Pesticide decision a victory for Canadians
Friday, July 06, 2001
By David Suzuki
Last week the Canadian Supreme Court gave all Canadians a present
just in time for Canada Day. The court upheld a decision allowing the
town of Hudson, Quebec, to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and
herbicides. The decision opens the doors for other municipalities
across the country to consider such legislation, which would reduce
our exposure to these chemicals and help build healthier communities.

In the past few decades, the use of pesticides and herbicides for
cosmetic purposes has become ubiquitous throughout North
America. They are inexpensive, readily available, and easy to use.
And because we often mix these chemicals with fertilizers, we end up
using large quantities unnecessarily, spreading them over entire
lawns and gardens regardless of whether or not weeds or pests are
present.

But our reliance on these chemicals has a downside. Approximately
7,000 different herbicide and pesticide products are currently on the
market in Canada. These products contain hundreds of different
active agents, a large number of which were approved before 1960
when their long-term effects were not well known. Many are potent
neurological or metabolic poisons. Only a handful has been fully
tested for carcinogenic or mutagenic effects. In addition to active
agents, they contain some 5,000 other ingredients, some of which
have also been linked to cancer and other illnesses.

The pesticide industry argues that their chemicals are safe and
represent little health risk. And they point out that few studies
have exclusively implicated their products with illness in humans.
That's partly true; the connections between pesticides and health
problems in humans are not always clear cut. For example, more
than 15 scientific studies have linked Parkinson's disease in people
to environmental conditions such as working in the agricultural or
chemical industries or living in farming communities that regularly
use pesticides. But there are no definitive studies showing that
any particular pesticide currently in use in Canada can actually
cause Parkinson's.

Proving a direct causal link between pesticides and disease in
humans can be very difficult because there are so many factors
involved. The amount of a pesticide, the duration of exposure,
whether the pesticide was combined with other chemicals, the age
of the exposed individual, and his or her genetic predisposition all
play a role. But there is a great deal of evidence that many of these
pesticides, either alone or in combination, are factors in many
diseases, including Parkinson's, cancers such as non-Hodgkins
lymphoma (which has risen by 73 percent since 1973), asthma,
and others.

For example, two years ago, European researchers found that
Swedish sufferers of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were 2.7 times
more likely to have been exposed to the herbicide MCPA (found in
weed-and-feed-type products) and 2.3 times more likely to have
been exposed to the herbicide glyphosate (Round-Up). Some of
these products may also be more detrimental to the health of
children because of their smaller size and developing organs.
A study by the Ontario College of Family Physicians last year,
for example, concluded that children face undeniable risks from
pesticide exposure.

Humans today face a barrage of industrial chemicals, from
pesticides and herbicides to motor vehicle and diesel exhaust,
PCBs, cleaning agents, solvents, and more. We breathe
combinations of these chemicals in the air, drink them in our water,
and eat them in our food. Yet when we test them, we do it
individually because studying combinations quickly escalates
into an impossible number of variables. Given our valid suspicions,
shouldn't the burden of proof be on the manufacturers to prove that
their products are safe rather than on the public to prove that they
are not?

People tend to associate beautiful, lush gardens with health and
vitality. But with the increasing use of pesticides, our gardens
have become a paradox. They look beautiful, but they may harbor
chemicals that are decidedly unhealthy. A lawn or garden does not
require the constant input of herbicides and pesticides to remain
beautiful. Hopefully the recent court decision will start a new trend.

Copyright 2001, Environmental News Network

http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/07/07062001/science_pesticide_44163.asp

* * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn