ÿþ<img src='smalllogo.gif' alt='Logo' /><br/><h1>Pesticide</h1><div style="font-family: 'Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif'; font-size: 30px; font-weight: bold; margin-top: 20px;">Don't accept the pesticide brush-off</div>

<div style="font-family: 'Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif'; font-size: 20px; font-style: italic; margin-top: 5px; margin-bottom: 20px;">by Sean Griffin</div>

<p>It's already more than 10 years ago since researchers in Missouri conducting a study on children with brain tumours found a strong association between those deadly cancers and the use of pesticide products such as pest strips and insect sprays in the home.</p>

<p>Two years later, a study in the Denver area showed an increase in the incidence of leukemia among people living in households where home and garden pesticides were used regularly.</p>

<p>Those are only two of several disturbing studies that link ordinary household pesticide use with an increased risk of childhood and adult cancers cited in the recent Pesticides Literature Review <a target="_blank" href="http://www.ocfp.on.ca/English/OCFP/Communications/CurrentIssues/Pesticides/default.asp?s=1"><i>(entire review)</i></a> released April 23 by the Ontario College of Family Physicians <a href="http://leas.ca/News/PressRelease_OCFP.htm"><i>(press release)</i></a>. So why isn't everybody talking about them?</p>

<p>Well, actually a lot of people are - the momentum to enact muncipal bylaws against the use of cosmetic pesticides is growing across the country, with some 64 municpal councils signed up and more putting it in the agenda. The Ontario study has helped spur that campaign.</p>

<p>But part of the problem is the pooh-poohing from the media, which regularly fill the broadcast air with stories about a confined risk such as avian flu, but dismiss the more pervasive risk of everyday toxic exposure.</p>

<p>One example was Barbara McClintock, a contributing editor to the online journal <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thetyee.ca/">TheTyee.ca</a> who wrote a piece last month that dismissed the Ontario study and even suggested that worrying about pesticides might discourage people from eating fruits and vegetables. TheTyee headlined it <a target="_blank" href="http://www.thetyee.ca/Health/current/Pesticide+Scare.htm">&quot;Beware the Pesticide Scare.&quot;</a></p>

<p>&quot;Almost none of the studies used involve ordinary families who put a flea collar on the dog, or eat non-organic produce or even use pesticides once or twice a year to get rid of the tent caterpillars on the trees or the weeds in the lawn,&quot; McClintock said.</p>

<p>It's true there aren't a lot of studies anywhere that follow ordinary families on any health issue - and that lack of data is part of the problem. But the studies that have been done on ordinary people from ordinary households - as charted in the Pesticides Literature Review - show an alarming trend. They show that pesticide use, even when it's only household pesticides, signals a higher incidence of brain and kidney cancer, leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well as other ailments, including birth defects.</p>

<p>That growing body of evidence is what has prompted various groups to urge both public and individual action to curb pesticide use. Last year, the Canadian Cancer Society published a brochure urging consumers to look for alternatives to pesticides and encouraging public support for municipal bylaws restricting pesticide use.</p>

<p>It's what prompted us at the Labour Environmental Alliance to publish the CancerSmart Consumer Guide. The 24-page guide tracks carcinogenic (cancer-causing) chemicals and reproductive toxicants in dozens of household pesticides as well as cleaning and home maintenance products. More important, it offers practical alternatives and substitute products.</p>

<p>The materials for that guide weren't just pulled off a brochure sitting at the back of the health food store - the research data is drawn from authoritative sources such as the UN International Agency for Research on Cancer and the U.S. National Toxicology Program. There's a lot of well-documented data on the ingredients in pesticides, even household pesticides - and it is scary.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, Barbara McClintock's assurance that it's nothing but a &quot;pesticide scare&quot; sound disturbingly like the assurances from the Urban Pest Management Council, the group representing manufacturers such as Dupont and Monsanto. &quot;Certain doses of pesticides can have serious health effects,&quot; acknowledged UPMC spokesperson Wendy Rose. &quot;But if they are properly used, pesticides leave only traces behind.&quot; Even if you accept that, how big are the traces? What is their effect?</p>

<p>Rose also insists that the industry is the &quot;most regulated in Canada&quot; - while arguing that that there's no need to review pesticides registered before 1995. What about the new research on health effects that's been done in the last 10 years?</p>

<p>In fact, numerous products registered for use in Canada and sold regularly in garden and home improvement stores across the province contain known carcinogens listed by IARC and the NTP and known reproductive toxicants listed by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.</p>

<p>Chlorophenoxy herbicides, such as 2-4-D, used in products such as Killex, are sold across the country as weed killers. Chlorophenoxy herbicides are carcinogenic and have been linked in studies to a higher incidence of leukemia. Captan, widely used as a bulb dust in such products as Sevin, is likewise carcinogenic.</p>

<p>According to the list in the CancerSmart Consumer Guide, there are 12 carcinogens in regular use in household pesticide products, and another four reproductive toxicants.</p>

<p>Should we be concerned about using those products even a few times? You bet. There is no science anywhere that guarantees a safe level of exposure to carcinogens. And when there are readily available alternatives - whether they're safer products or safer methods - it only makes sense that we would use those instead.</p>

<p>Then there's the question of pesticides and food? Barbara McClintock argues that raising an alarm about pesticides residues on produce is counter-productive because it will discourage us from eating fruits and vegetables, and we need them for health and cancer prevention. The curious thing is that the Ontario Physicians report never raised the issue of pesticides on food and didn't make any recommendations about fruit and vegetable consumption.</p>

<p>Still, while we're on the subject, it's worth noting that Canadian Food Inspection Agency has itself reported that the number of pesticides now being used in this country that were never before used in Canada has gone up significantly as a result of trade harmonization. And last year, the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development warned that there were 190 additional pesticides used in Canada for which CFIA has no practical detection method.</p>

<p>It's true, eating organic isn't cheap. But going organic in some cases and eating conventional produce when you can seems like a good approach as long as you have the necessary information. The CancerSmart Guide includes a &quot;most contaminated&quot; and &quot;least contaminated&quot; list - based on CFIA testing data - to help consumers decide when they can stick with conventional produce and when it's a good time to head to the organic aisle.</p>

<p>In the end, it isn't about a &quot;pesticide scare&quot; or any other kind of consumer scare. It's about providing consumers with the sound information they need to make good decisions for their own health and their kids' health. By that measure, stories such as McClintock's piece didn't cut it. Readers should go and read the Ontario Family Physicians study for themselves.</p>

<p>Don't accept the pesticide brush-off.</p><br/><br/><small>http://leas.ca/Pesticide.htm <br/>Updated: May 22, 2005</small>