correction: Ontario's Pesticide Ban went into
Effect on Wednesday (April 22).

True, science has not yet proven 100% that pesticides are harmful—such results are in fact unattainable, objectively speaking. Nevertheless, evidence of pesticide harm is sufficiently compelling.

Here are some hard facts about 2,4-D industry data re-evaluation by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Clearly, with only ONE epidemiologist on staff and 350 plus toxicologists, most of whom lack the PhD degree, the PMRA is very poorly equipped for keeping records of and examining epidemiological (human) studies. Consequently, it proved impossible for the PMRA to competently examine the monumental epidemiological study of the Ontario College of Family Physicians. No independent research is conducted by the PMRA, whose scientists evaluate industry-provided toxicological (rat) data almost exclusively.

Meanwhile, evidence is growing that use of rat data has serious limitations when applied to humans. Thus it is epidemiology that links 2,4-D to cancer, impaired child development, neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's, immunological and reproductive harms, as well as diabetes.

2,4-D may be industry-tested at lower than manufacturing temperatures, thus failing to register the presence of a toxic dioxin. Only so-called 'active' portion of the ready to use product is tested; up to 99% goes untested.

When 2,4-D is used in combinations, such as PAR III, these combinations are never tested as such, even though the components are likely to be 'synergistically' reinforcing each other.

The 2,4-D industry-sponsored research is incomplete and undoubtedly motivated by self-interest in retaining the use of 2,4-D. Thus vital data are withheld from the PMRA, empowering industry spokesmen, such as
the lobbyist Lorne Hepworth, to suggest that the misleadingly and incompletely tested product is safe.

Clearly, to suggest, as lobbyists for the chemical industry are doing, that only their self-interested science is true, in contrast to the supposedly politicized data of so-called activists, does transform
science into a kind of self-serving religion.

K. Jean Cottam, PhD
Ottawa, ON
613-726-1596

If you have comments, opinions or some experience to share on his subject feel free to participate.