Government Hypocrites on Pesticides & Children's Health
1) London has one of the highest cancer rates in Canada. See: Breast Cancer Rates, 1986 to 1995
2) Pesticides are toxic and contribute to Cancer and other diseases. Particularly in children*. London's Public Health Officer, the individual responsible for our health, has said pesticides "pose a serious health risk to the residents of London."
3) The government regulatory body is pretty much funded by the industry. ("The Pest Management Regulatory Agency "basically sits in the lap of its industry partners and throws pot shots at the medical community without ever engaging them," she said in an interview. "It really does seem they're acting with and for the pesticide industry and not for the health of Canadians."" Extracted from: Critics blast Ottawa over leaked research Health Canada's objectivity is questioned after findings on herbicide safety were e-mailed out, posted on Web)
4) Accidents will happen hence there is no need to take unwarranted risks above those already posed particularly when there is no need to use toxic products in the first place (for cosmetic uses, especially when alternatives are available).
5) Non toxic ecological methods to maintain lawns work. One great example is the Festival Theater at Stratford Ontario.
6) There is more potential for jobs form non toxic ecological treatment of lawns than the obsolete use of toxic products. So the loss of jobs argument is about as hollow as:
7) The argument that cosmetic use of pesticides violates an individual's property rights is not legally valid, when potential for damage to the health of the constituents is considered. See: The Pesticide Debate: Property Rights Vs. Public Health
8) London voters by a wide margin are in favour of a full ban. See: May 29th, 2006 week "A-Channel News" poll on "What kind of pesticide bylaw would you support in London?" here are the results:
1. A Total Ban – 61%
2. A Partial Ban – 17%
3. Current Regulations – 14%
4. No Regulations – 8%
With such a solid case particularly when the London voters have clearly indicated their need for a full ban, not to mention the many other city precedents; yet half of the City's council can't support what the people want? Why are so many councillors especially Van Meerbergen, Polhill, Miller, Gosnell, Monteith, Hume, Chahbar, Tranquilli, Caranci, MacDonald and Alder** so insistent in protecting the essentially redundant use of these toxins? "Actions speak louder than words". Hence, one need not even ask who these councilors are working for? It is clear that this disgraceful bunch are working for their industry cronies.
Constituents in London have given the City a firm direction. The tax payers have spoken and demand that these industry stooges listen to the voters. We surely will remember them in the up coming election!
Chris Gupta P. Eng.
----------------------------
* Polluted Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families (June 2006)
** See the pdf file for a detail breakdown of how each MP voted on the opposition motion on pesticides here.
====================
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and his government cared so much about this issue why did they vote against an NDP motion to ban toxic pesticides just two weeks ago? Actions speak louder than words.
====================
39th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD * NUMBER 031
CONTENTS
Thursday, June 1, 2006
+-The Environment
+-
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a groundbreaking study released today shows that the Government of Canada is failing to protect Canadians from toxic compounds. The diseases caused include cancer, developmental disorders and respiratory disease. The most alarming thing in this study is to find that the children very often have higher levels of contamination in their bodies than their parents. We should all be concerned about this.
Will the government continue the Liberal practice of allowing our children to be poisoned or will it take strong action?
+-
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this government will not continue on with the Liberal practice.
My office has been working closely with Dr. Rick Smith from Environmental Defence. The House might be interested to know that the Minister of Health and myself have offered to participate in a study to raise the profile of the toxins in our children's blood and to take some measures to address those.
+-
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and his government cared so much about this issue why did they vote against an NDP motion to ban toxic pesticides just two weeks ago? Actions speak louder than words.
These parents volunteered for this study and they are horrified at the level of toxicity in their children's bodies.
The Prime Minister has an obligation to make industry accountable, to establish timelines and to regulate the toxic chemicals and eliminate them. Will he or will he not do it?
¸ +-(1430) +-
Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was this Prime Minister who agreed to open up the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for review by the environment committee which the Liberals held off doing for over a year. This is the act that environmental groups want to see amendments brought forward on to ensure we address these important issues. It is actually the NDP members who are collaborating with the Liberals to hold up that review in committee.
====================
Fri 26 May 2006
Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Times
MP played politics with pesticides
Editor:
Open letter to MP Randy Kamp:
Last week, Jack Layton brought a motion before Parliament in Ottawa to put a moratorium on the non-essential use of pesticides all across the country. About 100 cities and municipalities all across Canada, as well as the whole province of Quebec, already have bylaws and our council here is in the process of drafting a bylaw for Maple Ridge.
CPR! Maple Ridge (Campaign for Pesticide Reduction) has sent you materials about pesticides and we expressly asked you in a letter for your support.
You, Randy, our Member of Parliament , voted against this motion.
Are over 3,600 signatures on a petition last year, 54 local physicians signing a letter supporting restrictions of pesticide use and our local council in the process of drafting a pesticide bylaw, not enough of a mandate? I think that your constituents in Maple Ridge have given you a firm direction: they favour restrictions for non-essential pesticides.
How then could you, Randy, in good conscience vote against Jack Layton's motion to restrict non-essential pesticide use?
You have pledged to represent your constituents of Maple Ridge in government. You were elected to be our voice in Ottawa. However, you preferred to play party politics rather than stand up for the people you represent. You did not even speak to the motion. Not a single Conservative member voted in favour of this motion.
Have MPs become so emasculated that they have to vote along party lines rather than the issue at hand? Why then do we elect MPs, if they cannot represent us, but have to vote as told?
Is this the government that ran on cleaning up government, of listening to the people, on representing ethics and values? Are you surprised when people get cynical about politicians?
We are very disappointed. We had expected better.
Fortunately we have at least one politician who is representing us. Our local MLA Michael Sather stood up in the Legislative Assembly last week and spoke about our campaign and had great praise for the efforts in our community to restrict non-essential pesticide use.
Maria Raynolds
CPR Maple Ridge
====================
Jun 2, 2006
NB Telegraph-Journal
Teenager diagnosed with blood disorder often caused by environmental poisoning
Jun. 2, 2006
Toronto Star
Toxic tally alarms family Chemicals found in parents, kids Watchdog group conducted study
.
====================
June 2, 2006
The Globe and Mail
Toxic cocktail found in children Study discovers wide exposure to host of pollutants
====================
Children polluted with chemicals: report
======================
For the full text of the debate go here
1Ž4 (1850)
Liberal Party of Canada makes wrong choice on pesticides
Based on the chronic failures of Health Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, as stated in the House of Commons on May 16, 2006. and based on the outcome of the NDP motion concerning non-essential pesticide use one can only conclude that protecting the health of all Canadians from the unwanted exposure to synthetic lawn toxins, such as the controversial herbicide 2,4-D, is clearly not a priority of the current federal government. See the pdf file for a detail breakdown of how each MP voted on the opposition motion on pesticides here.
YeasNays Party
280 New Democratic Party
5932 Liberal
0124 Conservative
050 Bloc Québécois
01 Independent
87207
The lack of support from the Bloc Québécois was most disappointing. The Liberal MPs who either failed to vote or failed to support this motion should also be questioned to failing to respect the wishes of their party membership as stated in Liberal Party of Canada Priority Resolution #113 adopted at the Party Convention in Ottawa on March 19th, 2000:
----------
March 19, 2000 - At the annual convention of the Liberal Party of Canada on March 16-19, 2000, in Ottawa, party delegates adopted priority resolution #113 concerning the cosmetic use of pesticides which states:
"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."
----------
--
Mike Christie
(613) 228-7499 / bus.
(613) 228-7487 / fax.
mikechristie#rogers.com / e-mail
The Laws of Ecology: "All things are interconnected. Everything goes somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Nature bats last."
by Ernest Callenbach
posted by Chris Gupta on Wednesday June 7 2006
URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2006/06/07/government_hypocrites_on_pesticides_childrens_health.htm
Related ArticlesArtificial Water Fluoridation: Off To A Poor Start / Fluoride Injures The Newborn
Please watch this short 5 minute video: Little Things Matter: The Impact of Toxins on the Developing Brain Toxins such as Arsenic, Lead, Mercury, Aluminum and other known and unknown chemicals, that are often above the legal limits, are deliberately added to our water to manage the disposal of toxic industrial waste chemicals under the pretense of "safe and effective" for water fluoridation mantra.Knowing and acting on the above should... [read more]
December 30, 2014 - Chris GuptaDrinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris GuptaDemocracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta
