Canadians Against Pesticides - ABOUT CAPS

Home About Us Message Health The Ban Solutions The News Mission Email Us
CanadiansAgainstPesticideS
www.caps.20m.com
Pesticide Debate heats up
Brantford holds public forum
The Brantford Expositor
Thursday, March 15, 2001
Letter to the Editor - Noel Almond

WHAT: PUBLIC FORUM ON PESTICIDES
WHO: JANET MAY-
TORONTO ENV. ALLIANCE
WHEN: MONDAY MARCH 19, 2001 - 7:30PM
WHERE: UNION GAS BUILDING, BRANTFORD, ONTARIO

Noel Almond writes that in response to Christine Bonham's letter March 10, her statement "that study after study concludes that if these products (pesticides) are used as directed, they have no harmful effects" must be examined on the basis of when they were approved, who provided the research information and the lack of public scrutiny.

The report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development remarked in his 1999 report that the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency) had gained a reputation of being a "closed shop.''

"The federal government would never be allowed to conceal its reports on fiscal matters... yet it considers this type of secrecy (by PMRA) to be the norm."

The committee agreed with the observation of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund which indicates "public involvement in the decision-making process of registration (of pesticides) is at an unacceptable level by today's standards.

"The federal government would never be allowed to conceal its reports on fiscal matters or prohibit the public from commenting on budgets, yet it considers this type of secrecy (by PMRA) to be the norm.''

"It would appear that there is a simple lack of accurate public information on the safety or otherwise of pesticides available from the PMRA."

The lack of public information on pesticides and the approval process was a major concern of the pesticide committee. It would appear that there is a simple lack of accurate public information on the safety or otherwise of pesticides available from the PMRA.

The heavy reliance on registration fees for the agency's operation casts doubt on its independence and the direction of its mandate.

If one cares to absorb the information regarding the terrible consequence resulting from the global use of pesticides whether they are used as directed or in an irresponsible manner, the only logical conclusion is that we must change our attitude regarding pesticide use and the chemical soup that we ingest through air, water and food.

Should we be judged as being ignorant of the truth as we attempt to create greater awareness of the harmful effects of pesticide wherever they are found?

Those working to create increasing awareness of pesticides are neither damning the professionals of the lawn care industry or trying to put them out of business.

We believe that if people must have lush manicured lawns there are more environmentally friendly ways of producing the desired result. With increasing demand for organic lawn care, the reality of business suggests that the professionals in the lawn care industry will respond to that need. We are the thoughtful people attempting to accelerate that demand.

Public interest thrives on controversy. Controversy explores opposing views and results in a better informed public.

Join other interested people on March 19, at 7:30 p.m. at the Union Gas building to listen to and ask questions of Janet May, Pesticide Campaign Director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance.