There IS something that can be done. This email is only part of it.
From letter to Chief Medical Health Officer:
“… it is claimed that high salaries are necessary in order to attract the right people. But the right people are those who will assume responsibility and carry out the action which common sense dictates is needed. The right people are those without fear. It seems to me that the greater the paycheque, the more entrenched is the status quo, and for this very reason I cite – that people are fearful of losing the pay-cheque. Perhaps I am in a state of luxery – I can be fearless because I don’t have a paycheque to lose? …”
===================================
Last Wednesday we met with 3 officials from the Regina Qu’Appelle Health Authority.
We began working, we thought “with” them, in 2001-02 to move forward on the pesticide agenda in Regina. We have supplied information, had meetings, etc. on an on-going basis.
The first big let-down came when the Medical Health Officer, Dr. Maurice Hennink, gave the Health Authority’s presentation to City Council a couple of years ago. Councillor Fred Clipsham asked question after question, giving Maurice every opportunity to say, “yes, these are harmful substances”, or “yes, they have an impact on the developmental health of children”, … anything. What he got was avoidance. Finally, in exasperation Councillor Clipsham said to Dr. Hennink, “I can’t tell which side of the fence you’re sitting on, Doctor.” The words don’t leave my memory. When your own Health Authority won’t back you up, in spite of all the information supplied to them, it is worse than any presentation given by the chemical industry itself.
I went to this particular meeting on Wednesday with re-newed optimism. The CEO, Dwight Nelson was in attendance, as well as Dr. Tanya Denier, to whom Maurice reports, and Maurice himself. … To me it is such a no-brainer, I can’t see how anyone, especially the Health Authorities, can do anything BUT to take effective action to help eliminate unnecessary exposure.
We got nowhere. Dwight made it very clear that we should understand that the Health Authority takes its marching orders from the Province. I asked, “Where is your Board of Directors on this question?”. Response: “They are all appointed by the Province.”
The Province doesn’t want to do anything about pesticide use. The Health Authorities won’t challenge them, not even in their own districts. The DOCTORS won’t do anything.
Coincidentally, just after this Wednesday meeting, I received a letter from Deputy Minister of Health John Wright, telling me why the Province can’t do anything:
“Health regions are responsible for implementing prevention and health promotion initiatives in their local communities.” !!
We pay Dwight Nelson, CEO of the Health Authority, well over $200,000 a year, plus travel to conferences, etc. – perks that come with the job. I don’t know how much Tanya Denier and Maurice Hennink make. The Deputy Minister, John Wright, will be paid $120,000 to $130,000 plus lots of perks.
The last time I checked, Board members are paid $200 a day. It is highly unreasonable for us to pay these salaries to people who refuse to do their job (protection of health).
At Wednesday’s meeting, we learned that the Medical Health Officers (MHO’s) for the Province (from all the Health Authorities) had a meeting on Thursday and Friday (Nov 25 and 26) with the Chief MHO for the Province, Dr. Ross Findlater. Pesticides was on the agenda. I emailed this letter:
——————–
Hi Ross,
If you are in Saskatoon sometime, my number is 373-8078. Perhaps we could have a coffee. Or, sometime when I am in Regina.
I don’t understand what is going on.
Perhaps people in the Health field think I am some kind of wacko weirdo.
My personality type is that of “investigator” – when I don’t understand, I try to figure things out. It is the way I am. I ask questions: how can it be that by far the majority of Canadians are opposed to the introduction of wheat that has been engineered to be resistant to herbicides – but the Government pushes ahead with it, in spite of the opposition? Even when, after the experience with herbicide-resistant canola and loss of markets, the product – roundup resistant wheat – doesn’t make any common sense. In the attempt to understand the process and what is going on, one learns.
That is how I know about the PMRA. I don’t make unfounded statements.
There is a reason for everything. If you take the time to gather the information, sort it out, and think it through, you can understand the reason. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the PMRA, the chemical industry – it’s all consistent with the findings of the Auditor General.
It does not take a rocket scientist to differentiate between “good” and “bad” science. Nor to know what we should be doing about pesticides.
In an attempt to understand how it can be that officials will not act to protect the public from unnecessary exposure to pesticides when the evidence is clear (but the products are invisible and have long-term effects) (the effects are worse than those of tobacco) I wrote a piece “The Dynamics of Change” which I have appended.
What it says is that conventional wisdom is difficult to change. But I think there is more at work here. The explanation is insufficient.
After meeting with officials from Health, who tell me that the Health Authorities are “the creation of the Provincial Government” and therefore have no responsibility except to carry out the policy directives of the Provincial Government (unless there is an immediate threat such as a SARS outbreak), I am beginning to formulate another hypothesis.
I start from the question: WHY do I assume responsibility for the removal of these known cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting formulations from the environment and the Health officials do not? That is a reasonable question to ask.
What is the difference between the Health officials and me? … well, some of them are paid $130,000 a year, the protection of health is their responsibility. My remuneration is negative (I contribute out of my own pocket; my time is volunteered), and the question of pesticides is arguably not my responsibility.
Is it that I am better informed than they are? IGNORANCE sometimes explains, although does not excuse, inaction. … I don’t think that can be the case. The officials know
- that the Canadian Institute of Child Health has documented a steady upward trend in the number of children with cancer, a 25% rise over 25 years.
- They know of Dr. Guillette’s work which clearly shows that children exposed to agricultural pesticides
“exhibit more neuromuscular and mental defects. They were less proficient at catching a ball, reflecting poor eye-hand co-ordination. Stamina levels were also lower. Also the exposed children had symptoms of illness three to four times the rate of the unexposed, with a high rate of upper respiratory infections, suggesting suppressed immune systems.”
-
They know about the Report from the Ontario Family Physicians.
-
They know about the Auditor General’s Reports.
etc. etc. … no, I do not think ignorance is the answer.
FEAR? If fear, then what are they afraid of? … what fear is so great that it leads one to inaction, when you know that the price of inaction is more children with “neuromuscular and mental defects” and cancer.
DIFFERENT BRAIN STRUCTURE? That is perhaps part of the problem. If I observe myself in relation to other people, I notice that we have different time horizons. None of which is better than another. A native fellow arrives in Saskatoon at 10:30 at night by bus and does not know where he will spend the night (he is an artist of international renown – he has the money and a phone but he doesn’t “plan ahead” as some other people do. It’s not a problem – just a different way of being in the world.)
Is that what is happening in the case of pesticides? I look at them and, I KNOW that DOWN THE ROAD there will be fewer children who will suffer the effects of inadvertent, unnecessary exposure to pesticides, if we legislate a phased-in ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides today.
Maybe the Health officials have shorter time horizons? They don’ think “down the road”? Too busy just getting through today?
DIFFERENCE IN BELIEFS?
Use the example of gambling. Two belief pillars have to be in place in order to support it:
(1) we are incapable of creating other, alternate employment opportunities.
(2) the individual and his/her family is expendable.
I believe that we DO have creative abilities that can create better alternatives. And, whether in gambling or in cosmetic pesticide use, IF YOU KNOW THE PERSONS AND FAMILIES WHO HAVE SUFFERED from the unnecessary exposure, you care, and you say “we can do without this stuff”. The individual is not expendable. To me, there is always a sense of those who should be the leaders in the society, preying on the weak, those who have no voice – when it comes to gambling or cosmetic pesticide use.
EMOTIONS?
I should come back to that question. Analysis of brain functioning, through the most powerful of the MRI machinery, shows that our actions arise out of emotions. The action I arrive at is obviously different from the action arrived at by the Health official.
Is there more than fear at work? Would I behave differently if I stood to lose a paycheque of, say $11,000 a month? Maybe I can never know the answer to that.
But it raises an interesting thought: it is claimed that high salaries are necessary in order to attract the right people.
But the right people are those who will assume responsibility and carry out the action which common sense dictates is needed. The right people are those without fear.
It seems to me that the greater the paycheque, the more entrenched is the status quo, and for this very reason I cite – that people are fearful of losing the pay-cheque.
Perhaps I am in a state of luxery – I can be fearless because I don’t have a paycheque to lose? Is the stumbling block for elected officials to display leadership, similar – the fear of loss of, not a paycheque, but power?
I sincerely want to understand. I know that Health officials are people just like myself – we do what we can to ensure that our children will lead fulfilling lives. But someplace there is a disconnect. Where is it? What is the obstacle?
Maybe we could discuss the matter over coffee?
Best wishes,
Sandra
=================
Why is there little change when so much that is known dictates change?
THE DYNAMICS OF CHANGE
We have ample information to know we must reverse the trend of using chemicals as a response to pesky problems. So WHY aren’t we changing?
It is normal for people – and organizations – to resist change.
Dr. Stuart Hill from McGill University states what we know:
‘It is common for proposals for change, which usually imply criticism of current practices, to bring up a diverse range of defensive behaviours.”
I’m making a suggestion that raises defensive behaviour. And how will I in turn react to your defensive behaviour?
Commonly, I will ‘.. focus on strengthening the case for change, often by doing more research, and seeking legal and political solutions. (Precisely as I am now doing!)
While these initiatives are often essential components of the change process, they fail to address the psychological and emotional barriers to change.’
This booklet which strengthens the case for change, contains all the arguments in favour of the status quo. These arguments come from the past, when we were inexperienced. Opposite these arguments are today’s facts, what we have learned from experience.
Dr. Hill notes that resistance to change continues, even when growing evidence makes it clear that a given practice has serious health consequences.
– Smoking continued unfettered for decades before action was taken.
– It took over 20 years after the effects of DDT were known, before the EPA cancelled all use of DDT on crops.
– As early as 1897 the paint industry acknowledged that its lead-based products were poisonous to children. Today, after more than a century of poisoning children, the paint industry continues to sell lead-based paint, though its use inside homes was restricted in Australia in 1920, in many European countries in 1923-24, and in the U.S. belatedly in 1972. It took until 1982 in Canada to get lead banned as an additive in gasoline.
John Kenneth Galbraith originated and defined the term “conventional wisdom” in understanding these matters. I, and others, are trying to change the conventional wisdom about chemical pesticide use.
The hallmark of conventional wisdom is its acceptability by the majority.
Galbraith observed that ‘its purpose is not to convey knowledge’ but to make the ideas sacred and worthy of public honour. We bow down before the wisdom of the learned authorities and the admen.
So conventional wisdom isn’t about reality (e.g. lawn and household chemicals bring disease to children and pets), but about our accepted view (aren’t our lawns nice and pretty). Because familiarity is such an important test of acceptability, the acceptable ideas have great stability.
The acceptable idea in Saskatchewan is that chemical pesticide use may present some problems, but no big deal.
How do we change conventional wisdom that is harmful and extremely costly?
It is not through ideas such as in the booklet; it is through the march of events.
Conventional wisdom remains with the comfortable and the familiar, while the world moves on. It is always in danger of obsolescence as we learn new things. Before the widespread use of chemicals, the effects on health were known to few people. Now most people have an inkling.
All I can do is to crystallize in words what events have made clear: our society has made a mistake in relying on the propaganda of the chemical industry. Our conventional wisdom is failing us.
The cost of not changing is very high. To treat a child with cancer costs a million dollars. From earlier communications you will know about the 4 teenage friends from a small bedroom community south of Saskatoon. The cost of treating these 4 cancer cases alone will generate $4 million in the medicare system. Three of the kids are already dead.
The Ontario College of Family Physicians recently stated: “…Given the wide range of commonly used home and garden products associated with health effects, the College’s message is to AVOID EXPOSURE TO ALL PESTICIDES WHENEVER AND WHEREVER POSSIBLE. This includes reducing both occupational exposures, as well as lower level exposures….”
The number of Canadian children with cancer increases by 1% every year. We have to start somewhere to change.
We, citizens and officials, can ALL assume leadership roles and step-by-step, there will be a reversal in the trend to add toxic chemicals in ever greater quantities and mixtures into our water and air.