Sandra Finley

2006-05-10 rabble.ca: The Census? Count me in (Murray Dobbin)

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
May 102006
 

I circulated this piece by Murray Dobbin, but I do not agree with it.  Susan Thompson wrote an excellent rebuttal, see the next posting.  The issue re-surfaces in summer 2010 after the Harper Government announced that the census long form is no longer mandatory.

Many thanks to Alan for sending this in.

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

The following article has been sent to you by:

Alan Appleby  and they provided the following comments:

Hello Sandra: I appreciated you sending out the material last week. I had written to StatsCan several years ago about contracting out. I found this article by Murray Dobbins, who always seems pretty practical, presented another side of the issue, and one I can identify with as a user of census materials in my work.   /Alan

To view the article online click here:  (Link no longer valid  http://rabble.ca/redirect.php3?ID=7605 )

The Census? Count me in

Our government has been hijacked — we should be fighting to take it back. We can’t do that by demonizing it. That’s why when it comes to the Census you should count yourself in.

>by Murray Dobbin

May 9, 2006

There’s a tug-of-war going on amongst progressive activists on the question of whether to boycott — or give minimum co-operation to — the Census, due to be completed by May 16. Lockheed Martin Canada (along with IBM) won a contract to provide software and hardware for the Census. Its status as one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers in combination with the U.S.

Patriot Act is at the core of the call for non-co-operation.

The principal organizer and promoter of the boycott of the Census comes in the form of the website CountMeOut whose motto is “Empowering every Canadian to oppose NAFTA and deep integration through minimum co-operation” with the Census.

The problem with this notion of empowerment and the call for minimal co-operation is it’s just the wrong strategy, targeting the wrong agency. A successful boycott would have no impact whatever on Lockheed Martin but would hurt one of the most important government agencies we have working for us.

As for who would be happiest with such a successful campaign, think Stephen Harper — and every other radical right wing politician in the country who is dedicated to dismantling democratic governance.

StatsCan is a key institution of Canadian democracy because hundreds of researchers in social movement organizations, progressive think tanks, unions and NGOs rely on its information to lobby, criticize, expose and otherwise hold to account, the governments of the land. For a social activist, whacking StatsCan is like smacking yourself in the face. Perhaps this is why the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives CCPA has come out in favour of full co-operation with the Census after investigating the issue and getting a detailed briefing from StatsCan on its privacy protection measures. [I should acknowledge here that I am on the board of the CCPA.]

First, let’s look at the main arguments of both sides of this issue. When StatsCan first announced its contract with Lockheed Martin it was clear that this giant U.S.-based corporation could have access to the data collected for the Census. Immediately, all sorts of activists and NGOs raised the alarm, pointing out that because of the Patriot Act, Lockheed Martin would be obliged to secretly provide a whole slew of U.S. intelligence agencies access to information about Canadians — or face huge penalties. Oddly, no one raised the same concern about IBM.

Remarkably, given the usual response of the federal government and its agencies to such protest, StatsCan changed the contract because of the complaints. Lockheed Martin will, as a result, have no access to any of the information gathered, have no staff involved in the program as data is being collected, and the whole Census process will be in a closed system with no connections to any other government information systems.

According to CountMeOut, even though Lockheed Martin is now technically blocked from access to any Census information “We believe it would be entirely possible for Lockheed Martin to plant a ‘Trojan horse’ within the Census software, to secretly allow the CIA to tap into Canadian Census  data.” How is not made clear. The Census is not a website to be hacked.

StatsCan has developed an excellent reputation for guarding the privacy of the information gathered in the Census. The people who work there are dedicated public employees, committed to their jobs and to Canadians.

The question isn’t whether or not Canadians should be concerned that a corporation the CCPA lists as one of the Ten Worst Corporations in the World should be providing software for the Census. The question is what we should be doing strategically to oppose corporatism and the growth of the security state in general.

CountMeOut — not satisfied with the changes to the contract — now must rely on conspiracy theories to maintain its position that we should not co-operate with the Census. Are their conspiracies afoot? I am sure there are — especially arising out of the paranoid and dangerous Bush administration. Yet having said that, our politics must guard against falling into the trap of the politics of fear. Conspiracies are by definition unknowable — and therefore unchallengeable. Concocting them disempowers people. All it would take is a dozen declared conspiracies to take up all the energy and resources of Canadian activists.

There is no lack of political work to be done. The challenges we face in stopping Stephen Harper and his government are so serious and so formidable, I don’t think we can waste energy on a campaign that will do literally nothing to expose his sinister agenda. There’s enough bad stuff out there — obvious stuff, documented, already happening, about to happen — without feeding people’s fear that there are also conspiracies that we have no power to affect.

CountMeOut says that even if the privacy issue were resolved we should still refuse to co-operate with the Census because of “…deep integration, Canadian sovereignty, Lockheed Martin itself, and job losses [at StatsCan].” But this is hardly an effective strategy regarding any of these issues — and again simply targets the wrong player.

Statistics Canada — the activist’s friend

In the late 1980s and early 1990s every corporate think tank, neo-liberal columnist, editorial writer and TV anchor was on side promoting a campaign of deficit hysteria. We were going to hit the debt wall, Canada was going to go bankrupt, we had to tighten our belts. The Business Council on National Issues ranted and raved about how Canada had been “spending like drunken sailors” — beyond our means — and that the only solution was radical cuts to social spending.

Then in 1990, StatsCan produced a study that put the whole issue in context.

The study revealed the composition of the huge accumulated deficit (it was huge — and it was a problem). “..50 per cent of the [accumulated] deficit between 1974-75 and 1988-89 may be traced to a drop in revenue relative to GDP; 44 per cent to an increase in debt service charges relative to GDP; and six per cent to program spending at a higher relative to GDP, than in 1974-75.” That’s right — just six per cent of our debt was due to increased government spending.

The study handed to social movements, unions and others fighting social program cuts a weapon they could never have created themselves. It effectively debunked the carefully-constructed deficit terror campaign. It allowed activists to argue that because spending was not the cause, cutting was not the solution.

Which is why the federal government of Brian Mulroney moved quickly to suppress the study after a summary of it contents were published. Kevin Lynch, a powerful assistant deputy finance minister (and now Harper’s most powerful civil servant, Clerk of the Privy Council) wrote a blistering letter to the head of StatsCan objecting to the study.

The full study was never published and StatsCan was forced to issue a retraction of the summary. But it was eventually obtained through Freedom of Information and circulated broadly. Even though we lost the deficit war, it wasn’t for lack of data backing our arguments.

I tell this lengthy story simply to indicate the critical role of StatsCan to progressive politics. Every movement in the country is fighting for public support using whatever facts and arguments it can muster. Whether it is information about the environment, energy consumption, poverty, tax breaks for wealthy, the percentage of health care dollars now going to the private sector, the gap between rich and poor, the increasing number of hours worked by the average Canadian, the gender gap in wages and salaries — StatsCan is there with the raw data that give our arguments credibility and power. The Census is the core source of much of that data.

For 30 years now right wing politicians, the media and corporate think tanks have been demonizing government: Government — not corporations — is the source of all of our problems. Government has its hands in our pockets; government is inefficient and corrupt; individuals are customers, not citizens, and know how to spend their money better than government does; government red tape slows investment; we need tax “relief” — as if the source of revenue for the services we need is somehow an affliction.

The campaign has been working well. Voting levels are at historic lows — as are corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy. Social spending as a percentage of GDP is at 1950s levels — despite the fact that we are twice as wealthy in GDP per capita as we were when medicare came in. The creation of “useful crises” has convinced millions of Canadians that for-profit health care might be a good thing.

We need to expose Lockheed Martin for what it is and what it does. We need to hold politicians accountable for their complicity with transnational — and domestic — corporations. We need to fight to abrogate NAFTA and defend our country against deep integration.

Our government has been hijacked — we should be fighting to take it back. We can’t do that by demonizing it. That’s why when it comes to the Census you should count yourself in.

Murray Dobbin writes from Vancouver. He is author of Paul Martin: CEO for Canada?

2006-05-01 Census coming up – what to do – fill one out or not?

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
May 012006
 

 Lockheed Martin (Canada) is a subsidiary of the American company, same name, which is a major corporation in the American war machine.  Since 2003 we have been telling the Government that we do not want any part of the 2006 Census out-sourced to Lockheed.  I personally, as a citizen and payor of taxes, will not co-operate with the Government to enrich or be “an enabler” of Lockheed Martin. 

My particular letter to the Government, the first one, pointed out that Statistics Canada has always been able to process the Census.  What has happened now that we no longer have that capability?  Are we getting dumber? … When any community (or country) farms its work out to another, it disempowers itself.  It’s an opportunity cost.  My muscles grow weak (atrophy) if I don’t use them.  The last thing Canada needs is to disempower itself.  And don’t give me the bull that Lockheed Martin is “really” a Canadian company, as they tried to tell me when I spoke directly with people in Statistics Canada. 

When we worked on “Smart Regulations, the Government Directive on Regulating”,  I used the example of the Census to say that the Government is creating a situation where citizens are learning non-compliance with regulations.  That is not a good state-of-affairs. 

What am I going to do when the census-taker arrives at my door?  I have to make the decision now; I don’t want to be making it as I’m walking to the door. 

I collected the information we have circulated about the census from 2003 to the present, to help clarify what is right for me.  The emails are pasted below, in case they will be useful to you. 

The second email is from Mel Hurtig;  it provides resource material for making the decision.  This is a very serious matter.  (UPDATE: the resource material was on a webpage that no longer exists.) 

/Sandra 

NOTE:  You will see the name “Don Rogers”.  Our first introduction to Don was in a newspaper article “Angry retiree pays off Visa bill with pennies”.  Since then Don has established “Count me Out” (of the census). 

============================= 

NOTE:  I removed the name of the party with whom Don Rogers was corresponding. 

CCPA = Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives  /S

—————— 

Fw: FYI: Excerpt from CCPA – Census and Lockheed

Date: Apr 17 2006 – 4:15pm

—– Original Message —–

From: “Don B. Rogers”

Cc: <administration@countmeout.ca>; <info@canadianactionparty.ca>

Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:06 AM

Subject: Re: FYI: Excerpt from CCPA – Census and Lockheed 

Hello, 

Thanks for your message and the “heads up” about the CCPA Monitor item.

We are fully aware of it.  (Insert: CCPA = Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) 

Below, I am reproducing the Letter to the Editor of the Monitor which has already been sent to them:

Dear Editor 

The Monitor has painted itself into an embarrassing corner. 

You defend your support of the upcoming Census, notwithstanding the contracting out of its software to Lockheed Martin (Canada), by stating you are satisfied that the privacy of Canadians’ personal census information is assured. Lockheed Martin will not have access to the census data.

That may or may not be true. It is a judgment call. But did the Monitor investigate the rumours that onsite Lockheed Martin employees were “fired” on a Friday and “hired” on the Monday as instant StatsCan employees?

But the privacy question is a sidebar. The Monitor has remained deafeningly silent on the moral contradiction of having Census taxpayers’ money going to the subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s biggest armaments manufacturers.

The same edition of the Monitor contains an article about the 10 Worst Corporations in the World. There is Lockheed Martin, rubbing shoulders with the worlds’s worst. What an irony!

Those who disagree with the Monitor may wish to visit the website”

www.CountMeOut.ca which offers suggestions on how Canadians can show their disapproval of the Lockheed Martin deal, by slowing down the Census. The minimum cooperation suggestions should make Statistics Canada think twice in the future about outsourcing part of the Census to the likes of Lockheed Martin.

Again, thanks for taking the time to contact us. 

Best regards

Don Rogers

Kingston Ont

www.CountMeOut.ca

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

Date: Apr 6 2006 – 10:17am

Excerpt from the April 2006 edition of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives monthly newsletter, The CCPA Monitor. 

Re: The Census and Lockheed 

Several readers have written, phoned or e-mailed to question the editorial in our March issue urging participation in Statistics Canada’s 2006 Census, to be conducted in May. They were under the impression that StatsCan had contracted out the census to Lockheed, or a subsidiary of that big U.S. “defence” corporation, and feared that their personal information would be passed on to Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, and other American “security” outfits.

The CCPA has investigated this matter, talked with Statistics Canada officials (including the Director-General of the 2006 Census), and we are satisfied with the explanation we have received.

The census requires highly specialized technology, and, after a bidding process, StatsCan contracted with three firms – Lockheed Canada, IBM Canada, and Transcontinental Printing Canada – for some hardware, software, and for the printing of the questionnaire. But that is all. The administration and collection of census data remains entirely in-house with Statistics Canada, as does all interaction with the data and the storage of the data.

No contractor will ever have access to or be in possession of the census responses of Canadians. All census databases, facilities, and networks containing confidential information are physically isolated from any networks outside Statistics Canada. It would therefore be impossible for any contractor or other external body to gain access to this data.

Given these assurances – which have been independently checked by CCPA research associates – we can assure our concerned readers that there is no truth to the rumours that Lockheed or any other private American or Canadian firm will be involved in any way with the collection, storage, or use of the census data. 

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

(deleted duplication of information from postings that pre-date this one)

2006-05-01 (#9) CONTEXT Corruption of the companies. Public Record.

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health, Take back the University  No Responses »
May 012006
 

#9  Context:  Corruption of the companies, public record

If the parties gathered at the table do not acknowledge the corruption and find ways to neutralize it, we will not solve the problem.  The problem is the chemical load and its effects in the creation of disease, developmental problems, cognitive and reproductive functioning.

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

Monday, May 1, 2006

Letter 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  (#10 below).  (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).)

We have recent input from Francois Guimont, head of the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), party to these discussions.

I will table Francois’ input prior to the promised documentation for the budget slashing (reduced money for enforcement of regulations) at DFO (Dept of Fisheries and Oceans). The move leads to increased abuse of our water supply and hence an escalation in disease outcomes.  Courtesy of the Liberals before they bit the dust.

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.

When Connie from 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.  Call a spade, a spade:  you judge a person by the company s/he keeps.

The University is part of this exercise: the history of corruption will be of interest to them.  I remember picking up a brochure years ago, at the College of Agriculture.  Monsanto contributed $11 million to the construction of the new College.  And they fund research.  The undermining of “science” is well documented (email #3a – “Science Under Siege”).  The College of Agriculture has state-of-the-art computers and expensive software.  The Thorvaldson Building (science) has poor equipment in contrast.

Ha!  it’s a little funny how we delude ourselves: the difference between a “prostitute” and a “mistress” is the manner in which they are kept, which is to say that money buys vocabuary to elevate the image.  David Suzuki described the same thing in a different way.

At the National Farmers Union (NFU) meeting in Saskatoon Nov. 2004, in the question period following David Suzuki’s presentation, Tom Wolf placed the case for the scientists before the audience:  the chemical corporations fund the research.  David shrugged his shoulders, was forthright and unapologetic:  the University sells its soul to the devil.

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).

CITIZEN INPUT, thanks to Michael:

“University fights Suzuki criticism Noted environmentalist cites 17-year-old television program GUELPH (Apr 26, 2006)

Environmentalist David Suzuki has said University of Guelph faculty are “in bed with the chemical industry.” But a plant agriculture professor says that view is naive.

“It’s fundamentally wrong,” said Clarence Swanton about what Suzuki said during a recent interview with the Mercury. “Working with the industry, we can make advancements of how technology is introduced and how it’s used in the marketplace.”

In an interview last week just before he flew out from Vancouver on his book tour, Suzuki criticized the University of Guelph’s agriculture department, saying it strongly supports industrial-type agriculture, with its reliance on chemicals and genetically modified organisms.

“I’ve been stunned to find myself arguing with a lot of faculty,” he said. “It’s clear that Guelph is in bed with the chemical industry.”

Suzuki said he was “hammered” by Guelph’s agriculture faculty for a 1989 TV episode on organic farming.

“It’s obvious they’re getting grants from the chemical industry and they see the world differently from the way I see it as an environmentalist,” he said.

University president Alastair Summerlee said he was disappointed Suzuki focused on such an old reaction from university faculty. “It’s very important to focus on what we’re doing now and the reputation we have now,” Summerlee said. …”

I present this exchange with Suzuki, not to titillate, but to shine light on THE OBSTACLES.

Jane Jacobs, before departing, warned us in “Dark Age Ahead” that five social pillars are crumbling: family and community, HIGHER EDUCATION, SCIENCE, REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, and professional self-regulation.  Her words reinforce our experience.  As do those of George Soros when he speaks of the “unholy alliances”.

The problem for the Government and the Universities is that the public is well-informed.  And no longer willing to be silent.

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

———————–

CONTEXT

Unacceptable levels of corruption exist.
We know that.  “Public Private Partnerships” have been promoted since 1982. Government is a part of industry through entities such as BioTech Canada, many other public-private partnerships and “government fronts” (see email #3a).

——————

ILLUSTRATE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO “THE PUBLIC RECORD” ON THE COMPANIES.

The conclusions I would reach about:

  • a child in a refugee camp in Ethiopia could be starkly different from

those reached in relation to a child raised in Disneyland Villa because of only one consideration – the context in which their lives are set is dramatically different.

Other examples of the importance of context:

  • decisions that affect prairie animals would be very different in a contextual setting of 1830 compared to the conditions that will exist in 2030.
  • decisions related to women could be very different in the context of a fundamentalist Muslim community versus Hollywood.

Failure to delineate context would be a serious error.

Some elements of context:

  • system of governance (a decision made in an oppressive regime will be different from the same decision made in a democracy)
  • time in history
  • levels of awareness (is it an Age of Enlightenment or one of relative ignorance?)
  • community values
  • ecological context

To this list, I would add:

  • levels of corruption in the society.   (When I am dealing with manipulative, dishonest people I make different decisions than when I am dealing with people who are trustworthy.)

The CONTEXT in which a decision is made needs to be spelt out. It greatly affects the decision and what becomes of the decision. One benefit of addressing CONTEXT is that some items of context can be changed.

(Email #2a: It can only happen if we can each see a potential role for ourselves in solving the problem (of the pesticide load and health).)

———————–

Now, on to 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 google it.

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, but 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 could be so callous.  The $700 million dollar fine reflected Monsanto’s depravity.

(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  (The “IBT Scandal”):

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 1980s. Monsanto’s RoundUp was implicated. All its safety studies had been done by IBT.  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 used 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 there is pressure to once again, “harmonize” the Canadian licensing system 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.  That was a threat to Monsanto’s product sales in the U.S.  (Canada and Europe would not and have not licensed BGH.)

Recent CITIZEN INPUT, thanks to George:

(10)  $52 MILLION AWARD AGAINST BASF 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).

(Link no longer valid)
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.

The class action suit was brought because BASF was allegedly overcharging minor crop growers for a product that was virtually identical to a product sold to major crop growers for less money. The practice of “splitting” pesticide labels among similar products isn’t necessarily unusual, and the shock waves from this decision are still rumbling through the industry.

However, Robert Shelquist, one of the Minneapolis attorneys representing the growers, told Insider that “this was an advertising case – not a subset labelling case – which proved that BASF was intentionally deceiving the farmers.”

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

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.

2006-04-12 Real-life experience. PPP’s and corruption in action. Government-University-Chemical Biotech. (from a series)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Take back the University  No Responses »
Apr 122006
 

The problem we are resolving is the impact of the chemicals on health through the water supply, air, and food (as has been documented in emails #1, #1a and #2.)

The role of the corporations in the Government and in Universities (the undermining of regulation and of “science”) has to be understood and addressed if effective problem-solving is to occur.  We must first remove the obstacles to finding a solution.

As you will see, the relationships between industry and Public Institutions takes us to the conclusion:   ACCOUNTABILITY is not possible if the Government is allowed to hand off money to incorporated companies (Inc.’s) and Foundations, the names of which hide the fact that they are run on public money.  I call them “GOVERNMENT FRONTS”.  They are organizations that operate on behalf of an industry and which are government funded.

As long as this continues, citizen participation in governance is futile.    Things won’t be cleaned up.  The problem of chemicals (or bioteched foods or nuclear or war or … ) will not be addressed because the industry has entrance through back-doors.  The documentation makes it clear.

In this case “the industry” is the pharmaceutical transnationals.  They own chemical companies.  The two together are the biotechnology companies.

Herbicide-tolerant plants lead to an increase in the chemical load which increases disease and developmental problems.  Biotech pharmacy (pharmacy owns chemical and together they are biotech) ensures that there will be little effective action in the removal of cause – – especially not when the Government is in collaboration (it is passed along, doesn’t matter whether Liberals or Conservatives.  The Saskatchewan branch of the NDP – I don’t know who else).

——————–

Letter to:

Federal Ministers

  • Health, Tony Clement
  • Agriculture, Chuck Strahl
  • Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn
  • Environment, Rona Ambrose

University of Saskatchewan

  • Board of Governors
  • Deans Ernie Barber and Lynne Pearson

Others

——————————

Parliament has begun its work on Accountability legislation (news reports April 11, 2006).

From the bottom of my heart:  thank-you!

  1. The Accountability legislation in its draft form should be evaluated against the events described below.  Would it have stopped the events from occurring, and if not, do we have the ingenuity to make changes to the legislation so that it would?
  2. The Accountability Legislation must outlaw “Government fronts”.

———————————–

Re  (1):  Would the Accountability legislation have prevented …?

The letter below provides concrete examples of what happens when the Government and the Universities are “partnering” with industry.  One example is that I, the citizen, become the subject of attempts by a civil servant to silence me, if I challenge conflicts-of-interest.  I believe the new legislation will provide a clear and easy path for the individual citizen to have the conflicts-of-interest addressed.  Thank-you.

But I note that in order to achieve accountability, there has to be adequate public funding for the regulatory functions of Government.  (The civil service cannot be held to account if it doesn’t have the political will behind it AND the money to enforce regulations.)

There also has to be adequate funding for the universities so that we have research without corporate bias – research in the public interest.  The notion that corporate money is a necessity in the public sphere because “we can’t afford things” without it, is ludicrous and a door through which insidious corruption manoeuvres into position.  Documentation below.

——

(2)  The Accountability Legislation must outlaw “Government fronts”.

In following emails there will be documentation of what happened under the Liberals:  funding was withdrawn from public-interest research at Health Canada (the Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Programme).

Then, “Health Research Foundations” were established with a stated priority for “funding research that has the potential for commercialization”.

Biotech pharmacy is, through the Health Research Foundations, a recipient of public money but the trail is covered over because the public has no way of knowing, from the name, that “Health Research Foundations” are funded by Government.  Here we have a clear example:  public money is diverted away from the research that would help address the CAUSES of a 25% increase in childhood cancers; then public money is funnelled to biotech pharmacy research with its “potential for commercialization”.  There will be no progress on REMOVAL OF CAUSE.  “Government fronts” are an obstacle that need to be removed / outlawed.

If an organization receives a significant portion of its funding from the Government, the public must be able to decipher this, FROM THE NAME OF THE ENTITY.  If Agwest Biotech Inc receives almost 100% of its operating funds from the Government, then it IS a department of the Government and must carry the Government’s name.  Similarily with Biotec Canada and the Health Research Foundations.  There can be no accountability for public funds when the money is passed out, from under the control of the Department and Minister responsible for it.  Through Government fronts, tax-payers’ money is going to organizations that lobby or operate on behalf of an industry.

SECOND EXAMPLE, CAN’T TELL FROM THE NAME

The biotech arena is not the only arena in which this is happening.  What is “TransGas Pipeline”?  (A Saskatchewan example.) You can’t tell by the name that it’s a crown corporation.  I just did a quick google search:  TranGas is a bronze sponsor:  “Cougar Racing Welcomes TransGas As A New Sponsor”.

This is money for Formula race cars … when the Government is supposed to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

TransGas builds pipelines.  Nexen Inc (oil and gas) is a beneficiary.

Dwayne Lingenfelter, former deputy minister works for Nexen.  Doug Anguish, former cabinet minister works for the pipeline lobby.  A Dept of Environment employee, Larry Kratt, also works for Nexen after co-chairing the Sask Petroleum Industry Government Environment Committee (SPIGEC).  Thank goodness the new Accountability legislation will address the latter.  But it has also to address NAMES – people have to be able to tell from the name that TransGas Pipelines is a crown corporation.

LAST EXAMPLE, YOU CAN’T TELL FROM THE NAME

A third example of the need for full disclosure:  I worked in a community that has a dependent and co-dependent relationship with the Federal Government.  I was dismayed that my tax money, given in earnest to help these communities, was ending up in the bingo halls and in drugs.  People in the community receive $75 each to attend regular meetings of community associations.  (This was the amount paid in 1998 and there was movement underway to increase the amount.)  It would have been very difficult to hold anyone responsible because the money was funnelled through different organizations that do not report to a Minister of the Crown, and again, you can’t tell by the name that they are simply “the Government” as far as funding is concerned.

Back to point (1), would the new Legislation address these events?

The documentation of the corrupting influence of the corporations takes the form of a letter submitted to the University of Saskatchewan (below).

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

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

Feb 14, 2006 letter to the University of Saskatchewan Board of Governors is moved to:  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5309

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

THINKERS OF THE DAY ON PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS is posted at:  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5312

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

SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE    (The full article is at 2005-08-05 )

An ill wind is gusting through the halls of science these days: faked research, suppression of unwelcome results, corruption of science advisory panels, university research falling under the influence of corporate sponsors, and many other conflicts of interest.

It’s as if science were under siege.   . . .

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

TO: Carmen DePape, Clerk to the Standing Committee on Health,    DepapC  AT  parl.gc.ca

Dear Carmen,

Will you please supply the Committee Members with a copy of my submission?

Many thanks,

Sandra Finley

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

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.).

Thank you for your patience and diligence on behalf of Canadians.

I have read parts of the testimony given to the Standing Committee on May 19th, 2005 by Drs Chopra, Haydon and Lambert. http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=117785

My experience with Health Canada reinforces what the scientists are telling you. I was heartened to read Mr. Réal Ménard’s remark, “I think that it almost warrants a public enquiry”.

A public enquiry is most certainly required.

Please find attached the letter I received from a lawyer representing a Health Canada scientist who also works for the chemical industry (CropLife Canada). The letter threatens to sue me if I give such-and-such evidence to Saskatoon City Council.  My response is also appended – “Gangsters bully people through threat of broken bones. The chemical industry has an established history of attempting to intimidate through the threat of harm to the person’s finances and well-being, utilizing the legal system as the weapon.”

In my case, the gangster is a Health Canada employee and his bullying is a consequence of the problem identified in the testimony of the 3 scientists:  the Government sees its “clients” as the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

Also appended is copy of the newspaper report that arose out of my calling “foul” to the intolerable conflict-of-interest that the Government employee is in.

This particular incident is but one example of what is happening in Health Canada. I have sent a list of 14 items (of which I am aware) to the Minister of Health that documents other egregious events.

My experience, as documented below, lends support to Mr. Ménard’s statement.  An enquiry is most certainly in order.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

(contact info)

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

APPENDAGE:

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

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

(appendage continued)

TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY,  see   Terminator Technology  (GMO), UN Convention on Bio-diversity, Dr. Tewolde affair, (Norway) Spitsbergen seed bank

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

Réal Ménard (MP) is absolutely right that an Enquiry into the operations of  Health Canada (PMRA – Pest Management Regulatory Agency) is in order.

Further to the personal experience submitted to you earlier (Health Canada scientist’s attempt to intimidate me into silence) I have appended documentation of 2 events related to biotechnology. The events make a loud statement that something is very rotten in the state of Canada.

Some will think that the UN Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal and the February UN Meeting in Bangkok have nothing to do with Health Canada and are therefore irrelevant to the decision on whether an Enquiry into the operations of Health Canada is warranted. But Health Canada plays a large role in biotech in Canada.

The PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency) is responsible to the Minister of Health. The CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) is responsible to the Minister of Agriculture.

The clients of the PMRA (Health Canada) are the chemical companies. The pharmaceutical companies have large ownership interests in the chemical companies, who in turn, by-and-large are the biotechnology industry.

Biotechnology in Canada has a current main thrust into agriculture where crops (our food supply) are developed to be resistant to herbicides. (One might logically think that the food supply would be developed using the criteria of nutritional gains and environmental impact on the common good, but this is not the case.) The companies go to Health Canada to get their pesticides and pharmaceuticals licensed for use, and they make large payments to the PMRA (at least $8 million a year as reported by the television programme W5 a few years ago). These companies then have partnership agreements whereby the Government through Agriculture Canada pays half the research costs for developing seeds that are resistant to the licensed chemicals. And they have agreements through Health Canada to fund research on biotech drugs.

A second developing main thrust of biotechnology in Canada, and with the same corporate criteria as are applied in agriculture, is into the development of biotech pharmaceuticals. The partnership agreements through which public funding flows to the drug companies to fund research are through a front known as the Health Research Foundation. Health Research Foundations exist at the Provincial level of Government as well. These publicly funded “foundations” fund research that has “the potential for commercialization”. Biotech pharmaceuticals figure prominently. Government funding of the transnational pharmeceutical companies is done in precisely the same way as its funding of the chemical/biotech companies (e.g. for the development of crops such as roundup resistant wheat) which is through front organizations with names such as BioTech Canada and AgWest Biotech.

Both the food and the drugs we consume are determinants of health. The PMRA, other branches of Health Canada, and the CFIA work together – their “clients” are the same companies. As I have mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies own the chemical companies who own the biotechnology companies.

These are mostly large transnational corporations many of which have a very long and well-documented history of corruption and non-compliance with the laws of the land.  (documentation in a separate email.)

Given the overlaps in ownership, the overlapping interests in biotechnology, and the collaborations between the Government and the industry through partnership agreements, it is very reasonable to presume that Health Canada may indeed be collaboratively behind the 2 events mentioned. Both the witholding of entry visas to scientists who are effective in their work to insist on a Biosafety Protocol, and the attempted sabotage by Canadian Government negotiators of the UN deliberations on genetic seed sterilization technology, have the same end in view. I therefore presume that the same people in Government are behind both events. The events are an outrage to democracy and an international embarrassment to Canadians. I don’t know of any other way than an Enquiry to determine what is going on.

(1) Dr. Tewolde and other scientists who were to attend the UN Protocol Meetings on Biosafety in Montreal

(2) the UN Meetings in Bangkok in negotiations on genetic seed sterilization technology

Documentation on both is appended. It tells you that what Drs Chopra, Haydon and Lambert are telling you is the truth. What is going on in the Government and specifically in Health Canada is not to be tolerated in a democracy.   There needs to be a public enquiry.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

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

CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERSHIPS AND CORRUPTION

The false idea of Public-Private-Partnerships has been embraced by different political parties . . .

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

APPENDAGE: ANNUAL REPORT CROPLIFE

(Lorne Hepworth, President of CropLife, presented industry information to Regina City Council during the pesticide bylaw attempt. Lorne was a Cabinet Minister in the Saskatchewan Government of Grant Devine.)

Croplife Canada 2003-2004 Annual Report    (Link no longer valid)

2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T

President’s Message

There are not many years when Canada’s pest control industry – and indeed, Canadian agriculture as a whole – faced as many challenges as those that presented themselves in 2003-2004. Some challenges you expect and even anticipate in this business, such as bad weather, global competition, disease and pest infestations. Others – such as challenges we face from people propagating misinformation – are less predictable, and require different responses and resources to address. These public education challenges are a modern reality and are a large part of our role at CropLife Canada, as a trade association representing developers, manufacturers and distributors of pest control products and plant biotechnology in Canada.

Physicians startle the public with unbalanced report

One of the highest-profile matters we’ve dealt with lately is the Ontario College ofFamily Physicians’ (OCFP) selective review of scientific literature about pesticides, which makes alarming recommendations against pesticide use. We believe this group, like others who oppose our industry’s products, has a right to its opinion. But scientifically, the OCFP report is disturbing. It focuses on only a limited number of studies – mainly, those that support its anti-pesticide position. It ignores the fact that Health Canada regulates all pest control products manufactured and sold in Canada, and that the products are subject to some of the toughest regulatory standards in the world. Nonetheless, despite its lack of balance, the OCFP report garnered major headlines across Canada. Our communications team, partners and member companies responded quickly to inform the public about the facts. This included hosting a news conference to present CropLife Canada’s position on the OCFP report, and distributing a joint statement from scientists, academics, farm and grower organizations, pest management professionals, manufacturers and distributors stating that the safe, responsible use of pesticides holds significant benefits for Canadian society.

CropLife Canada is now conducting two separate third-party reviews of the OCFP report, one involving internationally acclaimed epidemiologists. People need to know that Canada has exemplary risk-and safety-assessment procedures in place for pesticides, and that the responsible use of pest control products poses no undue risk.

That is why CropLife Canada has public and media information campaigns to explain how plant science technologies support innovative and sustainable agriculture in Canada.

Dealing with Toronto City Council

The Urban Pest Management Council challenged the City of Toronto anti-pesticide bylaw in 2003, but the Ontario Superior Courts upheld the City’s bylaw. This decision has been appealed, and the Ontario Court of Appeals will hear the case on November 4, 2004. This case is important not only from a legal precedent standpoint, but from a validity of science standpoint as well. If these products are deemed safe for agricultural use, how can they be judged unsafe for non-agricultural uses? The results of this case will most likely influence all municipal bylaws in the province of Ontario, and our trade association is committed to the appeal process.

Provincial regulatory activity

Laws in Quebec and Prince Edward Island are prompting significant changes in pest-control product use there. Again, this signifies a tendency toward increased legislation at taxpayers’ cost, which is at best redundant, and at worst, confusing and contradictory due to the patchwork of inconsistent legislation.

The need to inform the public

CropLife Canada is handling these challenges head-on with a series of initiatives. These are aimed at enhancing Canadian leaders and society’s understanding of plant science technologies to increase the awareness of the benefit and value of our technologies especially as they relate to the environment and public health. CropLife Canada is stepping up its stakeholder and government relations program with a new plan that will promote the association’s goal of supporting innovative and sustainable agriculture in Canada. The new effort is necessary because, in part, the political landscape has changed at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. As well, many of the issues CropLife Canada deals with are overarching beyond science and regulation, into societal issues. No doubt you’ll have seen CropLife Canada appear in various media across the country. The number of contentious issues we’ve dealt with, from the previously mentioned Ontario College of Family Physicians report and the City of Toronto anti-pesticide efforts, to providing information and expertise about West Nile virus, have meant a plethora of print and broadcast media interviews. It’s given us an opportunity to build up relationships with reporters, and is increasingly resulting in CropLife Canada being the “go-to” organization for factual information when contentious issues arise over pest management. This is a good start towards presenting a more balanced case to the public for responsible pesticide use.

Lorne Hepworth, President … etc.

(I HAVE DELETED THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT)

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

IV.  ARTICLE IN STUDENT NEWSPAPER, THE SHEAF

The Sheaf is the student newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan.

Continuing series looks at privatization of University of Saskatchewan

Written by Jeremy Warren

Thursday, 09 February 2006

All it took for Homer Simpson to ignore his car’s engine problems was a little bit of duct tape to cover the ‘check engine’ light.

All it takes for the U of S administrators to ignore any criticisms directed towards them is a little bit of silence.

“There’s no response whatsoever from the [university] administration about concerns raised by the forums,” said Dr. Chary Rangacharyulu, a professor in the physics department and one of the organizers of the continuing series of forums about the direction of the U of S.

“Maybe we don’t exist,” he said wryly. “Things have been pretty quiet so we think we’re not saying anything that’s untrue.”

Indeed, some in the university community are troubled by the lack of response from administrators to their concerns raised about the direction of the U of S in a time of major growth and development of the institution.

These concerns were expressed at the latest of the forums, which carried the title “W(h)ither the Corporate University…No PAWS for thought.” Professors Howard Woodhouse and Michael Collins, both of the College of Education, were speakers at the February 1st forum.

Professor Collins, in an interview after the forum, explained why he believes the “knowledge economy has become a commodity to be bought and sold.”

He contends the university has developed into a corporate training ground, something he said is true now more than ever.

“There’s greater commercialization of research, and, in terms of teaching, the areas that are highly valued are those that feed the market, whether that be the applied sciences or the professions. There’s a greater emphasis on training for the market, which has its place on campus—it always has—but it’s a question of balance,” Woodhouse said.

“This claim that a university education always leads to a better job can be questioned. It can lead to a job, but is that the purpose of university? I think the real purpose of all education is the advancement and dissemination of shared knowledge.”

Woodhouse said there are two things that have led to this shift towards privatization of universities: government and industry, both of which have come to see universities as instruments to create private wealth. And, as government support for education dwindles, universities must turn to other sources of funding, such as corporations, he said.

“Whether it’s in terms of targeted research that’s geared towards the corporation’s own goals or programs that feed the market, like the cost recovery programs seen in commerce, outside forces have done what they can to change universities to fit their agendas.”

Administrators, Woodhouse explained, are complicit in this process.

“Universities have done little to resist this because the people running universities tend to have similar priorities, values, and goals. They talk as business wannabes rather than being academic leaders.”

Not that it’s easy to rollback this trend of privatization, said Woodhouse, who believes there is systemic and institutional resistance coming from universities as well as governments and industry. One positive step that he mentioned was the possibility of low or free tuition, similar to what the governments of Ireland and Wales have done, which would make this university “a beacon not just for western Canada, but Canada and the world in general.”

One critical problem Woodhouse pointed out was the lack of public access to contracts, financial statements, and other important documents on campus. He used the example of the minutes from Board of Governors meetings, which are only available to the public 10 years from the date the original meeting took place as one way the university administration undermines the credibility of this institution.

“This is a publicly funded institution and its accounts should be available for public scrutiny,” he explained. “There should be accountability in terms of what connections are made with corporations. These books should be open.

Too often transparency means they see us and we don’t see them.”

2006-04-07 Complaint to College of Physicians and Surgeons, Donna Malcolm re psychotropic drug injection by force and confinement.

 Health, Take back the University  No Responses »
Apr 072006
 

April 7, 2006 

Sandra Finley  (contact info)

 COMPLAINT TO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS,

DR. DONNA MALCOLM

 My Complaint:

The doctor’s assessment of my condition began prior to even seeing or talking with me.  Her assessment does not correspond to any factual information.  

I was forcibly confined from Saturday until Friday – 7 days.   Drugs were put into my body forcibly and without my consent.  One of the drugs caused complete memory loss of things I was doing and saying, and of things that were being done to me.  It was an unjustified violation of my person and my civil rights. 

The events: 

WEDNESDAY EVENING:  I went to the Walk-in Clinic (8th and Circle) because I knew the continuing sharp pains in my side required medical attention.  (On the previous Saturday and Sunday I had remained in bed with what I thought was a flu bug – fever, aching muscles and joints.  Those symptoms disappeared and were replaced by the pains in my side.)  An X-ray showed a large amount of fluid on my lung.  The doctor went over the X-ray with me, I understood the condition was serious.  He advised me to come back and see one of two (named) doctors who would move my file forward.  The booking clerk advised they would not be in until Friday at 10:00am.  It was agreed that I would come in on Friday on a walk-in basis.  I was not given any medical procedure to follow, just “come back the day after tomorrow”.

 I went home and used the internet to find out about fluid on the lung, pleural effusion, thoracentesis ,  removal of fluid when the cause is not known.   The information on various sites was pretty much consistent.  A thoracentesis is used like amniocentesis to draw a sample of the fluid off for diagnostic purposes, complications may arise if the fluid is simply all drained off, and so on.

 In my case the cause of the fluid was unknown at this point so I got information on one other symptom I had experienced prior to going to the Clinic.  I looked it up under “skin discoluration” which was the best way I could think to describe it.   I was by this time quite tired (sick) and so satisfied myself with what is probably quite common knowledge.  A change in skin colour can be a signal that an organ of the body is not functioning properly.  One example is the relationship between liver malfunction and yellowed skin.

 THURSDAY:   I advised my daughter who lives with me that I was seriously ill and must do everything possible to strengthen my immune system.   I must get a lot of rest – that would have priority over work.  And I must eat well.  We talked about pesticide residues in food and how they place an extra workload on the body as it moves extra toxins out of the body.   I told her that I needed to keep my muscles moving, so I would do some of the shopping at the organic Steep Hill Food Co-op, but only if I wasn’t too tired.  Things which I would normally have pushed myself to do, I didn’t do, because I viewed my health to be in need of whatever assistance I could provide.

FRIDAY at 10:00am I was at the Walk-in Clinic.   Dr. Lacny saw me.  He said there was a blood test that should have been done on Wednesday.  It was urgent to get it done because things start shutting down in the Labs on Friday afternoon.  The blood was drawn and couriered to the Lab.  I left and returned shortly after 1:00pm following a call from Dr. Lacny. 

Dr. Lacny advised me to go immediately to Royal University Hospital Emergency and to take the x-ray with me.   He told me that the doctor who saw me on Wednesday should have taken prompt action given the seriousness of fluid on the lung.

He told me that I should hurry because everything shuts down at the Hospital by 4:00pm Friday afternoon.

 Friday afternoon:   I checked into Emergency at RUH.  I saw numerous different doctors and had different tests.   RUH is a teaching hospital and so the number of doctors seen is more than at a non-teaching hospital.

 I kept mental track of the doctors I saw, their names, and their area of expertise.  At each stage I asked questions.   For example, when I am told to go for an x-ray I asked:  is the x-ray of my lung?  Answer:  yes.   My response:  there is an x-ray in my file, brought from the Walk-in Clinic.  What is the purpose of another x-ray?  Answer:  (basically it turned out that another x-ray wasn’t necessary at that point and so I didn’t have it).

 I asked questions for my own information but also because there were so many different doctors that saw me.   Each doctor asks questions.  If I don’t know WHAT has been done and WHY it has been done,  I am in a poor position to provide the communication links between one doctor and the next, let alone understand myself what is going on.   It allows you to pick up potential oversights or misunderstandings, in particular because not every doctor has time to read through the pile of paperwork accumulating in the file. I believe my attention to the details and concomitant ability to answer questions and provide input was helpful to some of the doctors.  I found that the little I knew about fluid on the lungs from the Internet information, placed me in good stead to understand what the doctors were telling me.  I did not require as much explanation as if I had come in “cold”.

 THE CONTEXT of my behaviour (essential to understanding whether or not my actions at the Hospital were “manic” (I believe that is the justification used by the doctor to forcibly confine me for 7 days, and to give me an injection that gave me permanent amnesia of what happened for a number of hours.):

 Notations are of course made in patient files.  After reading the remarks in my file one doctor said “You don’t believe in western medicine.”  I responded in good humour that if I didn’t I wouldn’t be at the hospital, would I?  I told him that you can’t beat western or allopathic medicine when it comes to diagnostic ability and things like operations that repair broken bones or detached retinas (with which I have experience).  However, “the western hemisphere” doesn’t have a corner on ALL there is to know.  Western medicine is poor at addressing the CAUSES of illness;  it directs its energies to the SYMPTOMS.   It also underestimates the ability of the human body to heal itself, under the right conditions.  Alternative therapies fill a gap.  So I support and pursue a combination of western and other knowledge bases, and give my body a chance to do its remedial work.

 I believe it is narrow-minded for doctors to dismiss the experience of patients, and to  place a label on them (stereotyping) should they raise questions and fail to follow orders, especially when the doctor’s information about the patient is limited to an interview that lasts a few minutes.  Does the body self-heal?  (This is the context – my personal experience – that causes me to act in a certain way.)   A couple of years ago in September I was told by a Saskatoon doctor that I had pre-cancerous cells in my reproductive tract and vaginosis.  She wrote out a prescription for me and I was to see a gynecologist who would then decide whether an operation was in order to remove the pre-cancerous cells.  I explained to the doctor that I would like to try other approaches first.  She emphatically read out loud to me as she wrote in my file “Patient …  declines …  treatment”.   I was nervous and had a lot of doubts, especially when the doctor was so clearly displeased, but I persisted.  I made changes to my diet and took other steps.   I returned to the doctor 5 months later, in February.  Tests showed that I no longer had vaginosis nor the pre-cancerous cells.   So my experience tells me that my body has the capability to right itself if I work with it.

 The last test of the day (Friday) was a CT scan prescribed by a doctor from Internal Medicine; it was explained to me what would happen.  Later, when I arrived in radiology I found I was to take a liquid first for the purpose of definition in the scan (the I.M. doctor had not mentioned this).   When putting substances into my body I want to know what’s going in, why, and whether there are alternatives.  (Under special circumstances I might, but normally I do not use medications because of experience in my twenties – without exception they have made me sicker than the ailment I had.  A muscle relaxant for a pulled muscle – once I knew the pain wasn’t anything other than a pulled muscle (which would have healed itself in time), I should have left the doctor’s office.  But I didn’t do my own thinking:  I relied on him and waited while he wrote out a prescription.  It laid me out sick on the bed for 3 days – until a friend pointed out that maybe it was the pills.  It hadn’t dawned on me to question the prescription given to me.  When I had bad allergies I was prescribed seldane – it has now been taken off the market because it is not safe.  Along with VIOXX, etc. etc, etc.  I know that the priority of many of the pharmaceutical companies (who own the chemical companies who together are the biotechnology companies) is how much money they make.  They have a long history of buying research (the IBT Laboratory scandals in the U.S. in the 1980’s are just one example).  There are almost no studies of the long term effects of the drugs, in spite of the fact that they are known to have many side effects in the short term. …. It seems ultimately reasonable to me that I should avoid the prescriptions of the pharmaceutical companies whenever possible and certainly if there is no clear need at a particular point in time.  I eat almost entirely organic food; I treat my body quite well!!  )   The radiologist came out to explain the reason for the liquid.  I mulled over his information and was not satisfied;  I declined the test, knowing I could return and have it later, if further information indicated it should be done.

I returned to the doctor from Internal Medicine and the resident doctor working under her.   We had a thorough conversation.  I listened to them, they listened to me.  In the end I signed a waiver form to absolve them of any responsibility should my departure from the Hospital bring about harm to myself.   They were concerned to be sure, but respected my explanation.  They were quick to ensure that I knew I could return to the Hospital at any time.  (Which I took for granted, but appreciated the articulation nonetheless.)

 I live not far from the Hospital and returned home. 

Friday night:  I sent an email into my email network – there are people who are doctors in this network.  If there was someone who had experience, perhaps they could supply information that would be helpful to my understanding.

Saturday morning:   No information came in.  Shortly after 8:00am I decided to go back to the Hospital for more information.  I knew that my liver or my kidneys had been tested on Friday and had a clean bill of health, but I didn’t know for sure which one it was.  Because of the skin discolouration I had experienced prior to the pains in my side, I had a particular interest in the functioning of my organs.  Also, I wanted to understand more about how it comes about that fluid will accumulate in the pleura.   What are the possible causes?  It seemed to me the best way to be able to make informed decisions about medical procedures was to understand as much as I could.

I arrived in Emergency not long after 8:00am.  It did not appear to be busy.   There was one fellow in the waiting room, waiting for someone who was in a cubicle.  No one else.  I went to the registration desk and inquired if by chance one of the two doctors from Internal Medicine who had seen me the previous day (I named them) might be in.  They weren’t.  I explained that I had come just to see if I could get more information, I probably didn’t need to see a doctor through the Emergency procedure.  I told the clerk that I had spent all of the previous afternoon at the Hospital and had left after signing a waiver form.  She went to get my file.  Based on the comment made by the one doctor on Friday after reading my file (that I didn’t believe in western medicine), I was aware and embarrassed that the admissions clerk would probably find notations in the file that indicated I was a bit of a kook.  I tried to explain. Eventually I was shown to a cubicle.  

A male nurse came in.  I was restless (and fevered) with nothing to do.  I told him that I had just come to the Hospital to obtain information.  Perhaps he could help me – maybe I didn’t need the expertise of a doctor.   Could he look in my chart and see whether it was my liver or my kidneys that had been tested the previous day and had tested out okay?  Also, I would like to know more about the flow of the cardiovascular system (the flow of blood through the lungs, over to the heart,  – where the liver and kidneys fit in – etc.).  He said he couldn’t provide the information but offered to bring a book,  – terrific!  I gladly accepted and he came back with a book.  I went to the index  – there wasn’t an entry for the cardiovascular system and so when he returned I asked if there might be another book.  He again obliged, this time with a book that had terrific coloured pictures of the parts of the system, but unfortunately there was nothing that showed the pieces when they are fit together.  So I went out to the nursing station and asked whether I might have a look at the books they had – maybe I could find for myself what I was looking for.   I had the impression that my request was unusual and that they were now beginning to look at me as someone who was weird.   I asked for a pen and paper and was obliged.

The nurse could not supply information.  The particular books I was given were not helpful.  I thought I would try to write down just what it was I wanted to know and ended up just doodling the time away.   I put down the lungs, the heart, and lower down a note re the kidneys and liver so I wouldn’t forget to ask the doctor just what had been tested.

The nurse returned and told me I was to go for an EEG or an ECG (I forget which).  I became annoyed:  how is it that a doctor is sending me for a test and he or she hasn’t even seen me?  That seemed highly unprofessional.  I had a pain in my side:  the doctors from Internal Medicine the day before had not suggested an ECG/EEG.  As far as I knew I had had every test they wanted me to have, with the exception of the Cat scan.  Who was this now that was sending me for this new test without even having seen me?  The nurse knew I was now upset and hastened to calm me down with reassurance that the doctor would be in shortly.  I was thinking that I should just go home and see whether there had been any email replies to my request for information.  I felt that I was wasting time here.  By this time I had been waiting for more than 2 hours, I was hot and feverish. 

 The doctor, Donna Malcolm, came into the cubicle.  She asked 3 questions in an extremely condescending tone.  The first question I forget.  The second:  “Oh, I see that you like to draw pictures.  Will you tell me about them?”.  The third question was “Now tell me, what makes you think you have fluid on your lungs?”. 

 Then I knew for sure that I was wasting my time, and I became quite angry.  I was sick and here was a psychologist or psychiatrist speaking to me like I was a child.  I could see that she didn’t have my file in her hand.  I pulled open the curtain of the cubicle, strode across the aisle to the nurses’ station, looked about for patient files, then pointed down and said (not calmly) “Look in my file.  There is an x-ray in it.  THAT is why I think I have fluid on my lung!  I am wasting my time here.”.   And I headed down the hallway toward the exit.

 The doctor called the security guards and told them to stop me.  I was surprised, I had no idea that I was not free to leave the Hospital.  Each of the guards took me by one of my arms.  I told them to let me go, I fought to free myself of them.   They put me in a closed cell that had a cot in it.   When they determined that I had calmed down, Donna Malcolm came to the cell.    Her opening question was “Now, what seems to be the problem?”.   You will understand that I was without any control over my being.  Physically I had been overpowered.  I was locked up.  And so I responded with the only tool available to me, a put-down, my attempt to gain some power (which I understand in retrospect).  I surprised myself by assertively stating to Donna Malcolm, “Either you have a very short memory, or you are a little short on brain power.  Less than 10 minutes ago I directed you to my file and the x-ray which shows I have fluid on my lung.  THAT is the problem.”  This kind of statement (a put-down)  is not characteristic of my behaviour.

I asked for a waiver form to sign, so I could leave the hospital.  The doctor seemed to agree with the request and left.  I waited and waited.  No forms were forthcoming.  I moved out of the cell into the corridor with the 2 security guards, and chatted with them.   Waited some more.  Finally, I interrupted a passing nurse and explained that I was waiting for a waiver form, would she mind seeing what had happened to it.   Donna Malcolm returned to the area from time to time.  Assertively and firmly I told her that I had been given a waiver form the previous day, and the same option would be available to me now.  Nothing.  Later I told her that what was happening was not right.   I asked for access to a telephone so I could call my lawyer.  Nothing happened.  Finally Donna said that the Hospital had its own lawyer who she would call.   I could not speak with my lawyer.

 I do not recall what prompted the next event.  There was no altercation.  I was taken out of the corridor back into the cell, and placed face-down on the cot.  The top of my slacks was pulled back and a needle injected into my hip area.

 The next thing I knew I was in a hospital room with my parents at bed-side.  I was confused:  they live two and a half hours from Saskatoon.  I didn’t know how long they had been at the Hospital or how they had gotten there.  We were in the middle of a conversation.

 Later I learned that I had spoken with the Hospital’s lawyer.  I have no recollection of her or of the conversation.  And so I understand that a person who has received the injection can carry on conversations but when they come out from the influence of the drug, have no recollection of anything that has happened.  So I was given access to a lawyer, but it was meaningless access.

 Soon enough I discovered that I had been “committed” to the psychiatric ward.  I objected and was told of an appeal procedure.  I filled out the form;  the appeal was scheduled for Thursday morning.

 While in the ward, I made a point of asking, when speaking with a doctor from a different ward (for example, Internal Medicine), “Doctor, where should I be placed in order for you to deal most effectively with the fluid on my lung?  Should I be here, or should I be in Internal Medicine?”.   I was told I should be in I. M.   I asked if they could initiate paper work that would transfer me out of this Ward to where I should be.  It was awkward because there were no clear lines of authority.  I asked the question directly:  “who has the authority to initiate the paperwork to transfer me?”.  There was no definitive answer.  I then surmised that because Donna Malcolm had committed me, she maintained power. 

When confronted with medications, I asked the reason why I should be taking them.  The reasons given were inadequate and I stated why I did not wish to have them.  I had no need for mood altering drugs. I was forced to take Epival, 500 mg twice a day and Risperidone, 1 mg twice a day.  Have you ever taken these drugs?  They deaden your brain.  Try as I might, there were routine pieces of information I simply could not bring to mind.  I knew I knew them, but I couldn’t find them in my memory.  You become monotone, dull, rather numb to stimulation, lacking in vitality.

Dr. Stuart Houston, retired radiologist from the University Hospital, came to visit me.  His comment, when he heard what had happened, “This is something one would expect in the 1950’s.  Not in today’s world.”   Dr. Houston volunteered to come to the Appeal Hearing and speak on my behalf.  Later, by telephone, he advised me that he had collected pieces of my work which he has at his house, to present as evidence to the Hearing.

 A friend was in attendance one afternoon when an employee of the Department came into my room with pills for me to take.  I asked what they were.  One was warfarin, a blood thinner.  I advised the employee that the drug had not been prescribed to me (I had absolutely no knowledge of any doctor having prescribed this drug for me) , and that I didn’t wish to take it.  My friend explained her experience with warfarin (it was not good) to the employee and said that warfarin should only be used if it was known what it was being used for, and only if it was absolutely necessary.   The employee was satisfied and left.  (I knew the reason someone would be administering warfarin from the previous day’s discussion with medical personnel.  It would be as a precautionary measure in case there was an embullism that would travel from my lung to my heart and be lethal.)

 My friend left, it was late afternoon or early evening:  5 people came to my room, three nurse-type people and 2 guards as back-up.  They came with pills in hand – the warfarin and 2 mood-altering drugs.  I told them that I had no need of the drugs.  They told me I had a choice:  either I could take the pills or they would give me an (another) injection.  I took the pills.

 My parents were very upset by what was happening.  My brother from Vancouver Island became party to the information.  He was unable to get any satisfaction by telephone and finally flew out here to Saskatoon.  (He has young children and work to look after at home.)  

 I had been “committed” on a Saturday.  At the end of the work-day on Wednesday Donna Malcolm came to tell me that I had progressed so well under her care (the mood-altering drugs) that I could be released.  Oh, and by the way, she had given instructions, someone would call and cancel the Appeal Hearing – it obviously wouldn’t be necessary since I was no longer certified.  I do not recall whether Donna knew that Dr. Houston would be presenting information on my behalf to the Appeal Hearing.

 I asked when I would be transferred to Internal Medicine.  It would be the next day (Thursday).

During the objections to the warfarin I learned that I had been started on the warfarin (and probably the mood-altering drugs) while I was “out” from the injection.  As mentioned I have no memory of anything that happened during that time.

 On Thursday I let the nurses know that I was to be transferred, and I asked of every doctor I encountered, “Have the papers been processed to transfer me to Internal Medicine?”.  I asked when I would get out, given that the decision had been made the previous day.  I didn’t get out.  My brother arrived and went to work on it.  On Friday, first thing in the morning we were both at work on it, I mindful that if I didn’t get out by the end of the day, I would remain in the psych ward until Monday because nothing happens on the weekend.  I finally got out late in the day Friday.

Internal Medicine was like dying and going to heaven.  I was cold during the first night and asked for a blanket.  The nurse returned with a blanket that she had warmed in the dryer.  I was almost moved to tears, her kindness was in such sharp contrast with what I had experienced since arrival in the Hospital. 

There were significant differences in care.  I had a thoracentesis (drawing of fluid from the pleura) done while I was in Psych and again later when I was in Internal Medicine.  In the Psych ward the care was no different than if I had returned from an x-ray.  You return to your room, use the bathroom if you have to, do whatever needs to be done.  No one tells you anything different.  In Internal Medicine, you are monitored in case the thoracentesis needle might have punctured the lung.  You are confined to bed, if you have to go to the bathroom they want to bring a bed pan; readings of your vital signs are taken every 15 minutes.

I was 2 weeks in Hospital altogether, a week in each ward.  The Psychiatric Ward, in addition to the removal of my civil rights, made a serious attack on my health at a time when I was very sick physically.  I can handle the attack on my health.   As a responsible citizen, and on behalf of other citizens, I cannot stand by and do nothing when persons in positions of authority abuse the civil rights of others.  More than anyone else in the medical profession, a psychologist or psychiatrist should understand and have developed the tools to deal effectively with interpersonal communications.  Instead, at the doctor’s direction I was overcome by physical force, and literally locked up for 7 days.  I was given an injection which efectively made me unconscious – gave me permanent amnesia of the time.  Drugs were forced upon me.  There was no justification. 

 I believe I am not an isolated case.  Fortunately I have the ability to seek redress.  Others do not. 

 Changes are required.

Three weeks following release from Hospital (April 1, 2005) it was confirmed that I had tuberculosis – in the pleura, not inside the lung.  Diagnosed early.  Not contagious.  It is with the consent of Dr. Hoeppner at the TB Control Centre that I am using his diagnostic capabilities and expertise, in conjunction with a well-credentialled and recommended naturopathic doctor.  I did not take the 8-month drug protocol normally assigned. 

 It is not because I think I am smarter than “the doctors” that I do this.  It is because

1)     I have faith in the ability of my body to heal itself, provided I do my part which is to get lots of rest, fresh air, sunshine, good food and live peacefully, in balance. 

2)     My Grandmother-in-law had TB.  She conquered it through the programme at the Sanitorium in the Qu’Appelle Valley back in the forties.  So I know the disease can be overcome without the use of drugs.

3)     Nature evolves.  We know this from the Centre for Disease Control that warns about the development of “super bugs”.  In Africa and in Eastern Europe in particular, TB has evolved to be resistant to the drug protocol we have so far been able to use here in Canada.  I try to live according to what I believe.  I try to do my part.  If I can overcome the disease by improving my immune system and removing that which is weakening it, that is the best way to go.  I do not contribute in any way to the development of resistant organisms.  Resistant organisms are an extremely serious long term problem.  “Problem” is not even the right word to be using.  We are contributing to the development of organisms against which we will eventually have no defence.  

4)     The drugs have side effects while you are taking them.  No one studies the long term effects of the drugs.  

5)     I would rather be tired as I work on the TB, than nauseated for 8 or 9 months from the drugs. 

6)     I am fortunate to have been diagnosed early.  There is time to experiment.  If I can’t beat it the way I propose, the drug option is still available. 

 The naturopathic doctor asks “Why was your immune system not functioning very well?   Lots of people carry inactive TB organisms.  Their immune system is strong enough to keep the bugs at bay.    What is weakening your immune system?”   That approach makes sense to me. 

 It is one-year later and I am returned to health.  Last month I cross-country skiied for 3 hours non-stop, uphill and down dale in the forested area north of Duck Lake.

 In conclusion,  I ask you:  did the doctor’s assessment of my condition began prior to even seeing or talking with me?   Does her assessment correspond to any factual information?   Was there an unjustified and serious violation of my person and my civil rights?  If so, changes are in order to prevent more of the same from happening.  

 Dr. Hoeppner (TB Control)  made a remark about the medical system.  I laughed and said, “Don’t go there.  Not with me.”.   I briefly told him of my experience with being locked up by the system.  He didn’t laugh in return.  He said, “That could have been me.” 

Respectfully submitted,       Sandra Finley

Please check out the relationship between Donna Malcolm and the young woman doctor who provided the second opinion on Donna’s diagnosis.  Was it an objective, independent second opinion?  Was that even possible, given the relationship?

(INSERT:  the second opinion came from a student doctor who was dependent upon Donna Malcolm’s assessment of her work.)

2006-04-05 Water: Unnecessary additions to chemical load in the water supply. Vaporooter. No enforcement. (#2 in a series)

 Health, Take back the University, Water  No Responses »
Apr 052006
 

(Vaporooter specs, see   http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4192)

– – — – – – – – – – – – – — – – – –

Letter 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 Lynne Pearson 

(3)  Others

—————————-

EMAILS TO-DATE:  (This email is one in a series, an attempt to get Federal Govt Departments and the University to work together to address poisons we are putting into water supplies.)

(1)  a request for integrated problem-solving, “Must connect the dots;  integrated approach”,  Mon April 03/2006.

(1a)  “Health, sharing of information among citizens”, Tues Apr 04/2006.

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

USE A SPECIFIC CASE TO ILLUSTRATE

Dear All,

This documentation about the chemical mixture “vapo-rooter” (to dissolve tree roots in sewer lines) is a good case to illustrate what we are doing.

It tells you what is written on the labels.  The attachment explains the toxicity.

We compartmentalize and make this into an “environmental” issue.  We compartmentalize and say “oh those bad agricultural chemicals”. 

Email #1a demonstrates that what we do to other creatures in the environment, we are doing to ourselves.  This demonstrates that city folk are equally involved.

 This is definitely a health issue.  But effective problem-solving will occur ONLY if the parties (Agriculture, Environment, Health, DFO, Universities) come together.

 We are fighting the use of vapo-rooter here in Saskatoon.  If the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency (Dept Health)) and DFO (Dept Fisheries) were doing their jobs – cities would not be putting the chemicals into the water supply.  One of the reasons Saskatoon started using vapo-rooter is because Calgary (upstream city) uses it.  Pity the guys who are at the end of the River.

 It reminds me that DFO is part of the problem.  The abandonment of regulation.  There will be more and more going into the rivers (water supply) because the Liberals slashed DFO enforcement budgets.  “We will sign up a force of “stewards” to replace enforcement of regulations.”  I will send you the full documentation of that later. 

The effort to prevent this one chemical mixture, vapo-rooter, from entering the water supply in this one City, will be two years old this summer.  We are no closer now, than two years ago.  That is “stewardship”.

 Sandra

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

 In his presentation (last week of March), the Government official presented terrific figures on the increase in the number of “watershed stewards” in the province.  And the commitment of the Government to “source water protection”.  Sounds great. 

BUT it doesn’t address the fact that “source water” is actually all water.

What Calgary runs through its “waste” water plant is actually one of the “sources” of my drinking water in Saskatoon.

 I use the example from City Saskatoon:  it contracts out work that involves putting the chemical mixture “vapo-rooter” into the sewer lines (goes to the “waste” water treatment plant).  One of the ingredients is a KNOWN carcinogen.  The other is bad news, too.  Here (I don’t know about elsewhere) they don’t actually have the ability to test the water to see if one of the 2 ingredients is in the water.  After they’ve put it in, ha!) Saskatoon says, in defence of the use, that Calgary also uses vapo-rooter.

… “Source water protection” ???

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

 March 16, 2006:  This was sent to the City and to the Environmental Advisory Committee. 

THE LETTER:

 City Council needs to issue a directive:  tree roots will be augered out of sewer lines.  Vapo-rooter is not to be used.  (The City contracts out the vapo-rooter work.) 

The question of putting Vapo-rooter into the water supply was brought to Council’s attention in summer 2004.  It is not yet resolved.  It comes up at Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting March 23, 2006 and looks as though it will be dropped.

1.   YOU DO NOT OBSERVE RIVERS DYING.  ONE DAY THEY ARE DEAD.

17 rivers in P.E.I are dead, not capable of supporting aquatic life.

(documentary on CTV-TV programme W5, 3 plus years ago).  The chemicals applied to the potato fields run off into the rivers.  P.E.I didn’t plan that their rivers should be dead.  The chemicals are invisible.

2.   AUGERING DOES THE JOB WELL, AND IS COST-EFFECTIVE, IF EXTERNAL COSTS ARE FACTORED IN (AS THEY SHOULD BE)

it is insanity to add to the chemical load of the South Saskatchewan River when a perfectly safe alternative to the chemical concoction Vapo-rooter exists.  Tree roots are augered out manually.  There is nothing wrong with augering.

3.    REPORT ON TOXICITY OF VAPO-ROOTER

 No one of us requires a toxicologist’s report to know how toxic vapo-rooter is.  If the chemical mixture is potent enough to dissolve tree roots, you KNOW it should not be added to the chemical load of a River that already flows through miles and miles of agricultural land in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan.

THAT SAID, if you require a Report on the toxicity of Vapo-rooter – it seems that the process is held up for lack of one – you will find a detailed Report ATTACHED.  Thanks to Paule Hjertaas.

There is no justification for inaction.

4.    TREE ROOTS ARE A TEMPORARY PROBLEM

  Tree roots in sewer lines are a temporary problem.  When old infrastructure is replaced they are no longer a problem.  Augering is fine.

5.     YOU ARE “GETTING AWAY WITH” THE USE OF VAPO-ROOTER;  REGULATIONS ARE NOT ENFORCED

  When the problem with vapo-rooter was brought to Council NO ONE was able to produce a protocol for the removal of vapo-rooter from the water supply by the Water Treatment Plant.  As far as I can determine, it is because there isn’t one – i.e. we don’t know how to remove the chemicals from the water once they are in the water.  If you have read the instructions for the use of vapo-rooter, it is specifically stated that IT HAS TO BE CONTAINED because it is very toxic.  Putting it down a sewer line is in breach of PMRA regulations.

 See the attached Report.  From the product label:

“SPECIAL NOTICE: SANAFOAM ® VAPOROOTER ® should not be used to treat roots in storm sewers or other drains where waste water will not be treated or controlled.” 

–  I feel I have to respond to this, although given what is known about the chemicals in Vapo-rooter (metam and dichlobenil) I know before I ever get to this point, that the use of Vapo-rooter is in no way warranted. 

The Saskatoon Water Treatment Plant reported testing for the presence of the chemicals.  They didn’t find vapo-rooter.  From the attached Report, it is noted that in the case of the metam chemical portion of Vapo-rooter, you have to test for the presence of MITC, not metam.  ” … water testing for metam would be useless unless done very fast after use and in the proper place as the chemical hydrolises rapidly ( 3.17 days).  It would be much more productive to test for MITC which has an average ½ life of 20 days. As a matter of fact, MITC is the active pesticide form.  Or test for 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile, dichlobenil which are residual a lot longer (average 130 days for dichlobenil in water and at least 5-10 months in sediments. In Ireland, dichlobenil was found in groundwater at least 3 years after the pollution stopped.  Dichlobenil, in particular, has had severe aquatic ecosystems effects. …”.

(INSERT, UPDATE:  The Environmental Advisory Committee was told that the cost for testing for the presence of dichlobenil was $3,000.  And there isn’t an available test for metam (MITC).) 

–  It has taken almost 2 years to get ? where? Would SEAC  (Saskatoon Environmental Advisory Committee) please expedite their recommendations?

Sincerely,

Sandra Finley

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

Vaprooter: dichlobenil and metam

Dichlobenil also sold under Casoron, Sanofoam LD 50 oral: 2710 mg/kg and 1350 mg/kg dermal. It is a nitrile Metam is also sold in Sask under the names: Metam and Vapam. It is a dithiocarbamate with 97 mg/kg LD50 for ingestion and 800 for dermal exposure.

(Pease ask if you would like the analysis of vapo-rooter, sent as an attachment (9 pages).  /Sandra)

2006-03-31 Vaporooter is de-registered. However!

 Water  No Responses »
Mar 312006
 

Normally I would shout and dance for joy.  Surely this is a victory.

We’ve been working on vaporooter since 2003.  (Vaporooter is a chemical mixture used to dissolve tree roots in sewer lines.) 

When you read how the Government (Health Canada,  Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)), is handling the de-registration, you will understand why there is no joy.

============================= 

CONTENTS

(1)  BRIEF STATEMENT OF ISSUE (letter to City Council, today).

(1a) COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES

(2)  ELABORATION, WHAT DID THE Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) HAVE TO SAY?

(3)  CONTACT OTHER COMMUNITIES TO STOP USE OF VAPOROOTER, A DE-REGISTERED PRODUCT THAT POISONS WATER SUPPLIES.

(4)  LETTER TO “INTEGRATED PROBLEM-SOLVING OF POISONS IN WATER SUPPLY”.   (In another posting.)

(5)  PMRA HANDLING OF VAPOROOTER IS CONSISTENT WITH HANDLING OF MECOPROP AND UNACCEPTABLE.

(6)  I WILL BE IN OTTAWA NEAR END OF AUGUST, AM WORKING ON ARRANGEMENTS THAT (MIGHT?! HAH) RESULT IN MEETING WITH TONY CLEMENT, MINISTER OF HEALTH. 

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

(1)  BRIEF STATEMENT OF ISSUES (letter to City Council, today.  I will be speaking at Council tonight. Started this in 2003.)

RE:  Use of Vaporooter in Sewer

(Your File No. CK. 375-1)

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I presume you have been advised by the Administration:

Vaporooter was de-registered, effective date given is March 31, 2006 by Health Canada, Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Today I am calling and emailing information to upstream communities that are using Vaporooter.  I am asking those communities to stop using vapo-rooter because we are downstream from them, and receive the combined impact of the poisons put into and washed into the River by every community from Banff and Calgary right on down.

 The PMRA believes it is acceptable that they not disclose the reasons for the de-registration.

Nor do they accept responsibility for notifying the communities in Canada that vapo-rooter is de-registered.

 Respectfully submitted,

Sandra Finley

 =========================

(1a) COMMUNICATION OF INFORMATION TO OTHER COMMUNITIES 

I will be contacting communities and asking them to stop putting vaporooter down their drains because:

–  it is a de-registered product.

–  one of its two ingredients is a known carcinogen.

–  there is no known protocol for removing vaporooter from the water supply, once it gets in.

–  there is no known test available to determine whether one of the two ingredients is in the water supply.

–  the cost for one test to see if the testable ingredient is in the water is $3000 a pop.

–  scheduled once-a-year augering works just fine to remove tree roots from sewer lines until such time as old pipes can be replaced.  The problem of tree roots is associated with old infrastructure.  It is unwise to poison the water supply for a temporary problem.

High levels of disease (cancer, Parkinson’s Disease, etc.) and developmental problems are associated with the poisons we are putting into our water, air, soil and food supply.

 I will be asking the communities that are upstream from Saskatoon to stop the use of vaporooter, because it affects the health of people downstream, here in Saskatoon. 

For people whose water supply isn’t the River:  poisons seep into underground waterways.  And they evaporate, as in the case of acid rain.

 ========================== 

(2)  ELABORATION, WHAT DID THE Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) HAVE TO SAY?

 Vaporooter is an example used to illustrate how the system works.  It doesn’t work to protect “the commons”;  it puts industry interests first.  I have been told by the PMRA that the Government is not going to do the job of notifying communities that vaporooter is de-registered.   They have only notified the supplier. 

From my perspective: we are the ones who drink the water.  If the Government isn’t going to look after it, we will.  We aren’t useless beings.  With our networks, we can improve things.  And if we have to step in to perform the function of the PMRA, so be it.  I have stated before, in relation to the cities and towns and province (Quebec) that have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides registered by the PMRA, that the PMRA is making itself irrelevant.

 The PMRA is a hindrance to getting the job done because the mantra is “If the product is licensed by the PMRA, and if used according to label instructions, then the product is safe to use.”  The example of vaporooter once again shows the dishonesty of the statement.  Vaporooter is de-registered; it is unsafe.  The public isn’t told.  Mecoprop is another example: the industry has from 2004 until 2009, 6 years, in which to continue sale of the product. Then the registration of the product will be cancelled.  They are quietly allowed to sell off their inventory, so as to avoid any financial inconvenience. While the public is spun the mantra:

“safe if used according to label instructions”.  Different rules apply to these companies.  If the product was tainted beef, then the unsafe product would be pulled immediately from the shelves.

The failure of the regulatory system has extremely serious consequences for our own health and for the health of children in particular.  The public is maintained in a state of ignorance about the products.  You find wording such as, “The industry has agreed to …”.  Why wouldn’t they agree to have 6 years in which to get the products off the shelf?  But why should we stand stupidly by and allow our water supplies to become more and more poisoned?

We know the increase in disease rates and developmental problems.  Are we so disempowered that we won’t stand up to the Government when it serves the corporate interest?

Paul Sawatsky is the regional enforcement official for the PMRA.  For newcomers:  I phoned Connie Moase, the head of the PMRA – – spoke by phone with her, and then with Karen McCullagh who is head of Enforcement for the PMRA.  I met in person with Paul Sawatsky who is the Regional enforcement officer.  The point I made with Paul and with “Ottawa”: the problem is NOT with enforcement.  It is with licensing.  The PMRA is licensing highly poisonous products which most communities are incapable of removing from their water supplies.  This is obviously true of communities that empty their sewers into a body of water with zero treatment.  It is true of communities that only have primary treatment.  It is most likely true of communities that have secondary treatment.  It is possibly also true of the few communities in Canada that have so-called “tertiary” or third level treatment capability. 

With vaporooter there is no known test to see if one of its two chemical components is in the water supply (we know that it’s been put down the drain;  we can’t test to see if it’s in the water).

In my conversations with the PMRA, I said, “You say that vaporooter is safe, “If used according to label instructions”.  The instructions say that the water into which vaporooter goes, has to be “controlled” or “treated”.  What do you mean by “treated”?  Does it mean that the water has to go through a water treatment plant?  Or does it mean that the water has to be specifially treated for the removal of the particular chemical components?

 The answer was:  this is a question that the PMRA is now addressing.  They don’t know what their labels mean. 

It is obvious if you know a little about the actual water treatment systems we have, about the total lack of capability to test for the presence of some chemicals in the water, and the cost of testing for others ($3000 for a test for just one chemical, for example) that you cannot just release the poisons into the water and rely on the water treatment plants to remove them. 

We discovered that in the case of vaporooter, no one could come up with a protocol to remove it from the water.  “Safe if used according to label instructions?”  If the label instructions require that the water be treated, it has to be treated to specifically remove the specific poisons that were put into the water.  If that is the case, then someone who puts the poisons into a sewer line, must show me the place along the sewer line where they are catching and treating the contaminated water.  Presumeably it is at the place where the sewer line from the individual property joins the artery city sewer line.  I need to see the equipment and the protocol they use to remove these specific poisons.  But as stated, in the early work on vaporooter we searched for such a protocol.  No one was able to produce one.

Presumeably the PMRA would have produced one, if they know of one.

This is all pretty damning.  Since 2003 I have been submitting evidence to the City, calling on it to cease and desist in the use of vaporooter.  The augering out of tree roots has worked just fine for decades.  It is cost effective if you are required to address the so-called “external costs”, those such as increased healthcare and environmental costs that are borne by the society at large, not by the manufacturers of the products.

 We have communicated directly with the Government (Tony Clement, Minister of Health) and with the officials at the PMRA (Connie Moase and Karen McCullagh among others).

 So what happens? …  I phone the local official to inquire.  “What is the status of your report on vaporooter?  I will be making another presentation to City Council and would like to provide up-to-date information.”

 The official provided me with all the information I need;  I am grateful to him.  He has worked with the City and with the Company to whom the vaporooter work is contracted out locally.  His report concludes that the City and Company are in compliance with the regulations.  No laws are being broken. 

Then he mentioned that vaporooter has been de-registered, as of March 31st.

Nothing to do with this work on it.  …  Had I not phoned to ask for an update on the investigation and report, I would not have known about the de-registration.  In spite of having talked on the telephone with Connie Moase and Karen McCullagh, no one communicated that vaporooter is now de-registered. 

This is disturbing to me personally because of my involvement.  The other information provided by the official is disturbing from the perspective of what is expected in a democracy.

 The PMRA will only notify the supplier of vaporooter that it is now a de-registered product. It will not notify the towns and cities whose water supply is affected. I presume the product will remain on the market until the supplier has sold all his current stock.  (I presume based on the experience with the chemical mecoprop.) 

I asked for the reasons why vaporooter was de-registered.  And was told that the officials are under instruction not to discuss those reasons, even if they know them.

I asked:  if vaporooter is de-registered, does that mean that one or both of the chemical ingredients in vaporooter is also de-registered?  The answer is “not necessarily”.  A product can be de-registered, or ingredients can be de-registered.  The public is not privy to the reasons for de-registration.

And the officials cannot talk about it.

Paul, the official, mentioned that there can be an application to re-register vaporooter.

I said to Paul that such a system makes it impossible to fix problems.  He might know of problems or solutions to them, but because of a general gag order, he (civil servants) will feel inclined to keep mouths shut.

The PMRA is not notifying anyone, except the supplier, when the product is de-registered.  How are people to know that the product is extremely problematic;  they shouldn’t be using it if it is de-registered?  And how are we to know when an application is made to re-register the product?  Are the PMRA and the company just waiting until the heat is off?  Will a different supplier approach to register the product?  No one outside the first supplier and some people in the PMRA know that the product is de-registered … isn’t it ideal to be dealing with an ignorant public?  If no reasons are given for de-registration, how is the public to know that re-registration is justifiable?

I didn’t ask Paul, but Connie Moase, head of the PMRA needs to answer:  Upon what basis is the information kept secret from the public?  Show me the legislated justification.  Specifically why isn’t it public information?

If vaporooter is de-registered, there are no label instructions under which it can be used.  (“Safe, if used according to label instructions.”)

McGill’s is the local vendor in the Saskatoon area of vaporooter.  McGill’s supplied City Administration with a list of communities that are using vaporooter to support the argument that it’s okay to put the poison down the drain because all these other communities are doing it, too.

================================== 

(3)  CONTACT OTHER COMMUNITIES TO STOP USE OF VAPOROOTER, A DE-REGISTERED PRODUCT THAT POISONS WATER SUPPLIES.

 Will you contact your Council to see if vaporooter is used in sewer lines?

Bring them up-to-speed:  vaporooter is de-registered because it poisons the water supply.  It is obvious that no one else will be doing this for us.  It falls to us to protect our water supplies.

 ============================== 

(4)  LETTER TO “INTEGRATED PROBLEM-SOLVING OF POISONS IN WATER SUPPLY”.    (In another email.) 

============================ 

(5)  PMRA HANDLING OF VAPOROOTER IS CONSISTENT WITH HANDLING OF MECOPROP AND UNACCEPTABLE.

From the PMRA (2004):

 ” … In order to achieve an orderly phase-out of products containing racemic mecoprop, the registrants of the technical active ingredient have agreed to limit sales of the technical active ingredient in 2004 to a maximum of their annual average over the past five years. Beyond 2005, sales of existing end-use products in the possession of those other than the registrant as well as use of end-use product by users is permitted until 31 December 2009 when the registrations will be cancelled.”

 ============================= 

(6)  I WILL BE IN OTTAWA NEAR END OF AUGUST, AM WORKING ON ARRANGEMENTS THAT (MIGHT?! HAH) RESULT IN MEETING WITH TONY CLEMENT, MINISTER OF HEALTH.

2006-03-24 Dr. Frederica Perera, the “DNA Damage Detective”. Prevention versus Cure.

 Epigenetics  No Responses »
Mar 242006
 

ARTICLE BY HART HAIDN, INTRODUCING WORK OF DR. PERARA, CBC INTERVIEW MARCH 24, 2006

NOTE:  See 2012 research, very important:   2012-05-23  Interview with Dr. David Crews, Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance, Chemical damage can be inherited by offspring through unlimited generations

Useful References:

  1. http://www.ccceh.org Columbia University, Centre for Children’s Environmental Health, Dr. Perara
  2. “The Current: Part 2 Frederica Perera” broadcast Friday, March 24   (Link no longer valid. I don’t know if CBC has it in archives?)http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2006/200603/20060324.html
  3. Wendy Mesley, CBC TV programme “Marketplace“, (March 11 and April 2), documentary on cancer (Wendy has cancer):  (same as preceding, link no longer valid.  http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/cancer/index.html )

The documentary asks the question: why isn’t the public being told?

Hart writes:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But, how often do you hear or read about disease prevention?  Compare it with how often you hear or read about curing a disease. In our health care system the principle for spending is:

  • An ounce of prevention is matched by a pound of cure.

It just doesn’t make sense. What makes it worse is that governments and disease corporations (Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke foundations) are all on the same track.

Governments conveniently hide behind the phrase “The Best Science We Have”, looking at the science with the most political and economic power behind it.

When I think about an analogy about the current levels of all kinds of diseases, from cancer to Parkinson’S Disease, the development in exposing the dangers of smoking comes to mind.

Due to a concerted effort of civil society and government regulations, smoking has almost become socially unacceptable. But it was a long struggle. Look at this excerpt from an article in USA Today:

“Government: Cover-up lasted 45 years By Wendy Koch and Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

09/23/99- Updated 11:38 PM ET

WASHINGTON – On Dec. 15, 1953, a cloudy and windy day in New York City, top executives of the nation’s tobacco companies met at the Plaza Hotel to confront what they considered a crisis: studies showing a link between cigarettes and cancer.

They acted quickly. Less than three weeks later, they issued a “frank” statement insisting there was “no proof” that smoking causes lung cancer.  “We believe the products we make are not injurious to health,” they said.

That meeting, according to a groundbreaking Clinton administration lawsuit filed Wednesday against tobacco companies, began a decades-long campaign to deceive the public about the health risks of smoking. The lawsuit, citing newly disclosed industry documents, says the industry knew even 45 years ago that smoking was deadly. …”

The situation was this: scientists working in the public interest had realized for some time the link between smoking and cancer and other lung diseases. Other scientists, working for the tobacco industry (either directly or indirectly) “proved” that this link did not exist. It is amazing:
the complete unwillingness of medical science to stand up against the interests of the tobacco industry for many decades – not until the evidence for mortality from smoking was monumental and overwhelming – illustrates how easily science falls prey to external pressures.

And industry got away with this for decades – also because governments did not take the warnings seriously. The blame that the tobacco industry could rake in billions for another five decades at the expense of an ignorant public must be put firmly on governments who we should be able to trust to protect us from harm.

How naïve this trust is becomes evident again when you look at some of the latest developments in trying to expose the environmental links to numerous diseases. The situation is not much different from the tobacco fiasco. For decades we have been warned about the harmful effects of a polluted environment.

One of the problems is that it is extremely difficult to establish clear cause and effect relations between environmental pollution (this includes food, particularly highly processed foods, household cleaners and so forth).  The testing of the tens of thousands of synthetic substances that are released into the environment is woefully inadequate.

An article in Orion Magazine January/February 2006 editions states:

“A recent study of umbilical cord blood, collected by the Red Cross from ten newborns and analyzed in two different laboratories, revealed the presence of pesticides, stain removers, wood preservatives, heavy metals, and industrial lubricants, as well as the wastes from burning coal, garbage, and gasoline.  Of the 287 chemicals detected, 180 were suspected carcinogens, 217 were toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 have been linked to abnormal development and birth defects in lab animals. …”

Anyway, you get the idea: science is not an objective and benevolent arena of human endeavor. Nor are governments capable of protecting us. We all have to do our own share and take on responsibility to protect ourselves, our families and communities.

Here are two more pieces of evidence. I recorded two CBC Radio ‘The Current’ shows.

The Current: Part 1 Thursday, March 2, 2006;  interview with Wendy Mesley

The Current: Part 2 Friday, March 24, 2006; interview with Frederica Perera

A few weeks ago, the CBC’s Wendy Mesley appeared on The Current to tell us about the questions she began asking herself during her own battle with breast cancer. Questions like . why do people with a healthy lifestyle get cancer? What role does a polluted environment play in causing cancer? And why isn’t more work being done to understand the environmental causes of cancer?

We were flooded with mail from other cancer survivors and their loved ones, all expressing similar frustration and confusion over diagnoses that seemed to come out of no where. Well, award-winning cancer researcher Frederica Perera has been working for decades to shed light on the connections between the environment people live in and how that affects their risk of getting cancer.

Dr. Perera has been billed as a “DNA damage detective”. She teaches environmental health at Columbia University and is the Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health. Dr. Perera joined us from our New York studio.

Frederica P. Perera, Dr.P.H., Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH)

Dr. Perera’s areas of interest include environmental causes of disease, disease prevention, molecular epidemiology, environmental risks to children, environment- susceptibility interactions in cancer and developmental damage, breast and lung cancer, cancer prevention, chemoprevention, and risk assessment. Asthma prevention is also a part of the research of the CCCEH.

Molecular epidemiology is a relatively new discipline which merges highly sophisticated laboratory techniques with epidemiologic methods in order to use biomarkers in human tissue as indicators of potential risk of cancer and other diseases — hence as a tool in disease prevention. Under the direction of Dr. Perera, the program in Molecular Epidemiology has made substantial progress in validating biomarkers in populations with well-defined exposures and/or with those with a defined risk of cancer. The biomarkers include internal and molecular dosimeters of carcinogens such as DNA adducts, alterations in genes and chromosomes such as mutated oncogenes, and genetic susceptibility factors such as polymorphisms in genes controlling the metabolism of carcinogens.  Susceptibility due to nutritional deficiencies is also one of her research interests. Her research has significant implications for risk assessment and disease prevention.

As Director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health, Dr. Perera leads a team of scientists, researchers, community activists, and other experts in studying the effects of pre and postnatal exposures to common urban air pollutants on children’s respiratory health and neurocognitive development. The Center works internationally, including studies in the United States, Poland, and China. As part of the Center’s Mothers and Newborns Study, Dr. Perera and her team are currently following a cohort of more than 500 women and their children (from in utero through age 5) in the low-income New York City neighborhoods of Harlem, Washington Heights, and the South Bronx. In addition to establishing widespread exposures to pollutants within the cohort, the study has found an association between prenatal exposures to air pollutants and pesticides, and reduced fetal growth.

Dr. Perera and her colleagues are increasingly focusing their efforts in the areas of prevention of carcinogenic, developmental and asthma risks to the infant and young child, chemoprevention, and environment-susceptibility interactions in breast and lung cancer.

Link to Center for Children’s Environmental Health http://www.ccceh.org

2006-03-17 Water: Put it in upstream. It’s there downstream. Lloydminster

 Water  No Responses »
Mar 172006
 

RELATED TO:

 

Fri 17 Mar 2006

Lloydminster Meridian Booster

ALDERMAN QUESTIONS WATER QUALITY; SHOULD THE CITY BE DOING MORE TO ENSURE OUR DRINKING WATER IS SAFE?

BY LEO PARE, STAFF WRITER

A Lloydminster alderman says more could be done to improve the safety and quality of the city’s water supply.

This past January the City of Lloydminster released its annual drinking water quality notice to consumers, which revealed trace elements of chemicals like arsenic, Malathion, pesticide 2,4-D and Picloram herbicide. Although the amounts appear to be well below government limits, Lloydminster alderman Duff Stewart holds concerns about the long-term impacts those potentially harmful chemicals could have.

“When we’re pulling in things like 2,4-D we should be wondering where it’s coming from. Maybe it’s Edmonton, maybe it’s Vermilion,” Stewart said. “Maybe we have to start looking at a lot of the things we’re ingesting, whether it’s water our meat or whatever.

“There has to be an awareness, but we can’t be alarmists and say ‘don’t use our water anymore,’ because that’s not going to work.”

It has been confirmed in recent years that trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and cosmetic products are making their way into the North Saskatchewan River – the source of Lloydminster’s water since 1983 – but little is known about the potential long-term impacts on human health. Municipalities across the country work constantly to improve filtering and treatment methods, but a 100 per cent flawless system has yet to be developed.

In 2003, experts at Edmonton’s Enviro-Test Labs tested tap water in 10 Canadian cities to see whether the samples contained pharmaceutical drugs, such as antibiotics, prescription painkillers, and other drugs. The results were confirmed by a second lab at Trent University in Ontario. Drugs were found in the drinking water of four cities. Scientists called the test results a wake-up call about what’s happening to the Canadian water supply.

CHEMICAL PESTICIDES FOUND IN LLOYDMINSTER WATER SUPPLY

– Bromoxynil: a nitrile herbicide used for post-emergent control of broadleaf weeds.

In one documented case of chronic exposure to humans, workers showed symptoms of weight loss, fever, vomiting, headache and urinary problems.

– Dicamba (Banvel): a benzoic acid herbicide. It can be applied to the leaves or to the soil. Dicamba is suspected of being a human teratogen.

– 2,4-D: a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. 2,4-D has a limited ability to cause birth defects.

– Diclofop-methyl: a selective post-emergence herbicide for control of wild oats and annual grassy weeds.

– Pentachlorophenol (PCP): a chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide and fungicide.

Accumulation is not common, but if it does occur, the major sites are the liver, kidneys, plasma protein, brain, spleen, and fat.

– Picloram: a systemic herbicide used for control of woody plants and a wide range of broadleaf weeds.

The City of Lloydminster says pesticides in drinking water may occur as a result of these substances used by humans.

These substances may represent a long-term health risk if the Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) or Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentration (IMAC) is exceeded.

To date, none of these substances have been found to be over the MAC or IMAC limits in Lloydminster water.

During a tour of the waste water treatment plant in London, Ont. in 2001, Stewart and other municipal officials observed that city’s use of an ultraviolet light system used to kill bacteria in the water supply. The City of Lloydminster then opted to utilize similar technology, but the $50,000-to-$100,000 investment was continually pushed back. To date, no such technology is used in Lloydminster’s water treatment process.

“One reason you’d want to invest in something like that is because it reduces the amount of chlorine you’d use in the system,” Stewart said. “Chlorine breaks down into a cancer-causing agent … so the more chlorine you put in, the more chances you have of including an agent that’s not good for you.

“(Ultraviolet equipment) was supposed to be on the budget this year, but when I asked they said it had been moved from the capital budget … but from the amount of money we’re making on water, we should be able to tune it up pretty quick.”

Utilities engineer Scott Kusalik said ultra-violet technology is still in consideration for Lloydminster, but because Sask. Environment requires municipalities to use a specific amount of chlorine in water treatment, – reducing the need for UV bacteria control – it is arguable whether the technology is necessary.

“It does a great job of neutralizing the bacteria in the system,” he said. “But part of our permit to operate our waterworks says we have to retain a certain chlorine residual, so if we went full UV and didn’t chlorinate, we actually wouldn’t be complying.”

Kusalik said the city conducts frequent analysis in compliance with Sask. Environment standards, and although he notes an increased awareness in regards to pharmaceuticals and other chemicals now found in water supplies, he says governments have yet to develop clear standards and regulations for those substances.

“Being downstream from Edmonton, sometimes you never know what you can get in the water,” Kusalik said. “There’s absolutely no real clarity for standards on this stuff at all.

“A lot of the drugs and that kind of stuff, we don’t even have to test for yet.”

–   – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  –

Duff Stewart, the alderman behind Leo Pare’s newspaper article, said that his friend fishes in the North Saskatchewan River.  But won’t eat the fish he catches.  He throws them back to the River.  Because they have the accumulated pesticides/toxins in their bodies.  Leo mentioned the deformities.  (same thing as is happening at Fort Chip, Lake Athabasca).

2006-03-15 Terminator Technology will not solve the problem it is intended to address

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Food, Genetically Modified  No Responses »
Mar 152006
 

A warm embrace to many recent new-comers to our network, from all of us!

And many, many thanks for the insights and input others of you have provided.  It is woven into the information base and gave me the conviction to, as Zeb recommended, “use the phone more”!

UPDATE:

March 14 I talked by telephone with Bob McLean, head of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations meetings on Terminator Technology in Brazil that start next week (March 20).

We had a good talk.  I won’t go into the arguments I presented in the conversation and the counter-arguments.

I did not say, but I understand that there is only so much that can be done by one person in the system.  Bob can do his work to the best of his ability, but we have to do our part, if there is to be a satisfactory outcome on Terminator Technology – herbicide-tolerant seeds with another design feature added:  they’re now sterile, too.  (This is the path our food supply is taking.)

This morning I sent the letter below to ALL the parties who have played a role in terminator technology, for the purpose of bringing them together in effective problem-solving.  The letter places terminator technology in context.  When you understand what has happened, you better understand “their” perceived need to proceed with terminator technology, and you can see that “they” think they are acting in our best interests.  That has to be unveiled.  Terminator is not in the public interest.  The problem is the development of herbicide-tolerant seeds.  If we stop the development of those seeds, there is no need for terminator technology and whatever ghoulish inventions will be necessary to deal with the unforeseen problems created by it.

Hopefully the letter and attachment will provide newcomers with enough background to understand what is going on.  Terminator Technology, if allowed to proceed, will further entrench governance that serves transnational corporate interests.  There are severe implications for our health (the food supply) and for the environment.

In my mind,  the best people to lobby are:    (INSERT:  outdated contact info has been removed)

(1)  Chuck Strahl, Minister Responsible for Dept Agriculture New Westminster, BC

(2)  Parliamentary Secretary to Chuck Strahl David L. Anderson, from Frontier, Saskatchewan Cypress Hills – Grasslands

(3)  Leonard Edwards, Deputy Minister Agriculture

(4)  Rona Ambrose, Minister Responsible for Dept Environment Edmonton-Spruce Grove (Alberta)

(5)  Mark Warawa,  Parliamentary Secretary, Environment, Langley, BC

(6)  Your own Member of Parliament

A phone call is best, email second best.

Effective messages are short (unlike mine!).  Something like:

“Terminator Technology is taking us further down a wrong pathway.  Please support the United Nations Moratorium on terminator technology.  And remove all licensing for these seeds in Canada.  Herbicide-tolerant seeds are the problem to be addressed.  The licensing of these seeds needs to be stopped.”

Your participation brings no results if I don’t join my hand to yours.  My letter will bear no fruit, if others don’t join their hand to mine.

Together we are powerful.

Cheers!

Sandra

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

LETTER SENT:  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15 AM:

———

SENT TO:    list at bottom

PURPOSE OF COMMUNICATION:

To connect people who have responsibilities for terminator technology for the purpose of problem-solving.

The office of Chuck Strahl, Minister of Agriculture is the most obvious candidate to co-ordinate the problem-solving.

Dear All,

(1)  I understand that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Dept of Agriculture,  has already licensed terminator seeds.

Request:  François Guimont (613 225 2342), President of the CFIA, responsible for the licensing of crops: will you please confirm this with me?

——-

(2)  RE: Government of Canada negotiating Terminator Technology UN Meetings start next week, March 20, Brazil (Bob McLean, Dept of Environment, is Head of the Canadian Delegation)

INPUT TO PARTIES:

Terminator Technology was a response, the wrong response, to a mistake made by credentialed,  influential authorities and the Governments  – public investment in herbicide tolerant crops.  The chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech corporations are also paying dearly as angry farmers demand they come and pull the plants (weeds) that are resistant to chemicals, out of their fields.  The public is screaming.

Rather than admit the mistake and back out, another gene manipulation is being made to try and correct the problem:  the seeds designed to be tolerant of chemical applications now also carry a “suicide” trait.

The re-design is supposed to correct the earlier design which quickly spread and became a pollutant that is very costly to control – not to mention that citizens are not anxious to have a food supply developed according to the criteria that it be resistant to chemicals (and now it has also to be sterile).  … Our Governments and Universities invested in the development of herbicide-tolerant seeds.  They’re in a hole; instead of climbing out, they are digging in deeper (We have a Problem?  … well then, we’ll make the seeds sterile!  Ha!  Aren’t we brilliant!).

“Correct” responses address the actual problem.  Inappropriate responses to problems are band-aids that temporarily cover over the problem.  Under the band-aid, the wound festers and grows larger.

Terminator Technology is a wrong response to the pollution caused by herbicide-tolerant crops:

–  It will not arrest the development and licensing of seeds designed to be tolerant of herbicide applications.  Alfalfa, grasses, lentils, wheat, canola … the list of herbicide-tolerant plants developed, licensed, in use and waiting to be introduced is long.

–  Nor does Terminator Technology address the problem that due to partnerships between the corporations, the Government, and the Universities, we are totally without effective regulation (protection of the commons).

Seeds are a vital part of the commons, to be carefully guarded and protected to serve the public interest.  With seed development, we have completely lost that function in the Canadian democracy.  The Government is a collaborator in serving corporate interests, to the detriment of the public interest.

 

And then there are the fish (Canadian) that have had growth genes from other species inserted into them, and the pigs (American) with growth genes from human beings.  The fish grow to 6 times the size of normal fish within a year’s time.  Government regulation?  Aaah!  but these fish, too, are designed to be sterile.   “Life Running Out of Control” by Germandocumentary-maker Bertram Verhaag, who I met while he was in Saskatchewan collecting the footage on our experience with gene-altered canola, is an excellent source of information – I recommend it to you.  I myself, might have titled the documentary “Man playing God”.

This is our food supply, guys.  And always it comes back to the fundamental question:  in whose interests?

The industry propaganda extols the virtues of seeds that are resistant to chemicals.  And now the virtue of chemical-resistant, sterile seeds.  The irrefutable evidence is that herbicide-tolerant seeds lead to higher levels of chemical use.  A simple person can figure it out:  more and more plants are resistant to glyphosate (roundup).  You can kill off unwanted plants with an application of glyphosate, but there has to be a follow-up application of 2,4-D to kill the resistant plants.  Is terminator technology the solution?

 

Terminator Technology is a classic example of the functioning of dynamic systems.  You have a system that is out-of-balance (use herbicide-tolerant canola to illustrate).  In order to bring canola back to equilibrium, as with any dynamic system, you have to:

a.  respond to the feedback that something is wrong by taking the APPROPRIATE corrective action to bring the system back to equilibrium,  and b.  do it “in time”.

If you fail on either account, the system falls into further disintegration and eventual collapse.  The classic case used to illustrate this by Jane Jacobs is the Atlantic cod fishery:  the feedback was declining catches.

The response was more money which both maintained and attracted more people to the fishery, which allowed bigger vessels that could go further to sea.

It was the wrong response to the feedback; the cod fishery collapsed, with severe repercussions.  The last time I checked, a number of years ago, the collapse was permanent.  That is characteristic of dynamic systems:  once they go past a certain level of disintegration, they are not retrievable.

Seeds are the basis of our food supply.  First the seeds were engineered so they can be sprayed with chemicals and survive.  Now those seeds have another modification to make them sterile.  Meanwhile the production of herbicide-tolerant plants moves forward – more and more of them are released into the environment.  The base problem is not addressed.  And in whose interests?

Much of the nutrient value is in the germ of a seed;  sterile seeds mean what?

People buy wheat germ to add to their breakfast cereal to compensate for nutrients removed in the milling process (cereal typically has the wheat germ removed to increase the shelf life of the product. The “germ” of the seed will go rancid if not refrigerated.)

What has happened to the germ of the seed, if the seed is sterile?  The health of the population is dependent upon the quality of the available foods.

Do sterile seeds produce pollen?

The problem with answering the question is that most of the research has transnational corporate interest behind it. They expected people to believe the silly things about herbicide tolerant seeds (they can “co-exist” in nature). Such lies have been held forth until they became untenable in an informed and  guffawing public.  Public trust in “the science” and the reassurances have been completely undermined. … The corporations and their collaborators….

I ask you to put your heads together.  Back out of the hole.  Terminator Technology will not correct the actual problems because in no way does it address the problems.  We are on the wrong path.  Your reputations will be saved if you have the courage to acknowledge and address the problem.  I challenge you to find the APPROPRIATE response in a TIMELY fashion.

Many of you have inherited the dilemma from your predecessors.  You don’t have face to save.  You are in a position to assert the public interest.

The CFIA, Department of Agriculture should withdraw all licensing of seeds that have been designed to be resistant to chemical applications and all seeds that have built-in Terminator Technology, also known as

– Technology Protection System (TPS)

– “Suicide seeds”

– genetic seed sterilisation technology (GSST)

– GURTS, Genetic Use Restriction Technologies.

That will address the root of the problem.  Also, the Patent Act needs to be updated.  It applies to mechanical devices.  It was never intended for application to life forms.  To subscribe to the idea that a person or a corporation can legitimately claim ownership over life forms is nuts.

———-

The United Nations negotiations on Terminator Technology are through

– the Department of the Environment.

But the people and institutions behind terminator technology are

– the Departments of Agriculture and

– Health,

– the universities where the biotechnology research is being carried out through partnerships between the Government, the Universities and

– the corrupt chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech complex of companies.

(I have a long list from the public record of the court convictions, etc. against these corporations if people question the choice of words, “corrupt”.)

I am sending this communication to many of the people/institutions that have played a role along the path that led to terminator technology.  (recipients are listed below.)  We all share responsibility for arriving at this place.

It is unfair to target the Department of Environment over Terminator Technology.  It is a shared responsibility.  May we all do our part.  This is mine.

Thanks.

Sandra Finley

————

TO:

Bob McLean

Dept of Environment

Head of the Canadian Delegation

negotiating Terminator Technology

UN Meetings next week, start March 20, Brazil

(819) 997-1303; Robert.Mclean  AT  ec.gc.ca;

(Bob was also head of delegation at the Bangkok round of negotiations)

 

John Karau

Dept of Environment

(John was head at the round of negotiations in Spain.) Biodiversity Convention office john.karau  AT  ec.gc.ca; Phone 819 953 9669

Rona Ambrose,  Minister Responsible for Dept Environment Edmonton-Spruce Grove (Alberta)  (contact info removed)

Deputy Minister, Dept Environment

(Justice Gomery recommended that deputy ministers bear more responsibility for their actions.  Hence their inclusion in this communication.)

Mark Warawa,  Parliamentary Secretary, Environment  Langley, BC  (contact info removed)

——-

NOTE:  I have asked the University of Saskatchewan to re-visit its partnerships with corporations, because of the corruption they create.  My case is well documented, from external sources and from personal experience.

My submission to the Board of Governors is attached.)

———————

University of Saskatchewan

Board of Governors

c/o Lea Pennock, University Secretary

Lea.Pennock  AT  usask.ca; alex.hockley  AT  usask.ca;

Ernie Barber, Dean of Agriculture, U of S ernie.barber  AT  usask.ca;

François Guimont (613 225 2342),  President of the CFIA, (Cdn Food Inspection Agency) responsible for the licensing of crops that are the basis of our food supply. The CFIA is part of Agriculture Canada.  guimontf  AT  inspection.gc.ca;

Stephen Yarrow, director of CFIA’s plant bio-safety office syarrow  AT  inspection.gc.ca;

Chuck Strahl, Minister Responsible for Dept Agriculture New Westminster, BC

Parliamentary Secretary to Chuck Strahl, David L. Anderson, from Frontier, Saskatchewan Cypress Hills – Grasslands

Leonard Edwards, Deputy Minister Agriculture edwardslj  AT  agr.gc.ca; (613) 759 1101

the United Nations moratorium on Terminator c/o Dr. Tewolde (Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, Ethiopia) African biosafety negotiator esid AT  ethionet.et;

Dr. Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary of the CBD Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety secretariat AT  biodiv.org;

My Member of Parliament

(The University of Saskatchewan is also in his riding) Brad Trost Saskatoon Humboldt

———————–

UN Meeting in Brazil (20-31 March 2006) on Terminator Technology.  This matter requires prompt attention.

 

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

 Older Entries  Newer Entries