Sandra Finley

2018-05-19 Summary, NO, Health Canada DID NOT decide to de-register one of the chemicals linked to death of bees and song birds (the neonic “imidacloprid”)

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 192018
 

I explained to my NDP MP that he has been misled by old information,  re the PMRA and the withdrawal of imidacloprid (a “neonic” – bee killer).

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE:

 

  • PMRA = Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada.
  • Director of the PMRA – Richard Aucoin.
  • Deputy Minister, Health – Simon Kennedy,  his bio 
  • Minister responsible – Marie Ginette Petitpas Taylor representing New Brunswick, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe,   Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl.gc.ca
  • Parliamentary Secretary, Health – Bill Blair, Scarborough Southwest
  • Ag Canada (agricultural chemicals) also plays an influential role in the PMRA, as witnessed by (from my letter to my MP):

In response to the PMRA decision, Agriculture Canada established a multi-stakeholder forum on neonicotinoids, which lead to the development (of) the EMWG.   (Working Group)

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

SUMMARY

My MP (BC, NDP, Gord Johns, Gord.Johns@parl.gc.ca) replied to petition I signed re the neonic, imidacloprid  (killer of bees & songbirds).

I think Gord Johns sincerely believes what he sent.

Political parties in general, will have a template reply for MP’s to use for the neonics.

If all the parties are relying on the same information from the PMRA, they are being duped.

 

We are the closest we’ve come to de-registering the bee killer chemicals.  Now is not the time to be re-assured by false info, and therefore stop the actions that WILL end their use.   

(Municipal bylaws circumvent the infiltration and control of the PMRA by the industry.  But simultaneously, municipal bylaws do not address the serious problem of corruption of governance – – which is the root, the reason for regulatory inaction (“regulatory capture”.)

 

MP’s and the public need to know:   The PMRA HAS NOT MADE A DECISION TO DE-REGISTER IMIDACLOPRID.

As I explained to Gord Johns:

I hate to tell you this: a decision on imidacloprid has NOT been made.  You were misled by old information.

I hope you will look at   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=21075  (my full reply to you).

I think you will find the documentation to be more than sufficient:   the initial decision has effectively been retracted.  And then delayed a couple of times.   Currently,  the stated expectation for the first of the 3  neonics is a decision by the end of 2018.  So the actual status of the neonics in Canada is thus far unchanged.

The decision is hanging in the balance.

IF a decision to de-register is made, the PMRA will grant (my guess) 5 years for the manufacturers to sell off existing product.  (In the past they allowed the manufacturer of “mecoprop” NINE years to sell off an unsafe, de-registered product.   IF a decision to ban imidacloprid is made in December 2018, effectively, we will be looking at “by December 2023“.

The industry has thus far been effective in subverting the stated original decision by the PMRA to de-register.   I don’t think one can predict the final outcome with any confidence.

Sometimes things just get spun out and spun out;  the initial statement (decision made to de-register) becomes an embedded belief (as in Gord Johns’ email to me).  Citizens are reassured, they move on to other priorities,   . . .  they forget about bees and neonics.   Meanwhile,  the act never happens,  the established practice of use just continues.

You will notice in the PMRA documentation that the pollinators (or “bees”) are never mentioned – – in spite of the 46,000 communications they received, most of which would have been based on the killing of the pollinators.

There will be a reason,  like:  they cannot refute the research when it comes to bees.  So they focus on aquatic insects and then do industry-influenced research (see my full reply to you, http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=21075)  to show that imidacloprid really has minimal impact on the aquatic creatures, so there’s no need to de-register imidacloprid.  Strategy:  never say the word “bees”.

I suggest that we keep the “Bees”  front and centre by relentlessly referring to them.   Don’t adopt, don’t allow the diversion.

my response to my MP

/Sandra

2018-05-18 Letter to my MP: No, imidacloprid has NOT been “withdrawn” in Canada. (The neonic imidacloprid (death of bees, song birds, banned in EU)).

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 182018
 

(Gord Johns is my MP (NDP ))

NOTE   I didn’t include this:    2018-04-12  Lawsuit blaming pesticides for bee deaths will go ahead, CP (neonics, imidacloprid, PMRA)

RELATED:   Summary, NO, Health Canada DID NOT decide to de-register one of the chemicals linked to death of bees and song birds (the neonic “imidacloprid”)

 

Dear Gord,

SUBJECT:   The neonic named imidacloprid

 

I appreciate the information in your reply to my communication of April 30, 2018 (copy at bottom).

Please consider:

  • The PMRA quote provided in your reply is from March 7, 2017.
  • Your email to me is dated May 16, 2018, more than a year later.

You correctly represented the situation at March 7, 2017:

  • The NDP believes that the Agency’s decision regarding imidacloprid is based on science and aims to protect our environment. We hope that in this case, science and environmental protection will continue to take precedence over the economic interests of major corporations that design pesticides. 
  • Re the “Agency’s decision” you wrote:  “Here are comments made by the PMRA’s Executive Director before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the Agency’s decision to withdraw the pesticide imidacloprid

 

The situation as at May 16, 2018,  is incorrectly represented.   From the documentation below:

So:  the decision told to the Standing Committee March 7, 2017 was retracted.   In June 2017 – – don’t expect a decision until at least December 2017.  In November 2017,  don’t expect decisions until at least December 2018.

Imidacloprid has NOT been “withdrawn”, as you were led to believe.  If the industry has its way,  imidacloprid will not be de-registered.

The re-evaluation process commenced in 2013.  The maybe-December 2018 date means it will take at least 5 years to arrive at a decision for the one neonic.  The PMRA speaks of “3 to 5 years” for “phase-out”, if the decision is to de-register.

Reminds me of mecoprop.  The re-evaluation led to de-registration with a 9-year period to allow the manufacturer to sell off existing product.  So, for 9 years, consumers would read the label “Safe if used according to label instructions“.  But the re-evaluation was that the chemical is NOT safe.

If the product is tainted beef, for the protection of the public, the meat has to be immediately removed from the shelf.  The difference in the two products:  the effects of the chemicals don’t show up immediately,  people can’t readily observe cause-and-effect health relationships.  The PMRA has a “let them eat cake” attitude toward citizens.

In the (information below),  you will find CONTEXT, and the situation, as at May 16, 2018.

Thank you for your relentless efforts in support of the Common Good.

Forgive me – – there is TOO MUCH information below.   I come from the Prairies.   A figure from the 1990’s:  one third of the chemicals (agricultural/horticultural) sold in Canada are sold in Saskatchewan.   You can imagine that when an attempt was made to get a pesticide bylaw in Regina (1990’s) CropLife Canada (lobbyists for a corrupt industry)  immediately dispatched a Team to Regina to work behind the scenes to ensure there would be no such bylaw.

It is irrelevant that the levels of developmental problems in children, of childhood cancers, of other cancers and diseases in the Province have been normalized.  Entire industries have grown up around them.  Songbirds like the Meadow Lark that were abundant in my childhood are today a rarity.  I know whereof I speak:  we raised money to bring Dr. Elizabeth Guillette from the University of Florida to give a presentation to Regina City Council.  Her research into the effects of agricultural chemicals on children is heart-breaking.  A corrupt and corrupting industry, a corrupted regulator are the culprits.  If justice existed in Canada, they would be in jail.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

= = = = == = = = = = =

I understand why you would believe that imidacloprid was withdrawn.  You quote Richard Aucoin, Director:

One of the key outcomes of PMRA’s re-evaluation of the neonic imidacloprid was the conclusion that the use of imidacloprid in Canada is causing harm to aquatic environments. » Mr. Richard Aucoin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada), March 7, 2017

Also, the Globe&Mail had reported earlier, November 23, 2016 (article:  “Health Canada plans to phase out controversial pesticide“):

Health Canada said Wednesday it wants to phase out a controversial pesticide that’s come under increasing scrutiny because of its possible role in the decline of the bee population. But the new federal phaseout is being done because of the risk to aquatic insects, not pollinators.

Health Canada said in a news release that the current use of the pesticide imidacloprid is “not sustainable” and that the levels found in waterways and aquatic environments “are harmful to aquatic insects” including mayflies and midges, important food sources for fish, birds and other living things.

Bayer Crop Science is the major manufacturer of the neonic imidacloprid.

CropLife Canada is the lobby machine for the chemical-biotech industry in Canada.  Bayer is a member.   CropLife International is a mother organization.

 

The PMRA began its evaluation of imidacloprid  at the very latest, in 2013.  By the end of 2016, the PMRA made an announcement – – Canada would do a phaseout:

  • based on the science
  • aided (I would guess) by what was happening in Europe.  The results of that:  in April 2018, the member states of the European Union made a decision to ban the three main neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam) for all outdoor uses.  France had already passed a law to phaseout all neonics;  they begin phaseout in September, 2018.

A phaseout of chemicals that are known to be killing pollinators and songbirds is a GLOBAL issue.   People around the Planet have banded together in an informed and sane voice to insist on phaseout.  (Judging from your reply, I think you know and support that effort.)   By September 2014 – –

Seattle Joins the Growing List of Cities To Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides

I found in this posting, a list of Canadian provincial governments and municipal bans on pesticides  Where Can Bans be Found (in Canada)?  https://pesticidealternativesnl.wordpress.com/rest-of-canada/  

I don’t know to what extent the Canadian bans are enforced, but they are there for citizens to call upon, if needed.  The Seattle posting infers that American communities and jurisdictions that have enacted pesticide bylaws in the past, have effectively created a ban on the bee and songbird-killing Neonics.

The PMRA is in bed with the chemical-biotech corporations.   Because of  weak or non-existent federal regulatory capacity (corruption),  numerous jurisdictions across Canada found it necessary to step into the breach and pass local bylaws to protect the health of the community.  Hudson, Quebec was the first such municipality.  The industry backed a legal challenge to a bylaw that outlawed certain of their products.   The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court ruled that municipalities have the right, indeed the responsibility, to pass bylaws for the protection of residents.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

So what’s going on at the PMRA (Health Canada)?

Begin with just one reputable source to support that the PMRA initially did the right thing – a phaseout of imidacloprid.

2012-04-05   Use of common pesticide (imidacloprid) linked to bee colony collapse, research, Harvard School of Public Health

For those who don’t know:

General info on the Neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid, from Wikipedia. (the 3 main neonicotinoids are now banned in the EU – they are killing off the pollinators).

Then we have (you are the source!):

2017-03-07   PMRA (Health Canada) tells the House of Commons Standing Committee its decision to withdraw imidacloprid

 

The industry launches an all-out effort and we have:

2017-06-08   Health Canada holds off on neonicotinoid ban, Western Producer

Health Canada won’t issue a final decision on whether it will ban imidacloprid for at least six months, says a horticultural industry representative.

6 months means:   a decision at the end of 2017.  So the decision announced in March was retracted, according to the source.

More damning research on neonics:

2017-11-13   Neonics linked to songbird deaths, Western Producer

 

The PMRA puts off and puts off.

2017-11-30    Imidacloprid decision expected Dec. 2018, Western Producer

“Once this information is reviewed, the proposed decisions will be subject to a public consultation period and final decisions are anticipated by December 2018.”

So:  the decision told to the Standing Committee March 7, 2017 was retracted.   In June 2017 – – don’t expect a decision until at least December 2017.  In November 2017,  don’t expect decisions until at least December 2018.

The PMRA main source of information for citizens,  on the status of Neonics in Canada:

“Update on the Neonicotinoid Pesticides, Government of Canada” website. (Dated December 2017).

Note:  During the public consultation for imidacloprid, approximately 46,000 comments were received.   (emphasis mine)

 

By March 2018 the Industry has a study in place:

2018-03-09   Study says neonicotinoid ban not the answer, Western Producer

No surprise. The “told” and “not told”:

We are told:

  1. . . .  said Warren Ward of the Canola Council of Canada during the University of Saskatchewan’s Soils and Crops event in Saskatoon.
  2. In response to the PMRA decision, Agriculture Canada established a multi-stakeholder forum on neonicotinoids, which lead to the development (of) the EMWG.
  3. The Environmental Monitoring Working Group (EMWG) was set up to monitor the presence . . .
  4. Provincial and Canadian grower associations provided most of the funding for the EMWG.

There is plenty of documentation on my blog, more than the following:

We are not told  (related to the preceding 4 points): 

that CropLife Canada, the industry’s lobby machine, sits on the PMRA’s Advisory Council, beginning at least as early as 2006.

RE  #1:  The chemical-biotech, industrial agriculture corporations, beginning with Monsanto in the early 1980’s, took over the University of Saskatchewan Agricultural College.  They provided (in 1980 dollars) $11 million towards the construction of a new College, and they fund research.

RE #4 (the funders of the EMWG):   “Grower associations”, like the Canola Council of Canada, are well-resourced because of a system of “check-off fees” collected from farmers per bushel (or metric equivalent) of crop sold.  The “crop science” corporations like Monsanto, Bayer, etc.  wield influence.  The gifts flow two ways.  One example:  Ernie Sirski (MB, Canola Council) and his wife went to Spain, compliments of Monsanto.   The Canola Growers subsequently reciprocated – they intervened on the side of Monsanto in the Supreme Court of Canada when Monsanto took SK farmer Percy Schmeiser to court.   This is old, but well written and still applies:  2002-12-09   What happens when farm leaders meet agri-business? Winnipeg Free Press, Professor Arthur Schafer

The corruption in the industry is long-standing.  Little, if anything, has changed.  CropLife remains on the PMRA Advisory Council.   You may want to glance at some of the following:

2006-11-07    (14)  How good are fine words when CropLife is on the PMRA Advisory Council?

Has a list of about a dozen numbered examples of outrageous breeches by industry members,  you may wish to skim the list.

2006-12-08   (15) Renowned cancer scientist (Sir Richard Doll ) was paid by chemical firm (Monsanto)

For 20 years.  And he delivered.

2005-06-15   Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance & Control Program (CCCSCP), Evidence of need for inquiry at Health Canada

The CCCSCP story is a travesty beyond description.

2004-04-10   Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me.  Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.

I said there was a conflict-of-interest, which there was.  For that, I received a letter from Wolf’s lawyer,  ending with “. . . we wish to put you on notice that any further similar actions by yourself will result in legal action being commenced against you without further notice.

Please govern your actions accordingly.

I hurled back a challenge to the intention of the letter which closed the matter.

(This posting):

2018-05-17  Letter to my MP: No, the neonic imidacloprid has NOT been “withdrawn” in Canada.

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Gord.Johns  (my MP)
Sent: May 16, 2018 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: Canada should ban bee-killing neonics in 2018!

Dear Sandra,

Thank you for taking the time to write to us about the decision made by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) regarding the use of the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid.

Like you, the NDP wants decisions to be science-based and we want to ensure that our environment and human health are not being compromised.

 

In November 2016, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published the results of its risk assessment of imidacloprid. Following that assessment, the PMRA proposed that most agricultural uses of imidacloprid be phased out over a three to five year period, depending on the availability of adequate alternatives. Here are comments made by the PMRA’s Executive Director before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the Agency’s decision to withdraw the pesticide imidacloprid:

 

«As part of our broader, cyclical re-evaluation of the three major neonics, we are conducting an examination of all the available science—this is both published and proprietary information—regarding risks to the aquatic environment. These risks are evaluated in the context of how neonics are used in Canada and all the available information. This includes actual levels found in water by federal and provincial governments and academic sources in Canada. We have completed our review of the risks to the aquatic environment of the neonic imidacloprid, one of the three neonics, and the reviews of two other neonics are in progress. One of the key outcomes of PMRA’s re-evaluation of the neonic imidacloprid was the conclusion that the use of imidacloprid in Canada is causing harm to aquatic environments. » Mr. Richard Aucoin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada), March 7, 2017

 

The NDP believes that the Agency’s decision regarding imidacloprid is based on science and aims to protect our environment. We hope that in this case, science and environmental protection will continue to take precedence over the economic interests of major corporations that design pesticides. The Agency must continue to make science-based decisions and pursue its regular re-evaluation of pesticides that may be harmful to humans or the environment.

 

We thank you again for contacting us.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Gord Johns, MP Courtenay-Alberni

 

—–Original Message—–

Sent: April 30, 2018 1:36 PM

To: The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Minister of Health; Johns, Gord – M.P.

Cc: Prime Minister’s Office

Subject: Canada should ban bee-killing neonics in 2018!

 

Dear Minister Petitpas Taylor,

 

As the minister responsible for pesticide regulation in Canada, please cancel the registration of all neonics in Canada without further delay.

 

Neonicotinoid insecticides contaminate the environment. They represent a major worldwide threat to biodiversity and ecosystems and ecosystem services.

 

I support the PMRA’s proposed phase-out of the neonic imidacloprid, but I’m concerned about the timeline. The PMRA evaluation found imidacloprid contaminating Canadian waterways at levels harmful to aquatic insects that are important food for fish, birds and other animals. Delaying action for another three to five years, as proposed, would allow this chemical to continue to accumulate in the environment and prolong risks to many beneficial species.

 

Furthermore, comprehensive action is needed on all neonics, as chemicals in this class have similar and cumulative effects.

 

The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that neonics pose a serious danger to bees. EU member countries are expected to approve a proposal to ban neonics in a vote later this spring. France already passed a law to phase out all neonics, starting in September 2018. Parallel comprehensive action is needed in Canada to protect pollinators, ecosystems and food security.

 

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

 

CC: The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister

 

2005-06-15 Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance & Control Program (CCCSCP), Evidence of need for inquiry at Health Canada

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 172018
 

—–Original Message—–
From: Sandra Finley

I submitted the following letter to the Standing Committee on Health.  Newcomers may be interested in what happened to the Childhood Cancer Surveillance Program at Health Canada.  It still troubles me greatly . . .  read on.

===================================

TO:  Members of the Standing Committee on Health:

The Chair (Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)), James Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni, CPC), Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC), Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ), Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.), Jean Crowder (Nanaimo-Cowichan, NDP,) Ruby Dhalla (Brampton-Springdale, Lib.), Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC), Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ), Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.).

————————————————————————-

CONCERNING:  remark by Committee member Réal Ménard, May 19th, “I think that it almost warrants a public enquiry“.

MORE EVIDENCE OF NEED FOR AN ENQUIRY:

–  HEALTH CANADA CUT FUNDING FOR THE CANADIAN CHILDHOOD CANCER SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL PROGRAM (RESEARCH IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO ADDRESS CAUSE OF DISEASE),   WHILE

–  RE-DIRECTING PUBLIC MONEY TO THE HEALTH RESEARCH FOUNDATION (RESEARCH THAT “HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIALIZATION” BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, RESEARCH TO “CURE” DISEASE)

The research that is NOT funded is a condemnation of Health Canada.  It says “it is okay to get the disease.  There are interests who can make money curing you.  We will send the tax dollars to them.”  Research in the public interest, which is the role of Government, is gutted.

The Canadian Institute for Child Health (CICH) issued reports that the incidence of cancer in children increased by 25% in 25 years.  In that context, Health Canada cut funding for the Childhood Cancer Surveillance & Control Program.

How did this happen?  An enquiry is needed to understand what is going on.

This is a very serious matter.

It is important to consider the story of the Childhood Cancer Surveillance Program  IN THE LARGER CONTEXT OF HEALTH CANADA.  I have appended a sampling of what I know.   And in that context, here is our local experience.  It tells you that an Enquiry into the operations of Health Canada is a pressing need.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

==============

OUR LOCAL EXPERIENCE

Donna writes:

…. Visuals make an impact.

Here is the picture I spoke about – Tanya with several of her friends at a school fun night. (INSERT: there are 8 children in the photograph which was taken prior to diagnosis.) Three out of these 8 children were diagnosed with cancer. Two are now deceased. A 4th friend (not in the picture) was diagnosed this summer (2004). I have concealed the faces of all the children with the exception of my daughter to protect their privacy & that of their families.

…  I will use the example of my own experience. My 15 year old daughter was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma in 1997. In Aug. of ’98, just after my daughter had completed an extremely gruelling one year treatment protocol for her ‘mystery’ cancer, I received a request asking for my permission to release her medical files for use in a study. I was reluctant to do so without more information. Eventually I received more information from Judy Kosloski (the Provincial Study Co-ordinator located at Epidemiology, Prevention & Screening at 4101 Dewdney Ave in Regina Ph 306-766-2170).

I was told the principle investigator of the study was Marie Desmeules (613-957-0577).

(INSERT, May 17, 2018, Sandra speaking:  Marie Desmeules was later impossible for Donna to track down.  I googled on the off-chance today.   I found this, maybe the same Marie Desmeules?  http://www.goc411.ca/en/113443/Marie-DesMeules):  Marie DesMeules works as Director for Public Health Agency of Canada.  Marie can be reached at 613-952-3285)

The Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Program (CCCSCP) was announced in July 1992 by the Minister of the Federal Health Dept. The program was part of the government’s Brighter Futures initiative aimed at reducing risks to the health and normal development of children. Its goal was to contribute towards reducing the suffering and burden caused by childhood cancer. To accomplish this a nationwide information system on childhood cancer was established. One of the main objectives was to collect information on stage at diagnosis by age of the patient, geographic region & cancer site. Another was to estimate the economic costs.

From time to time I would make general inquiries into how the study was coming and receive vague replies. I have a newsletter that I received from CCCSCP in July of 2000. At this time the newsletter said ‘the overall goal of the etiology component of the CCCSCP was to establish a national, population-based database of childhood cancer cases and matched controls with detailed information on major putative risk factors. This database would be used to identify individuals or groups at high risk for developing cancer.

In Aug of 2000 I made a call to inquire how the study was coming. I spoke to Catherine Makris, a research analyst. The notes I made during our conversation say I was told that the principle investigator of the study, Marie Desmeules, had moved re job instability and was put on assignment somewhere else in women’s health. I was told that there was now zero funding for childhood cancer investigations because of Allan Rock’s budget. Things were no longer up to date but hey, they were doing their best. (As a side I made a note that a Howard Morrison was involved with a pesticide risk assessment study.)

(INSERT:  May 17, 2018:  Catherine Makris works as Senior Analyst for Public Health Agency of Canada.
Catherine can be reached at 613-796-3040    (http://www.goc411.ca/en/114504/Catherine-Makris)

My still unanswered questions & concerns are :

  • Did the collection of this data actually cease in the year 2000 despite cancer being the number one disease killer of children in North America?
  • Where is the raw data that has been collected?
  • Is this a case of information being collected and nothing being done with it?

(I have been told by someone who did a research thesis on the topic that Ag Medicine at the U of S has damning evidence. So why is nothing done with it?)

  • Was there a pesticide risk study completed that we are unaware of?
  • Has any further work been done to estimate economic costs?

(and let’s not forget the psychological and emotional costs too – At Mcmaster in Hamilton I observed parents going from the pediatric department where their child was diagnosed, straight to the shrink department where parents were put on antidepressants and antianxiety drugs.)  I myself spent a small fortune on ulcer medication and gavison.)

Most recently in writing to CCSCB this is the reply (Oct. 2004) I received:

Dear Donna:

Thank you for your inquiry. The Program you refer to, the Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Program (CCCSCP), is still in operation. However, due to decreased funding, the CCCSCP now functions at a level of intensity that is significantly lower than initially planned and implemented. Currently, the Program’s viability is directly at risk as only core salary costs have been secured. The newly formed Public Health Agency of Canada (formerly part of Health Canada) will continue efforts to work with provincial partners to secure long term viability for the Program.

Despite this, the Program has established a national network of experts which is responsive to fundamental surveillance needs within childhood cancer control. During this process, the Program has produced a number of information resources for a variety of consumers. I would be happy to send you some of these documents if you like.

Regards,

Les

So as one can see less and less money is going into determining why children in Canada get cancer.  My observation is that we, as a society, really don’t want to know why because we will have to change our individual lifestyles.  And we don’t want to interfere with economic profits.  So we myopically focus our efforts and our hope on cures that large pharmaceutical companies are happy to offer.

Donna Ell

============================

(Sandra speaking:)

(letter from CCCSCP) “Currently, the CCCSCP has no active data collection.  Departmental funding in the future will be limited to a minimal operating budget and to salaried personnel who could continue to support data analysis. … work is underway, with provincial oncology centres and other partners, to examine other possible sources of funding. …“.

This approach is extremely problematic: the Health Research Foundation says that the research which will be pursued is that which has “potential for commercialization“.

Anything that has to do with REMOVAL OF CAUSE does not have POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIALIZATION.

Research in the public interest no longer exists.  As a tax-payer I am very angry that my dollars are sent to the pharmaceutical companies through the Health Research Foundations.   (I have described my personal experience with that, elsewhere on this blog.)

 

THE CONTEXT:  FUNDING IS RE-DIRECTED FROM “PUBLIC INTEREST” TO “PRIVATE INTEREST”

Here is a little sampling, remembering that many pharmaceutical companies have large ownership stakes in the chemical companies:

(1)   The Auditor Generals’ Department has consistently condemned the operations of the PMRA (Health Canada) in a series of 4 reports, beginning in 1988.   Very little happens in response to the criticisms.

(2)   Tests that should be part of the evaluation of pesticides are not part of the process,  e.g. consideration of the existing body burden of chemicals, interactions between pesticides (exposure isn’t in isolation to one substance which is the premise of the existing evaluations), etc., etc.

(3)   Our input to the Romanow Healthcare Review Commission (March 2002).  There are very serious problems with some drugs registered for use in Canada, one example being Acutane.  In late 2004, during the U.S. Government hearings into the VIOXX scandal the lead scientist, Dr. David Graham,  went public on 5 drugs in addition to VIOXX, that are still on the market when they should not be because of the very serious side effects.  Acutane is one.

(4)   Health Canada is responsible for the safety of water in First Nations communities. In late summer 2004 there was television coverage of the situation at Saddle Lake in Alberta which is representative of other cases – failure to issue “boil water” advisories on badly contaminated water. (My guess is that too many boil water advisories reflect badly on performance reviews.)

(5)   “The Three Scientists” who blew the whistle on attempted bribery by Monsanto to get bovine growth hormone registered in Canada, fired by “Health Canada”.

(6)   When I objected to the “conflict-of-interest” of a scientist who works for the PMRA (responsible for the registration of chemicals) and who simultaneously works for the chemical industry (CropLife Canada IS the chemical/biotech industry) the Government scientist attempted to intimidate me into silence, using a letter from a lawyer that threatened to sue me if I say such-and-such.

(7)   A participant in the re-evaluation report for 2,4-D, presumeably hired by the PMRA is Dr. Keith Solomon.  Earlier in his career he was hired by the tobacco industry to present “science” which showed that second-hand smoke is benign.  He travelled from his home in Guelph, Ontario to attend a meeting of Regina City Council in Saskatchewan to present “science” to show that synthetic chemical pesticides are harmless.  His science was, among other things, shown by scientists from the University of Regina to be reliant on studies that are 20 years out-of-date.  This is the calibre of professionalism hired by the PMRA??  WHO was behind the appointment of Keith Solomon to the PMRA’s re-evaluation study on 2,4-D?  That will tell you a lot.

(8)   Regarding professionalism:  the study of epigenetics is 20 years old and has been reported, beginning at least in Aug 2003 (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Scientific American), continuing in 2004 and in June 2005 (Time Magazine, Forbes Magazine, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Washington State University News Service).

“Recent information indicates that toxic effects on health can be inherited by children and grandchildren, even when there are no genetic mutations involved. These inherited changes are caused by subtle chemical influences, …”. 

Canadians expect the “authorities” at Health Canada to be abreast of new scientific knowledge and to apply it in the decisions they make that affect the health of the environment and consequently, of Canadian citizens.  It is what they are paid to do.

There is no evidence to suggest that Health Canada recognizes the Precautionary Principle.  Why don’t they?  A professional whose knowledge is current (use the example of epigenetics) would most certainly embrace the PP.

==============================

Oct, 2004.

The issue is health – PREVENTION of disease, the humane approach. The provincial premiers and many health organizations are promoting public money for PHARMACARE, “It’s okay to get the disease, we’ll cure you”, an inhumane and expensive approach – a boon for the chemical/pharmaceutical complex – access to more public money.

David Suzuki’s recent show is timely. The “Nature of Things” (Sept 30 and Oct 3/04), re pharmaceutical companies:

“Selling Sickness” “explores the unhealthy relationships between society, medical science and the pharmaceutical industry as they promote their new miracle cures – selling not just drugs but also the latest diseases that go with them.

It looks at the growing global controversy around SSRI antidepressants and follows British Psychiatrist, Dr David Healy, patients and their families as they rock the scientific establishment with accusations that aggressive drug marketing is blurring the boundaries between medical conditions and ordinary life with potentially deadly consequences.”

“advertising corrodes science”.

13/08/2004 we circulated information re ANGELL MARCIA, former New England Journal of Medicine editor, now senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and her book “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It” (Random House, 2004).

Doctors and scientists are lobbying to require that pharmaceutical companies must register all research into their products at the time the research commences. And the results must then be reported. Currently, if there are 4 negative test results and one positive, the pharmaceutical/chemical companies will only report the one positive test (which could be a manipulated test done by a scientist who is on their payroll).

In “Selling Sickness” David Suzuki uses the drug Paxil to demonstrate how the industry manufactures “disease” (e.g. “social anxiety disorder”). They “brand” a “condition” and then use advertising and conferences for doctors, to create the flow-through demand for their drug. It is very insidious.

The health costs to the unsuspecting patient are sometimes very high. In the case of Paxil, healthy kids going through normal teenage anxieties committed suicide. Other people become addicted to a high-cost drug. Can’t get off it, or have terrible withdrawal if they attempt to get off. The documentary contains footage from the US FDA inquiry into public experience with drugs like Paxil and Zoloft.

That the Government is a collaborator with, and provides public money to, these corporations is not to be tolerated.

=================================

SUMMARY, to date, items sent to the Standing Committee on Health:

  1. Re Bill C-28, Interim Marketing Authorizations (for Committee Meeting on May 5th)

Following May 19th testimony by “the 3 scientists” who were fired, and in support of need for an Enquiry:

  1. Re Health Canada scientist who simultaneously works for chemical/biotech industry and attempted intimidation to silence citizen protest,  submitted June 4th, “My experience reinforces what the scientists are telling you”
  1. Two biotechnology events, submitted June 7th (failure to issue entry visas to scientists who support UN Biosafety Protocol and instructions to Canadian negotiators at UN Bangkok meetings to sabotage consensus on terminator technology – connections to Health Canada through biotechnology agenda of its “clients”.  Yes:  Health Canada has “clients”.  And it’s not the public interest of Canadians.)
  1. (today’s submission – hopefully the last I will make!) Health Canada cuts funding for research that is in public interest while sending tax dollars to fund research that is in private interest (“has potential for commercialization“)

2014-09-29 Seattle Joins the Growing List of Cities To Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 172018
 

Seattle Joins the Growing List of Cities To Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2014)

Last week, the Seattle City Council voted unanimously to prohibit the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on land owned or maintained by the city. Neonicotinoid insecticides have been linked to colony collapse disorder (CCD) and declining bee health that has resulted in a near devastating decline in viable managed beehives, which are critical to pollination of one-third of the nation’s food supply. Seattle is the largest city thus far to enact such a ban to protect pollinators in the absence of federal regulation. Other localities taking action include  Skagway, Alaska, Eugene, Oregon and Spokane, Washington and dozens of other jurisdictions that have adopted organic land management practices or pesticide bans on   public land, private land, parks, schools, and other land under their authority.

Resolution 31548, adopted and expected to be signed by Mayor Ed M.urray, states that the City of Seattle shall ban the purchase and use of neonicotinoids on city-owned property and calls for a national moratorium on the use of the toxic pesticides, urging the White House Task Force, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Congress to suspend the registration of neonicotinoids. Along with encouraging federal action, the resolution asks retailers within Seattle to stop selling plants, seeds or any other products that contains neonicotinoids.

“This is a modest step to help protect bees and other pollinators, which help make the Emerald City blossom every spring,” said Councilmember Mike O’Brien. “I hope the City’s move helps raise awareness about what we can all be doing to promote the health of pollinators through sustainable pest management practices.”

This success can be attributed to activists who  raised community  awareness and began a petition drive  that collected over  over 4,300 signatures and was supported by 24 organizations.  Of these groups, Central Co-Op and Seattle Sierra Club led the charge and drafted the original petition.

Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death.  Moving through the plant’s vascular system and expressing themselves through pollen and nectar,  these systemic pesticides include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. A large and growing body of science continues to link  recent global bee die-offs  to neonicotinoids, which are applied to or  incorporated into seeds for agricultural, ornamental  and garden plants. Beekeepers across the country reported losses of 40-90 percent of their bees last winter.

However, because of Washington state preemption of local authority to adopt pesticide restrictions more stringent than the sate, the ban can only go so far. That is why the city is urging the federal government to take a more proactive role in ensuring the health of bees. Even though the majority of states have to deal with preemption laws,  seven states do not establish these regressive restrictions. In fact, just this past week Skagway, Alaska enacted a comprehensive cosmetic pesticide ordinance. This particular ordinance takes additional steps to protect bees by prohibiting the sale and private use of neonicotinoid products. The Skagwag ordinance  includes a provision for  civil fines in the case of violations, $1,000 for each day in violation.

Beyond Pesticides strongly encourage communities to push their local and state leaders to fight to save the bees. Where local private property bans are not currently possible under state law, work can focus on restricting  pesticide use on public property. Whether a small municipality or a large city, education and action on unnecessary pesticide use makes an enormous difference in protecting  drinking water,  those  most vulnerable to pesticide exposure (including children and elderly), pollinators, and unique and sensitive ecosystems where people live.

BEE Protective in Your Community

One in every three bites of food  are reliant on bees, and pollinators contribute between $20-30 billion in agricultural production annually in the U.S. The decline of honey bees  and other pollinators due to pesticides and other man-made causes demands immediate action. Encourage your community or campus to be pollinator-friendly and make changes that will protect your local pollinator population. Get the Model Community Pollinator Resolution in the hands of local elected officials or school administrators. For help with your campaign, contact Beyond Pesticides.

For additional tools to support your efforts to adopt pesticide policy in your community, see Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change, and visit the BEE Protective webpage, or give us a call at 202-543-5450.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Seattle City Council, Office of the City Clerk, KGW Portland

2006-11-07 (14) How good are fine words when CropLife is on the PMRA Advisory Council?

 Change, Empowerment  No Responses »
May 172018
 

—–Original Message—–
From: Sandra Finley
Subject: (14) How good are fine words when CropLife is on the PMRA Advisory Council?

 

The longer that things go unsaid, the more unsayable they become.

 

A woman on the steps of the Community Hall in my hometown launched into an enthusiastic conversation.  I was sure she would drop a clue in the conversation and I would figure out who she was.  Forty-five minutes later we were still talking and I hadn’t a clue.  By then, the question, “Who are you?” was unsayable.

That is danger in our world today.  If we don’t stand up and say what needs to be said, now, there will be a time when we won’t be able to say what needs to be said.

Author Mary Pipher writes about America, but it could be Canada:

“In the upside-down world of today, our culture’s dysfunctional message is that healthy people accept the world as it is.  We are taught that problems are pervasive and insolvable, and that we are powerless.  Also, we hear that only radical nuts or quixotic fuzzy-brains work for social and political change.  Yet powerlessness produces despair in people and stagnation in cultures.  Throughout history, it has been the strong people who have endeavoured to make their communities better. HEALTHY PEOPLE ACT.” (My emphasis)

“In my opinion, true rebels are not anguished, angry individuals mired since adolescence in their own complaints and needs for individuation.  True rebels act from a well-developed moral centre.  They know who they are and what they stand for.  Most likely, they are fighting for something that they have spent a lifetime learning to love.

…  Too, most change agents are not saints.  If we wait for the saints to save the world it will be too late.  What change agents have in common is the need to use their own gifts to help others.”

The following needs to be said, I had better say it, and we all need to practice “saying it” before things become unsayable.

I am reminded of a recent interview on radio.  A fellow had been in the U.S. and went to see the movie “Babel” (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett).

Afterwards he wanted to talk about Babel with people he met in a restaurant.

The conversation had to be hushed.  The Americans acted in fear of the perception of people around them, were they to be overheard.

Through fear they lost their freedom to have a conversation about a movie, in a public space.  That is the time when people in the society MOST need to talk loudly!

 

(dynamic systems (of governance in this case) – the need for TIMELY and APPROPRIATE RESPONSES in order to bring the system back to stability.  To speak in hushed tones is an opposite response to what is needed if the problem situation is to be corrected.)

So here goes!

==============

How good are fine words when CropLife is on the PMRA Advisory Council?

A Continuation of:    An integrated approach to solving the problem of chemicals and health.  Began April 03, 2006.

 

This email follows:  EMAIL #13 July 20:  “Costing method is an obstacle to finding solutions to poisons in water”

 

PMRA = Pest Management Regulatory Agency, part of Health Canada.  The PMRA registers certain chemicals for use in Canada.

This email is in response to (below, scroll down for copy):

POLICY NEWS – November 1, 2006    “Chemicals management may be getting tougher…  Canada is poised to release an assessment of 23,000 chemicals, making it the first country in the world to systematically review all of the chemicals in current use within its borders.”

I regret that it is necessary for me to write this letter.  These situations should not be happening.

=================================

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Email sent to:

(1)  Federal Ministers

–  Health, Tony Clement

–  Agriculture, Chuck Strahl

–  Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn

–  Environment, Rona Ambrose

(2)  University of Saskatchewan, Board of Governors; Deans Ernie Barber and Grant Isaac

(3)  Members of PMAC (Pest Management Advisory Council):  Ambrose Hearn (Chair); Chris Andrews; Neil Arya; Richard Belanger; Irene Buka; Gary Brown; Kathleen Cooper; John Cross; Derek Daws; Karen Dodds; Drew Frankliln; Bob Friesen; Bob Whiting; Claire Infante-Rivard; Karsten Liber; Peter MacLeod; Jeremy Nichol McNeil; Glen Sampson; Alain Renaud.

(4)  Others

 

———————-

 

Dear All,

Peter MacLeod works for CropLife Canada.

On October 16 Tony Clement, Minister of Health, announced the appointment of Peter MacLeod to the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC).

 

I challenge the appointment of employees of CropLife Canada to PMAC.  And ask Tony Clement:  were you well advised?

Below you will find documentation from the public record of the practices of CropLife Canada and the corporations that fund it.

Some of you will be familiar with a close-to-home example:

From EMAIL # 9 in this series:

” DECEPTION – – INDUSTRY FRONTS – – TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION:

This tool (“fronts“) for manipulation of information became better known during Toronto’s pesticide bylaw struggle (which was successful).  Chemical industry associations establish in-name-only “organizations”  to sell the public on the benign nature of their products, througha disinformation campaign.

Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.  It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth.

The Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Toronto Environmental Coalition sound like sister organizations.  They aren’t.  One is a bona fide volunteer organization whose work is environmental protection; the other is an industry front, a telephone number and a name under which press releases are issued.

Unsuspecting media pick up the content and feed it to a public that has no way of distinguishing the reliability of the information. Other fronts in Ontario include the “Environmental Coalition of Ontario” and the “Pest Control Safety Council of Canada“.

You may have read the newspaper reports which confirmed that CropLife Canada was definitely behind the front in Toronto.   The Chief Medical Health Officer for Toronto was outspoken in his condemnation.

CROPLIFE CANADA, MAIN INDUSTRY LOBBY, CHEMICAL AND BIOTECH

Also known as the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada “represents the manufacturers, formulators, distributors and allied associations of specialty pest management products, for the consumer or professional markets used in turf, ornamental, pest management, forestry, aquatic, vegetation management and other non-food/fibre applications.”

Lorne Hepworth is the President and CEO of CropLife Canada.

(Enter “Hepworth” in the “Search” box on this blog – – upper right corner – –  for more about Hepworth.)

———————

So,  CropLife International (CropLife Canada locally) is the lobby machine for the chemical/biotech corporations.

Many Canadians believe that the Governments in Canada still suffer from high levels of corruption.  Adscam is just one example.  What will be the effect on public perception of the addition of a CropLife Canada representative to the Advisory Council for the PMRA?  Will it reinforce the existing perception or change it?  (Read the partial record of CropLife practices appended.)

But aside from that, is it ever appropriate to have the lobbyists at the table where the decisions are being made?  The decisions of the Government are to protect the common interest of the public.

From my perspective, that of the tax-paying citizen, it is completely inappropriate to have vested financial interests represented on the advisory council to the PMRA.  When the representation is from interests with the track record documented below, I am, if I may speak frankly, disgusted.  Legitimately.

A foundation stone of democratic government is that people in conflicts-of-interest must announce their conflict and remove themselves from positions of influence.  The appointment of someone from the industry lobby to the PMAC is in direct contravention of this principle.

“Chemicals management may be getting tougher” in Canada? … propaganda from the PMRA?

Glowing press releases – Words are meaningless  –  when you know the players.  Earlier I pointed out the PMRA’s use of Keith Solomon on the review panel for 2,4-D and Keith Solomon’s history.

I repeat, ad nauseum:

“... As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest.  That is its purpose. …One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. …”  (J.K. Galbraith, 2004)

I have told you that in consecutive reports, beginning in 1988, the Auditor Generals’ Department has said that the PMRA is not getting its job done.   Hardly surprising given the conflicts-of-interest.  The fancy words won’t change the situation.  The people remain the same.

 

You (the advisors to Minister Tony Clement) are undermining Canadian democracy.

Beyond some level of government-in-bed-with-industry, people become highly cynical.  They become angry and disengage.  The rule of law weakens;  why should citizens obey the laws when they’re cooked in favour of monied interests?

And you are making it difficult for the people doing good work in Government to move things ahead.  Vested financial self-interests have a well-documented track record of corruption and the creation of obstacles to progress.  CropLife Canada does not have a role in governance.  It is to be policed.

Tony Clement, in your role of Minister of Health, I urge you to remove CropLife Canada, the industry lobby, from PMAC.  Otherwise, there is no credibility.

 

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

=====================

APPENDED

EMAIL #9  Context:  Corruption of the companies, public record   May 02/06

Monday, May 1, 2006

Email to:

(1)  Federal Ministers

–  Health, Tony Clement

–  Agriculture, Chuck Strahl

–  Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn

–  Environment, Rona Ambrose

(2)  University of Saskatchewan, Office of Vice President Research, c/o Laura Zink; Deans Ernie Barber and Lynne Pearson

(3)  Others

———–

Dear All,

We solve a problem IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT.  If you do not understand or know that context, you cannot remove all the obstacles to finding a solution.  Context is “the realities of our time”.

From email #8:  “I have yet to put out the email that documents the Corrupting nature of the chemical companies, the “clients” of the PMRA. …”

This email is the documentation of the corruption.  If the parties gathered at the table do not acknowledge it and find ways to neutralize it, we will not solve the problem.

 

Thank-you for citizen input, courtesy of George:

re BASF, Minnesota Supreme Court, $52 million dollar verdict.  I have added it to the list of examples of the corrupt nature of the companies.  (BASF came up in the discussion about herbicide-tolerant wheat which will increase the chemical load on the environment, licensed by the CFIA (email #2a).)   …

Tabling of citizen input:  when you read below the appalling record of the corruption of these companies, you will understand how abhorrent and completely unacceptable it is that even one penny of tax-payer money should go to these companies, whether through Government Fronts (email #3a) or through “matched funding“.  For a Government official to say that the amounts of money are small, is simply not true.  Nor is it a reasonable defence.  The record of corruption demonstrates that these companies need to be POLICED, with no leaway.

Connie Moase, second in command at the PMRA, asked how the public might be convinced that the PMRA is doing its job?    After you read the record, you will understand that having “INDUSTRY Scientists” on panels that make any decisions related to governance or policy or regulation is to undermine public trust in the PMRA.   Propaganda will not convince anyone that the PMRA is doing its job.

…

Recently the same criticism has surfaced at the University of Guelph where Keith Solomon is from (email #8 – Solomon on the 2,4-D panel, a scientist who was bought by the tobacco industry earlier on).   …

It is my expectation that you will govern with common sense and integrity.

Read the track-record on the chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech companies. It’s long.  These people should be in jail.  They have done far more harm than jailed people have done.  It is well documented.

This context is tabled.  It is an obstacle to be dealt with if we are to achieve solutions to the problem.

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

——————

the PUBLIC RECORD:    CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, A HISTORY OF LIES AND CORRUPTION

This is just a SMALL sampling of behaviour.  It is just what we have come across in the course of our work;  we didn’t set out to compile a list.   Anyone interested in more examples can easily do an internet search.

Also, the chemical companies are owned by the pharmaceutical companies.

Together they are the biotechnology companies (biotech plants, biotech animals, biotech fish, biotech drugs).  The list below is for the chemical/biotech companies.  I have not set out anything about the pharmaceutical companies.  I believe that their history of cover-up is well enough known that the chemical company record is sufficient to make the case.  I would just add this one thing:  Aug 13, 2004 we circulated information re ANGELL MARCIA, former New England Journal of Medicine editor, now senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and her book “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It” (Random House, 2004).

It is highly unreasonable to rely on ANY information supplied by these companies themselves. They are notoriously corrupt.  If they were “citizens” they would be in jail:

(1)  SEVERELY POISONING PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND LYING ABOUT IT:

In August 2003, in an Alabama court, MONSANTO was fined $700 million for poisoning people with PCBs.  The community of people in which its plant was located and from which it drew its employees were the ones poisoned and diseased.  Monsanto KNEW what it was doing, told great big lies, in the end they were caught.

The Washington Post carried a very lengthy piece regarding the Alabama court case. The details were heart-rending – hard to believe that a company – – live people – – could be so callous.  The $700 million dollar fine reflected Monsanto’s depravity.

(INSERT: Monsanto is a member of CropLife, the industry’s lobbying machine.)

(2)  BRIBERY:

In 1998 the Senate of Canada Hearing into attempted bribery by Monsanto to get Bovine Growth Hormone licensed in Canada drew press coverage under headings such as: THE ‘PURE’ MONSANTO CO. AND HEALTH CANADA.

“Scientists pressured to approve cattle drug. Health Canada researchers accuse firm of bribery in bid to OK a questionable product.”  The bribery amount was a million dollars.  Monsanto was unsuccessful in its attempt to get BGH registered because Health Canada scientists blew the whistle.

Senator Eugene Whelan was instrumental in getting a Senate Hearing.

 

(3) BLATANT DISREGARD FOR LAWS AND FALSE ADVERTISING:

Dec 2003, The Attorney General for the State of New York fined DOW CHEMICAL $2 million (the highest amount ever for this kind of charge) for making false safety claims in pesticide ads.  This was after the State, BEGINNING IN 1994, negotiated settlements under which the Company agreed to not use the ads.

They turned around and ran the ads anyway.  They are accustomed to getting their way.  The Attorney General of New York was a surprise for them.

 

(4)  CORRUPTING SCIENCE AND THE REGULATORY PROCESS:

A reporter for the Regina Leader Post gained temporary notoriety for his persistence in tracking down information related to the “IBT scandal” in the early 1980’s.

Monsanto’s RoundUp was implicated. All its safety studies had been done by IBT (laboratory).  This was a huge scandal in the United States, well documented, which had implications for Canada:  the largest commercial laboratory in the United States, IBT, one of several companies supplying the research studies needed by the pharmaceutical/chemical company complex to get their products registered by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was investigated and found to be routinely falsifying data.  At the time, Canada automatically licensed any product which had received licensing from the Americans.  The scandal brought about changes in the Canada licensing system.  (And now a reversal – – the Canadian system is pretty well back to  “harmonized”  with the American.)

Thousands of IBT studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent or grossly inadequate.   One of IBT’s top executives was Dr. Paul Wright, a Monsanto toxicologist who took a job at IBT Labs in part to supervise the PCB tests.  He then returned to Monsanto.  Wright was eventually convicted of multiple counts of fraud in one of the longest criminal trials in U. S. history, with his legal fees paid by Monsanto.

 

(5)  MORE LIES:

Then there’s “Trade Secrets“, a documentary I watched on PBS in March 2001, by Bill Moyers.  It arises out of an “Erin Brockavitch” type story of a woman whose husband’s life ended prematurely.  She was convinced that a connection existed between his death, deaths and rare diseases among his co-workers and their workplace – connections the Company not only denied, but for which it supplied “the science” to refute.  “Trade Secrets” reveals how the public’s right to know the truth about the thousands of chemicals in the world has been compromised.   It shows documents from a secret archive uncovered during the lawsuit against the chemical companies.  Their own words show how these companies sometimes hid the truth about the health implications of their products from the public.

 

(6)  DECEPTION, INDUSTRY FRONTS, TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION:

This tool for manipulation of information became better known during Toronto’s pesticide bylaw struggle (which was successful).  Chemical industry associations establish in-name-only “organizations” used to sell the public on the benign nature of their products.

The Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Toronto Environmental Coalition sound like sister organizations.  They aren’t.  One is a bona fide volunteer organization whose work is environmental protection; the other is an industry front, a telephone number and a name under which press releases are issued.  Unsuspecting media pick up the content and feed it to a public that has no way of distinguishing the reliability of the information.  Other Fronts in Ontario include the “Pest Control Safety Council of Canada” and the “Environmental Coalition of Ontario“.

 

(7)  CROPLIFE CANADA, MAIN INDUSTRY LOBBY, CHEMICAL AND BIOTECH,

also known as the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada “represents the manufacturers, formulators, distributors and allied associations of specialty pest management products, for the consumer or professional markets used in turf, ornamental, pest management, forestry, aquatic, vegetation management and other non-food/fibre applications.

The Council is involved in all aspects of industry-wide and public education, communication, stewardship, legislation and regulation appropriate to pest management in the urban environment. The Council is dedicated to the protection of community health and the environment.”

CropLife Canada is part of CropLife International.  Lorne Hepworth is President. The preceding description of who they are is courtesy of their web-site.

 

(8)  2005:  attempted bribery in Indonesia.

You should not dismiss it on the basis that corruption is expected in Indonesia.  Monsanto also tried to bribe officials in Canada and was caught. I assume they are successful in their bribery attempts more often than they are caught.

 

(9)  The Vermont dairy Monsanto took to court because the dairy labelled its milk as being free from bovine growth hormone. 

Correct labeling of the milk was a threat to Monsanto’s product sales in the U.S.  (Canada and Europe would not and have not licensed BGH.)

 

thanks to George:

(10)  $52 MILLION AWARD AGAINST BASF (chemical company) FOR PESTICIDE CONSUMER FRAUD REAFFIRMED ON APPEAL

the CFIA  (Cdn Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture Canada) has licensed BASF’s herbicide-tolerant wheat – introduced in email #2a).

http://www.pestlaw.com/insider/articles/200403020104/01-BASFdecision.htm

Insider eJournal, Vol. 1, No. 4 (March 2, 2004)

Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Jury Verdict Awarding $52 Million To Farmers Who Alleged BASF Fraud In Its Sales And Advertising For Similar Herbicide Products

A legal decision that sends a serious warning to pesticide producers was handed down Feb. 19 by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld a $52 million judgment against BASF Corporation for consumer fraud.

…  For the complete text of the February 19th, 2004 Minnesota Supreme Court Decision, see:

 Ronald Peterson, et al. v. BASF Corporation

 

(11)  From the February 2001 Idaho Observer:

Some of the president’s Monsanto men

By The Idaho Observer

There is a reason why Bill Clinton was the president: His antics kept the dominant media, and therefore the people, preoccupied with nonsense while the real agenda moved forward. There is a reason why GW is the president:

His affable and unpolished down home charm is a perfect contrast to the power players that have been chosen to be his cabinet.

Robert Cohen, author of “Milk, The Deadly Poison” which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of our nation’s milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone, says that the new Bush administration could accurately be described as the Monsanto Cabinet.

Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign from Monsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcroft’s contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any other congressional hopeful.

Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas were instrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for Monsanto’s controversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments that include Alzheimer’s disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memory loss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford.

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical, another company currently owned by Monsanto.

Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct ties to Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a “biotech zone” for the use of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed the designation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies during his election campaign.

Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linked to many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) and makes cows sick.

Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S.

And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo, who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also a Monsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labeling mandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones.  Pombo helped kill the bill in committee.

Monsanto also holds the patent on the “terminator gene” which prevents plants from producing viable seed so that farmers, and therefore people, will be dependent upon the multinational corporation for their food supply.

Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverent corporations in world history. One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time.

====================

 

POLICY NEWS –  November 1, 2006    Environmental Science and Technology Online

Chemicals management may be getting tougher

 

The effects of Canada’s assessment of chemicals and the new European chemicals law are likely to reverberate through the international market.

Canada is poised to release an assessment of 23,000 chemicals, making it the first country in the world to systematically review all of the chemicals in current use within its borders. Coupled with the impending adoption of a new chemicals policy in Europe, the Canadian action could change the mix of products on store shelves worldwide, experts say.

Canada’s list of 4000 suspect chemicals includes bisphenol A, used in pacifiers; di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), found in perfumes and hairsprays; cyclotetrasiloxane, common in lip balms and conditioners; and toluene, a solvent used in cleaning products.

In 1986, rules in Canada mandated that all newly introduced substances undergo toxicity screening. At the time, 23,000 chemicals already on the Canadian market were “grandfathered” in without proof of their safety.

Now, after 7 years of study, Environment Canada and Health Canada officials have combed through all 23,000 substances. They flagged 4000 that are toxic and either persistent or bioaccumulative or that present the greatest potential for human exposure. Of these, 400 were found to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, a combination that calls for immediate action, says Fe de Leon, a researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

Although the list was submitted to the ministers of environment and health in September, it won’t be made public until the end of the year, says Steve Clarkson, director of the Bureau of Risk and Impact Assessment at Health Canada. The government will conduct another screening process for the 4000 chemicals, based on the scientific literature and other existing data to determine whether they need to be managed. Clarkson predicts that it will take 10–15 years to get through all of them.

In Europe, an even slower pace of risk assessments—5 years for only 150 substances—led in part to the EU’s proposed chemicals law, Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH), says Rob Donkers, an environment counselor with the European Commission’s delegation to the U.S.

Instead of the government taking responsibility for proving that a chemical is “unsafe to handle”, which is the practice in the U.S. and Canada, draft [mmm] REACH legislation puts the onus on industry to prove that products are safe.

Expected to be adopted by the end of this year, REACH will require companies to register roughly 30,000 high-production-volume chemicals. Companies will have to seek authorization to use the more than 1500 chemicals that are either PBT or cause cancer, genetic mutations, or birth defects, Donkers says. “This information from Canada is very important because that will enable us to quickly establish a list in Europe for these 1500–2000 chemicals,” he says.

REACH was further strengthened on October 10, when the European Parliament’s environmental committee approved new rules compelling chemical producers to replace dangerous chemicals with safer alternatives when those alternatives exist.

The establishment of a list of 4000 suspect chemicals in Canada has already raised doubts for industry over the continued use of some of the substances, de Leon notes. Even before a chemical is listed as being of concern, simply the fact that information is requested about it could cause manufacturers to decide that sales in Canada are not worth the trouble, says Karen Levins, vice president of the chemicals group at Cantox Health Sciences International. However, environmentalists fear that little will change unless the government sets aggressive timelines for further assessment of the chemicals and takes steps to ban or eliminate PBT substances, de Leon says.

The measures taken by Canada and the EU should be adopted by the U.S., says Mike Wilson, an environmental health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. California is getting ahead of the U.S. EPA by crafting a comprehensive chemicals policy. In a report commissioned by the California legislature, Wilson found that the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA) is at the root of flaws in the regulation of the U.S. chemical market.

Wilson’s critique was echoed in testimony from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) at an August 2 Senate oversight hearing on TSCA.

EPA hasn’t adequately screened chemicals, because the burden of obtaining data is on EPA rather than on chemical companies, said John B. Stephenson, the director of natural resources and environment at GAO.

— JANET PELLEY

Fe de Leon, Researcher

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Tel:  416-960-2284 ext 223

web site:  www.cela.ca

====================

Hi,

Re:  Peter MacLeod on PMRA Advisory Council

The web address lists the members of the Advisory Council.  I think I should send every one of them the story on vaporooter so they know how the PMRA operates.  I’d want the hell off the Advisory Council in order to keep my reputation!

Sandra

===============================

Wed 18/10/2006 12:18 PM

Hello,

I retrieved your voice message. Please see the following link for information on the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC):

http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/advbod/pmac-e.html

In the list of members

(http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/advbod/membership06-ef.pdf),  you will find the following information:

 

Mr./M. Peter J. MacLeod

CropLife Canada

21 Place Four Seasons Place, Suite 627

Etobicoke, ON M9B 6J8

416-622-9771 ext 234 tel/tél

416-622-6764 fax/téléc

macleodp@croplife.ca

 

So, the answer to your question is yes, Mr. Peter J. MacLeod is a member of the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC).

 

Best regards,

Iulia Popa

Regulatory Information Officer / Agent d’information sur la réglementation Pest Management Regulatory Agency/Agence de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire

2720 Riverside Drive

Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9

1-800-267-6315

613-736-3799

www.pmra-arla.gc.ca

www.eddenet.ca

 

==================================

—– Original Message —–

Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:47 PM

Subject: Re: Health Minister Appoints New Members to the Pest Management Advisory Council

Hi Jim;

Well the fox is still in the hen house. Peter McLeod works for CropLife.  I don’t know about the others but they are all men. None of them, unless they are really unlucky, will get breast cancer.

—– Original Message —–

Subject: FW: Health Minister Appoints New Members to the Pest Management Advisory Council

The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, today announced the appointment of Peter MacLeod and Dr. Robert Whiting to the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC) for two-year terms. In addition, Ambrose Hearn and Derek Daws were re-appointed for a second two-year term.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2006/2006_100_e.html

2017-03-07 PMRA (Health Canada) tells the House of Commons Standing Committee its decision to withdraw imidacloprid

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 172018
 

From: Gord.Johns   (my MP)
Sent: May 16, 2018
Subject: RE: Canada should ban bee-killing neonics in 2018!

Dear Sandra,

Thank you for taking the time to write to us about the decision made by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) regarding the use of the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid.

Like you, the NDP wants decisions to be science-based and we want to ensure that our environment and human health are not being compromised.

 

In November 2016, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published the results of its risk assessment of imidacloprid. Following that assessment, the PMRA proposed that most agricultural uses of imidacloprid be phased out over a three to five year period, depending on the availability of adequate alternatives.  Here are comments made by the PMRA’s Executive Director before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the Agency’s decision to withdraw the pesticide imidacloprid:

«As part of our broader, cyclical re-evaluation of the three major neonics, we are conducting an examination of all the available science—this is both published and proprietary information—regarding risks to the aquatic environment. These risks are evaluated in the context of how neonics are used in Canada and all the available information. This includes actual levels found in water by federal and provincial governments and academic sources in Canada. We have completed our review of the risks to the aquatic environment of the neonic imidacloprid, one of the three neonics, and the reviews of two other neonics are in progress. One of the key outcomes of PMRA’s re-evaluation of the neonic imidacloprid was the conclusion that the use of imidacloprid in Canada is causing harm to aquatic environments. » Mr. Richard Aucoin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada), March 7, 2017

 

The NDP believes that the Agency’s decision regarding imidacloprid is based on science and aims to protect our environment. We hope that in this case, science and environmental protection will continue to take precedence over the economic interests of major corporations that design pesticides. The Agency must continue to make science-based decisions and pursue its regular re-evaluation of pesticides that may be harmful to humans or the environment.

 

We thank you again for contacting us.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Gord Johns, MP Courtenay-Alberni

2018-03-09 Study says neonicotinoid ban not the answer, Western Producer

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 172018
 

By Robin Booker

A study into the presence of neonicotinoids in Canadian waterways suggests a ban or restriction of neonicotinoid seed treatments is not necessary. | File photo

A study into the presence of neonicotinoids in Canadian waterways suggests a ban or restriction of neonicotinoid seed treatments is not necessary.

The Environmental Monitoring Working Group (EMWG) was set up to monitor the presence of imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam in waterways after Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) 2016 decision to phase out imidacloprid in three to five years.

The PMRA cited acute and chronic risks to aquatic invertebrates as reasons for the ban, and its final decision on whether to ban imidacloprid is expected in December.

The PMRA is also reviewing and may ban two other neonicotinoids, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, because of their effects on aquatic insects. The final decisions on these neonicotinoids are expected to be made in 2020.

Environment Canada doesn’t routinely test ponds, wetlands and creeks across the Prairies for pesticides and little data is available on the levels of neonicotinoids in prairie water, or if the neonicotinoids affect invertebrates in the region.

In the absence of such data, the EMWG established protocols for sampling, storage, handling and shipping, sample preparation, analytical methods for the tests, as well as detection limits for the three neonicotinoids.

The EMWG co-ordinated with provincial and federal water monitoring agencies, and flowing water from all major watersheds in Canada were tested. Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC) helped conduct wetland monitoring.

In the prairie provinces, 620 samples at 168 sites were collected in 2017 from flowing water systems including streams, rivers and irrigation canals. A further 60 wetland sites were monitored by DUC.

The samples were taken throughout the growing season.

“Detection frequency and concentration of imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam were low, with majority being below the limits of detection. When detected, the insecticides were typically well below the chronic or acute endpoints established by PMRA for imidacloprid. By the middle or end of July, the insecticides were no longer detectable, said Warren Ward of the Canola Council of Canada during the University of Saskatchewan’s Soils and Crops event in Saskatoon.

He said in instances when neonicotinoid insecticides were found to be above acute or chronic levels, greenhouse or urban applications could be to blame not field crop use, but further investigation is needed.

“The data does not support any kind of restriction or ban on neonicotinoid seed treatment use, especially for field crops such as canola, pulses, cereals,” Ward said.

Soon after the PMRA 2016 decision to ban imidacloprid, farmers and industry stakeholders said restricted use of the neonicotinoid would cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars.

In response to the PMRA decision, Agriculture Canada established a multi-stakeholder forum on neonicotinoids, which lead to the development to the EMWG.

Until last fall, the PMRA accepted submissions of new information that could influence its final decision on whether it will ban the use of imidacloprid.

Water testing results from the EMWG’s work last summer have been submitted to the PMRA for consideration.

“In January 2017, the PMRA provided the EMWG with parameters that needed to be addressed in order to generate scientifically robust environment water monitoring data. The generation of this data was quickly identified as the main focus area of the EMWG,” Ward said.

Provincial and Canadian grower associations provided most of the funding for the EMWG.

“Update on the Neonicotinoid Pesticides, Government of Canada” website. (Dated December 2017.)

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 172018
 

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/fact-sheets-other-resources/update-neonicotinoid-pesticides.html

Note:  During the public consultation for imidacloprid, approximately 46,000 comments were received.

Update on the Neonicotinoid Pesticides

19 December 2017
PDF Version – 125 K

Introduction

This document provides a progress report on Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s (PMRA) ongoing assessments of the neonicotinoid insecticides (last update on the Neonicotinoid Pesticides, 2017). The assessment of this group of insecticides is extremely complex and multi-faceted; a status update for each aspect of the assessments follows.

Background

Declines in honeybee and other pollinator populations have generated considerable scientific and public interest both in Canada and internationally. A number of factors are seen as potential contributors to these declines and no single factor has been identified as the cause. The available science suggests that multiple factors acting in combination may be at play, including loss of habitat and food sources, diseases, viruses and pests, and pesticide exposure.

One group of pesticides, the neonicotinoids, is often linked to potential effects on pollinators. Neonicotinoids are a group of pesticides that are widely used in agriculture to protect crops from various insects. They are also used for other purposes, including killing insects in homes, controlling fleas on pets, and protecting trees from invasive insects such as the Emerald Ash borer. There are three important neonicotinoids currently approved for agricultural use in Canada, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam.

Beginning in 2012 the PMRA began receiving large numbers of bee incident reports. The subsequent investigation and analysis of pesticide residues suggested that exposure to neonicotinoids in dust generated during the planting of treated corn or soybean seed with vacuum planters contributed to the mortalities observed. Before the 2014 planting season began, the PMRA, in collaboration with many stakeholders, worked to help ensure risk mitigation measures were communicated to growers across Canada and that a dust-reducing lubricant was readily available. The numbers of incidents reported between 2014 and 2017 during the planting period were between 70 and 92% lower, compared to 2013.

The PMRA continues to track and investigate bee mortality incidents with the support of the appropriate provincial ministry and plans to complete in 2018 a comprehensive analysis of the incidents that occurred between 2012 and 2016. Further information on the reported incidents between 2012 and 2016 can be found in the Health Canada document entitled Update on Bee Incident Reports 2012-2016.

Pollinator Assessments

The assessments of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were announced in 2012 (Re-evaluation Note REV2012-02, Re-evaluation of Neonicotinoid Insecticides). These assessments were initiated to assess the potential risk to pollinators in light of international updates to the pollinator risk assessment framework, including information requirements. A Re-evaluation Note (REV2017-03, Re-evaluation of Neonicotinoid Insecticides: Update on Pollinator Risk Assessments) was published in January 2017 which provided an update on these assessments. The PMRA’s pollinator risk assessments have largely been conducted in collaboration with the United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Pesticide Regulation and are nearing completion.

Current status of pollinator assessments

The PMRA has recently published proposed re-evaluation decisions for clothianidin and thiamethoxam and two proposed registration decisions. The validity period of these two pesticides was extended to allow time to complete the necessary public consultations. As a result of comprehensive scientific assessments of the effects of clothianidin and thiamethoxam on bees and other pollinators, we are proposing to phase out some uses of these pesticides. We are also proposing to further restrict other uses in cases where the acceptable risk to bees and other pollinators could not be demonstrated. The PMRA is currently consulting Canadians on these proposed regulatory decisions for 90 days.

The PMRA is updating the pollinator risk assessment for imidacloprid based on additional data from the registrant, additional literature that has recently been published, and the comments that were received during the public consultation period for the preliminary assessment (REV2016-05, Re-evaluation of Imidacloprid – Preliminary Pollinator Assessment). The PMRA expects to publish a proposed decision regarding imidacloprid pollinator safety in March 2018.

The PMRA will consider the information submitted during the consultation periods for these proposed decisions prior to making final decisions, which are expected to be published in late 2018.

Imidacloprid – Health and Environment Assessments

A human health risk assessment for imidacloprid was included in PRVD2016-20, Imidacloprid, published 23 November 2016. The health assessment did not identify human health concerns from any exposure route when used according to current label standards. An extensive body of information was considered for any potential toxicity and exposure, including sensitive populations such as children. To date, our assessments of the available data and published literature do not point to unacceptable risks to human health. The PMRA is also looking at the potential for neonicotinoids to affect other parts of the environment including aquatic life such as fish, insects, and other organisms. An environmental risk assessment for imidacloprid was included in PRVD2016-20. This assessment showed that, in aquatic environments in Canada, imidacloprid is being measured at levels that are harmful to aquatic insects. These insects are an important part of the ecosystem, including as a food source for fish, birds and other animals. For the protection of the environment, PMRA proposed to phase-out all the agricultural and a majority of other outdoor uses of imidacloprid over three to five years.

The assessment and proposed risk management was open to public consultation for 120 days, which was completed in March 2017. During the public consultation for imidacloprid, approximately 46,000 comments were received. These comments are currently being reviewed by PMRA. In addition, a Multi-Stakeholder Forum was facilitated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to examine the use of neonicotinoids in agriculture. Federal and provincial government agencies, grower groups, independent researchers, non-government organizations (NGOs) and manufacturers have undertaken several initiatives including; examination of alternative risk management strategies, the generation of supplemental water monitoring data, and identification of potential alternative pest control products to replace imidacloprid. This information was formally submitted to the PMRA on 31 October 2017 and will be considered along with the information submitted during the consultation period before making a final decision on the acceptability of the continued use of imidacloprid in Canada in late 2018.

Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam – Assessment of Aquatic Risks

During the re-evaluation of imidacloprid, it was identified that clothianidin and thiamethoxam also occurred frequently and at comparable levels to imidacloprid in certain Canadian waterbodies in areas of intensive agriculture. Given the similarities in toxicity to imidacloprid, the PMRA prioritized the review of the potential risks to aquatic invertebrates (such as insects) for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in November of 2016 (REV2016-17, Initiation of Special Reviews: Potential Environmental Risk to Aquatic Invertebrates Related to the Use of Clothianidin and Thiamethoxam). Since then, environmental data relevant to the review of the neonicotinoids have been submitted by the registrants and some provincial government agencies. The PMRA received a large amount of additional neonicotinoid water monitoring data from agricultural use areas across Canada in October 2017. Discussion papers on possible ways to mitigate neonicotinoid exposure in the environment developed by a multi-stakeholder working group were also provided to the PMRA at that time. These data, along with available information from the open scientific literature will be considered prior to publishing proposed decisions for thiamethoxam and clothianidin in mid-2018. These documents will be open for public consultation.

Publication Schedule for the Neonicotinoid Assessments
Imidacloprid Clothianidin Thiamethoxam
Consultation on outcome of science reviews and proposed measures to protect pollinators March 2018 December 2017 December 2017
Final science reviews and decision on measures to protect pollinators December 2018 December 2018 December 2018
Consultation on outcome of science reviews and proposed measures to protect aquatic life – July 2018 July 2018
Final Decision on measures to protect aquatic life December 2018 January 2020 January 2020
Date modified:

2017-11-13 Neonics linked to songbird deaths, Western Producer

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 172018
 

By Robert Arnason

Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan have found that canola seed coated with imidacloprid, a type of neonicotinoid, can be toxic to songbirds. | File photo

Scientists have conducted dozens of studies on neonicotinoid seed treatments and the potential impact on bee health.

Now, researchers at the University of Saskatchewan have found that canola seed coated with imidacloprid, a type of neonicotinoid, can be toxic to songbirds.

“Imidacloprid dosed birds exhibited significant declines in fat stores and body mass and failed to orient correctly,” the scientists wrote in a study published Nov. 9 in the journal Scientific Reports.

“These results suggest that wild songbirds consuming the equivalent of just four imidacloprid-treated canola seeds… per day over three days could suffer impaired condition, migration delays and improper migratory direction, which could lead to increased risk of mortality or lost breeding opportunity.”

Neonicotinoids, also known as neonics, are applied as a seed treatment to almost all of the canola and corn grown in North America and a portion of the soybean crop. The insecticides have been controversial, for years, because research suggests a link between neonics and bee colony losses.

Christy Morrissey, a U of Sask environmental toxicologist, wanted to know if neonics had an impact on songbirds.

Morrissey and her team fed imidacloprid-treated seed to white-crowned sparrows, a type of songbird, and compared the sparrows to a control group.

They also fed the sparrows granules of chlorpyrifos, an organophosate insecticide sold as Lorsban.

In a statement the scientists said the doses were realistic exposure for songbirds, which stop and feed on farmland during spring migration.

“What surprised us was how sensitive and rapid the effects were, particularly to imidacloprid,” Morrissey said in a statement. “The birds showed a significant loss of body mass and signs of acute poisoning (lethargy and loss of appetite). The migration trials also showed that birds completely failed to orient or changed their northward orientation.”

The chlorpyrifos insecticide didn’t reduce the sparrow’s body mass but it did impair sense of direction.

“These chemicals are having a strong impact on songbirds,” said Margaret Eng, a post-doctoral researcher in Morrissey’s lab. “We are seeing significant weight loss and the birds’ migratory orientation being significantly altered.”

A spokesperson for Bayer, which manufactures imidacloprid, said the study is misleading because it doesn’t represent real world conditions for white-crowned sparrows in Western Canada.

“The repellent properties of the seed treatment would normally deter birds from ingesting whole canola seeds treated with imidacloprid … previous studies of caged birds indicated a lack of interest in imidacloprid treated seed if other food sources were available,” said Paul Thiel, vice-president of product development and regulatory science for the crop science division of Bayer in Canada.

“Scientific evidence clearly shows that imidacloprid has minimal environmental impact when used according to the label, including ingestion by seed-eating songbirds.”

Thiel added that imidacloprid is rarely used as a seed treatment for canola, which severely reduces potential exposure.

Regardless, the U of Saskatchewan findings could affect the future of imidacloprid.

In November 2016 Health Canada proposed to ban imidacloprid because the insecticide was accumulating in water near agricultural land.

That was reportedly putting aquatic insects at risk and threatening animals that rely on those insects for food.

The proposal was controversial in Canada’s agriculture sector. The Bayer product was once the most popular insecticide in the world. It is used as a seed treatment on field crops, but is very important to fruit, vegetables and potato producers in Canada.

On the Prairies, it’s used on wheat crops to control wireworm.

The public and ag industry reps submitted comments on Health Canada’s proposed ban. Over the last year, government scientists have been reviewing the comments and gathering more data on imidacloprid and its impact on aquatic insects.

Health Canada may announce its plans for imidacloprid in December, but the department hasn’t committed to a timeline for a final decision.

2017-11-30 Imidacloprid decision expected Dec. 2018, Western Producer

 Corruption, Sustainability, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
May 172018
 

by Robert Arnason

Health Canada proposed last November to ban imidacloprid, an insecticide applied to fruit, vegetables, potatoes and many other crops across the country.

Twelve months have passed since the announcement, but Canadian farmers who use the insecticide will have to wait another year to know if it’s banned or not.

“Health Canada is reviewing an extensive amount of data and information, including recently submitted water monitoring data,” a Health Canada spokesperson said.

“Once this information is reviewed, the proposed decisions will be subject to a public consultation period and final decisions are anticipated by December 2018.”

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has proposed phasing out agricultural and outdoor uses of imidacloprid over three to five years. The PMRA said the phase-out is necessary because the insecticide was accumulating in water near agricultural land.

The concentrations in water were reportedly putting aquatic insects at risk and threatening animals that rely on those insects for food.

The mode of action of imidacloprid is similar to two other neonicotindoids: clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Those products are used as a seed treatment on nearly every canola and corn crop grown in North America and a portion of the soy crop.

PMRA scientists are also reviewing those insecticides to determine if they threaten aquatic life.

A number of agricultural groups have said banning imidacloprid is an extreme response because other policies could limit the use of the insecticide and reduce the threat to aquatic insects.

Many growers depend on the Bayer product for insect control. Fruit, vegetable and potato producers are the main users of imidacloprid, but prairie growers use it on wheat crops to control wireworm.

The PMRA is going slow with its decision on imidacloprid, which gives scientists time to publish new research on the insecticide.

In November, toxicologists at the University of Saskatchewan released a paper on imidacloprid and songbirds in Scientific Reports.

The scientists fed canola seed coated with imidacloprid to white-crowned sparrows. They observed detrimental effects in birds that consumed only four canola seeds.

“These chemicals are having a strong impact on songbirds,” said Margaret Eng, a post-doctoral researcher who led the U of S study.

“We are seeing significant weight loss and the birds’ migratory orientation being significantly altered.”

The toxicologists said exposure to imidacloprid could compromise the health of songbirds and their ability to reproduce.

A spokesperson for Bayer said the study is misleading because it doesn’t represent real world conditions for white-crowned sparrows.

“The repellent properties of the (insecticide) seed treatment would normally deter birds from ingesting whole canola seeds treated with imidacloprid,” said Paul Thiel, vice-president of product development and regulatory science for the crop science division of Bayer in Canada.

“Previous studies of caged birds indicated a lack of interest in imidacloprid treated seed if other food sources were available.”

Thiel said imidacloprid is rarely used as a seed treatment for canola, reducing the chance of birds eating such seeds.

A Health Canada spokesperson said PMRA scientists are considering the U of S study.

“It is too early to tell what impact it may have on the final decision.”

 Older Entries  Newer Entries