PEI AG Minister 'spins' frightening pesticide statistics
Tuesday, February 11, 2001
By Sharon Labchuk, Earth Action
A couple of weeks ago Earth Action released the latest agricultural
pesticide sales figures for PEI. We didn't compile these numbers - the PEI
Department of Agriculture did. Since the report revealed a disturbing 30%
increase in pesticide sales from 1998 to 1999, we knew there was no way
government would announce the numbers.
Nabbed by media for an explanation, Minister of Agriculture Mitch Murphy
responded with a combination of BS and propaganda. He said that while he
couldn't dispute the numbers (how could he? - they came from his staff),
his department has implemented a 'pesticide reduction strategy'. The
brazenness and gall of these boys never ceases to amaze me. There is no
pesticide reduction strategy. You can bet that if there were a strategy,
the Province would have tried to score points with the public by unveiling
it in a huge media event long before now.
| "...since there is no system on PEI to
collect pesticide use data, like there is in California for example, claims
of pesticide reduction are nothing more than propaganda" |
To have a pesticide reduction strategy means there must be some way to
measure pesticide reduction. And since there is no system on PEI to
collect pesticide use data, like there is in California for example, claims
of pesticide reduction are nothing more than propaganda.
The province collects sales data from pesticide dealers on a voluntary
basis only. This crude estimation of sales in no way provides information
about quantities and types of pesticides used on specific crops.
California requires growers to submit detailed records of pesticide use for
each field sprayed. Only when this kind of information is available can
any claims for reduction be substantiated.
Minister Murphy goes on to claim that early numbers for the year 2000 show
a substantial decrease in pesticide use compared to 1999. This claim is
highly suspect for a number of reasons.
1. The year 2000 just ended and the province never has sales figures ready
for at least a year. Three weeks into the new year and Murphy has estimates?
2. The weather in 2000 was very favourable for blight compared to 1999, and
the number of reported cases in 2000 was much higher than in 1999. Since
80% of agricultural pesticides used on PEI are for blight it's unlikely
less pesticides were used in 2000.
3. However, potato growers were offered money (tax dollars) to dig their
crops long before harvest time because the blight situation was so bad in
2000. The reasoning was there would be smaller potatoes but less chance of
losing the whole crop to blight. Depending on how many growers took the
money, pesticides sales could show a decrease because of the shorter
growing season. However, this isn't pesticide reduction and we certainly
hope the minister isn't going to try to con the public with this scam.
4. Four, Murphy has no pesticide use data for 1999 or 2000, or any other
year for that matter.
|
The industry response to the nasty increase in pesticide sales was not
quite as imaginative. Cornered by media, the head of the PEI Potato
Marketing Board, Ivan Noonan, thought he'd salvage the image of the
industry and at the same time try to look intelligent by calling us liars.
Says Ivan (a former pesticide salesman), "Figures lie and liars figure".
| "Government and industry are committed to the industrial model of
agriculture - monoculture, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, big
fossil-fuel burning machines and global trade. There is no possibility of
pesticide elimination under this system. Minister Murphy makes this very
clear." |
He goes on to say the suggestion that farmers are irresponsibly
over-spraying is ridiculous. This tired old line is used again and again
by pesticide supporters to try and prove that growers are 'responsible'
pesticide users. We have never said growers over-spray. We maintain that
growers generally use the recommended label dose and it is the routine
legal use of pesticides that causes harm.
Government and industry are committed to the industrial model of
agriculture - monoculture, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, big
fossil-fuel burning machines and global trade. There is no possibility of
pesticide elimination under this system. Minister Murphy makes this very
clear. He has said many times over that pesticides are necessary and
beneficial.
On paper, it's possible to fake the appearance of pesticide reduction and
we should expect government to try this out at some point. Some pesticide
reduction programs in other places have relied on this deception.
Here's how it works. Pesticide use is measured by weight of active
ingredient applied. Many of the older pesticides commonly used on PEI are
heavy and bulky. The newer pesticides are generally the low-dose
high-toxicity kind. In other words, very small quantities of these
chemicals are highly toxic.
For example, some older pesticides are applied at a rate of 5.25 litres per
hectare. A newer pesticide, used for the same purpose, is applied at the
rate of 0.062 litres per hectare. The low-dose pesticide is no less toxic
than the heavier one and the risk to human health and the environment
doesn't decrease.
The older pesticides are gradually being banned in the United States and
because of potential trade restrictions, Canada is forced to follow. So as
the new low-dose high-toxicity pesticides become more popular, the weight
of pesticides sold will decrease.
Pesticide reduction, within an industrial system, is not a goal we should
support. The sooner we as a province confirm our intention to grow only
organic crops, the sooner the killing and destruction can stop. Pesticide
reduction, as the ultimate goal, will only prolong the agony and the
inevitable end - a poisoned planet.
|
