—–Original Message—–
From: Sandra Finley
Subject: (14) How good are fine words when CropLife is on the PMRA Advisory Council?
The longer that things go unsaid, the more unsayable they become.
A woman on the steps of the Community Hall in my hometown launched into an enthusiastic conversation. I was sure she would drop a clue in the conversation and I would figure out who she was. Forty-five minutes later we were still talking and I hadn’t a clue. By then, the question, “Who are you?” was unsayable.
That is danger in our world today. If we don’t stand up and say what needs to be said, now, there will be a time when we won’t be able to say what needs to be said.
Author Mary Pipher writes about America, but it could be Canada:
“In the upside-down world of today, our culture’s dysfunctional message is that healthy people accept the world as it is. We are taught that problems are pervasive and insolvable, and that we are powerless. Also, we hear that only radical nuts or quixotic fuzzy-brains work for social and political change. Yet powerlessness produces despair in people and stagnation in cultures. Throughout history, it has been the strong people who have endeavoured to make their communities better. HEALTHY PEOPLE ACT.” (My emphasis)
“In my opinion, true rebels are not anguished, angry individuals mired since adolescence in their own complaints and needs for individuation. True rebels act from a well-developed moral centre. They know who they are and what they stand for. Most likely, they are fighting for something that they have spent a lifetime learning to love.
… Too, most change agents are not saints. If we wait for the saints to save the world it will be too late. What change agents have in common is the need to use their own gifts to help others.”
The following needs to be said, I had better say it, and we all need to practice “saying it” before things become unsayable.
I am reminded of a recent interview on radio. A fellow had been in the U.S. and went to see the movie “Babel” (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett).
Afterwards he wanted to talk about Babel with people he met in a restaurant.
The conversation had to be hushed. The Americans acted in fear of the perception of people around them, were they to be overheard.
Through fear they lost their freedom to have a conversation about a movie, in a public space. That is the time when people in the society MOST need to talk loudly!
(dynamic systems (of governance in this case) – the need for TIMELY and APPROPRIATE RESPONSES in order to bring the system back to stability. To speak in hushed tones is an opposite response to what is needed if the problem situation is to be corrected.)
So here goes!
==============
How good are fine words when CropLife is on the PMRA Advisory Council?
A Continuation of: An integrated approach to solving the problem of chemicals and health. Began April 03, 2006.
This email follows: EMAIL #13 July 20: “Costing method is an obstacle to finding solutions to poisons in water”
PMRA = Pest Management Regulatory Agency, part of Health Canada. The PMRA registers certain chemicals for use in Canada.
This email is in response to (below, scroll down for copy):
POLICY NEWS – November 1, 2006 “Chemicals management may be getting tougher… Canada is poised to release an assessment of 23,000 chemicals, making it the first country in the world to systematically review all of the chemicals in current use within its borders.”
I regret that it is necessary for me to write this letter. These situations should not be happening.
=================================
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Email sent to:
(1) Federal Ministers
– Health, Tony Clement
– Agriculture, Chuck Strahl
– Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn
– Environment, Rona Ambrose
(2) University of Saskatchewan, Board of Governors; Deans Ernie Barber and Grant Isaac
(3) Members of PMAC (Pest Management Advisory Council): Ambrose Hearn (Chair); Chris Andrews; Neil Arya; Richard Belanger; Irene Buka; Gary Brown; Kathleen Cooper; John Cross; Derek Daws; Karen Dodds; Drew Frankliln; Bob Friesen; Bob Whiting; Claire Infante-Rivard; Karsten Liber; Peter MacLeod; Jeremy Nichol McNeil; Glen Sampson; Alain Renaud.
(4) Others
———————-
Dear All,
Peter MacLeod works for CropLife Canada.
On October 16 Tony Clement, Minister of Health, announced the appointment of Peter MacLeod to the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC).
I challenge the appointment of employees of CropLife Canada to PMAC. And ask Tony Clement: were you well advised?
Below you will find documentation from the public record of the practices of CropLife Canada and the corporations that fund it.
Some of you will be familiar with a close-to-home example:
From EMAIL # 9 in this series:
” DECEPTION – – INDUSTRY FRONTS – – TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION:
This tool (“fronts“) for manipulation of information became better known during Toronto’s pesticide bylaw struggle (which was successful). Chemical industry associations establish in-name-only “organizations” to sell the public on the benign nature of their products, througha disinformation campaign.
Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth.
The Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Toronto Environmental Coalition sound like sister organizations. They aren’t. One is a bona fide volunteer organization whose work is environmental protection; the other is an industry front, a telephone number and a name under which press releases are issued.
Unsuspecting media pick up the content and feed it to a public that has no way of distinguishing the reliability of the information. Other fronts in Ontario include the “Environmental Coalition of Ontario” and the “Pest Control Safety Council of Canada“.
You may have read the newspaper reports which confirmed that CropLife Canada was definitely behind the front in Toronto. The Chief Medical Health Officer for Toronto was outspoken in his condemnation.
CROPLIFE CANADA, MAIN INDUSTRY LOBBY, CHEMICAL AND BIOTECH
Also known as the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada “represents the manufacturers, formulators, distributors and allied associations of specialty pest management products, for the consumer or professional markets used in turf, ornamental, pest management, forestry, aquatic, vegetation management and other non-food/fibre applications.”
Lorne Hepworth is the President and CEO of CropLife Canada.
(Enter “Hepworth” in the “Search” box on this blog – – upper right corner – – for more about Hepworth.)
———————
So, CropLife International (CropLife Canada locally) is the lobby machine for the chemical/biotech corporations.
Many Canadians believe that the Governments in Canada still suffer from high levels of corruption. Adscam is just one example. What will be the effect on public perception of the addition of a CropLife Canada representative to the Advisory Council for the PMRA? Will it reinforce the existing perception or change it? (Read the partial record of CropLife practices appended.)
But aside from that, is it ever appropriate to have the lobbyists at the table where the decisions are being made? The decisions of the Government are to protect the common interest of the public.
From my perspective, that of the tax-paying citizen, it is completely inappropriate to have vested financial interests represented on the advisory council to the PMRA. When the representation is from interests with the track record documented below, I am, if I may speak frankly, disgusted. Legitimately.
A foundation stone of democratic government is that people in conflicts-of-interest must announce their conflict and remove themselves from positions of influence. The appointment of someone from the industry lobby to the PMAC is in direct contravention of this principle.
“Chemicals management may be getting tougher” in Canada? … propaganda from the PMRA?
Glowing press releases – Words are meaningless – when you know the players. Earlier I pointed out the PMRA’s use of Keith Solomon on the review panel for 2,4-D and Keith Solomon’s history.
I repeat, ad nauseum:
“... As the corporate interest moves to power in what was the public sector, it serves, predictably, the corporate interest. That is its purpose. …One obvious result has been well-justified doubt as to the quality of much present regulatory effort. There is no question but that corporate influence extends to the regulators. …” (J.K. Galbraith, 2004)
I have told you that in consecutive reports, beginning in 1988, the Auditor Generals’ Department has said that the PMRA is not getting its job done. Hardly surprising given the conflicts-of-interest. The fancy words won’t change the situation. The people remain the same.
You (the advisors to Minister Tony Clement) are undermining Canadian democracy.
Beyond some level of government-in-bed-with-industry, people become highly cynical. They become angry and disengage. The rule of law weakens; why should citizens obey the laws when they’re cooked in favour of monied interests?
And you are making it difficult for the people doing good work in Government to move things ahead. Vested financial self-interests have a well-documented track record of corruption and the creation of obstacles to progress. CropLife Canada does not have a role in governance. It is to be policed.
Tony Clement, in your role of Minister of Health, I urge you to remove CropLife Canada, the industry lobby, from PMAC. Otherwise, there is no credibility.
Yours truly,
Sandra Finley
=====================
APPENDED
EMAIL #9 Context: Corruption of the companies, public record May 02/06
Monday, May 1, 2006
Email to:
(1) Federal Ministers
– Health, Tony Clement
– Agriculture, Chuck Strahl
– Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn
– Environment, Rona Ambrose
(2) University of Saskatchewan, Office of Vice President Research, c/o Laura Zink; Deans Ernie Barber and Lynne Pearson
(3) Others
———–
Dear All,
We solve a problem IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT. If you do not understand or know that context, you cannot remove all the obstacles to finding a solution. Context is “the realities of our time”.
From email #8: “I have yet to put out the email that documents the Corrupting nature of the chemical companies, the “clients” of the PMRA. …”
This email is the documentation of the corruption. If the parties gathered at the table do not acknowledge it and find ways to neutralize it, we will not solve the problem.
Thank-you for citizen input, courtesy of George:
re BASF, Minnesota Supreme Court, $52 million dollar verdict. I have added it to the list of examples of the corrupt nature of the companies. (BASF came up in the discussion about herbicide-tolerant wheat which will increase the chemical load on the environment, licensed by the CFIA (email #2a).) …
Tabling of citizen input: when you read below the appalling record of the corruption of these companies, you will understand how abhorrent and completely unacceptable it is that even one penny of tax-payer money should go to these companies, whether through Government Fronts (email #3a) or through “matched funding“. For a Government official to say that the amounts of money are small, is simply not true. Nor is it a reasonable defence. The record of corruption demonstrates that these companies need to be POLICED, with no leaway.
Connie Moase, second in command at the PMRA, asked how the public might be convinced that the PMRA is doing its job? After you read the record, you will understand that having “INDUSTRY Scientists” on panels that make any decisions related to governance or policy or regulation is to undermine public trust in the PMRA. Propaganda will not convince anyone that the PMRA is doing its job.
…
Recently the same criticism has surfaced at the University of Guelph where Keith Solomon is from (email #8 – Solomon on the 2,4-D panel, a scientist who was bought by the tobacco industry earlier on). …
It is my expectation that you will govern with common sense and integrity.
Read the track-record on the chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech companies. It’s long. These people should be in jail. They have done far more harm than jailed people have done. It is well documented.
This context is tabled. It is an obstacle to be dealt with if we are to achieve solutions to the problem.
Best wishes,
Sandra Finley
——————
the PUBLIC RECORD: CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, A HISTORY OF LIES AND CORRUPTION
This is just a SMALL sampling of behaviour. It is just what we have come across in the course of our work; we didn’t set out to compile a list. Anyone interested in more examples can easily do an internet search.
Also, the chemical companies are owned by the pharmaceutical companies.
Together they are the biotechnology companies (biotech plants, biotech animals, biotech fish, biotech drugs). The list below is for the chemical/biotech companies. I have not set out anything about the pharmaceutical companies. I believe that their history of cover-up is well enough known that the chemical company record is sufficient to make the case. I would just add this one thing: Aug 13, 2004 we circulated information re ANGELL MARCIA, former New England Journal of Medicine editor, now senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and her book “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It” (Random House, 2004).
It is highly unreasonable to rely on ANY information supplied by these companies themselves. They are notoriously corrupt. If they were “citizens” they would be in jail:
(1) SEVERELY POISONING PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND LYING ABOUT IT:
In August 2003, in an Alabama court, MONSANTO was fined $700 million for poisoning people with PCBs. The community of people in which its plant was located and from which it drew its employees were the ones poisoned and diseased. Monsanto KNEW what it was doing, told great big lies, in the end they were caught.
The Washington Post carried a very lengthy piece regarding the Alabama court case. The details were heart-rending – hard to believe that a company – – live people – – could be so callous. The $700 million dollar fine reflected Monsanto’s depravity.
(INSERT: Monsanto is a member of CropLife, the industry’s lobbying machine.)
(2) BRIBERY:
In 1998 the Senate of Canada Hearing into attempted bribery by Monsanto to get Bovine Growth Hormone licensed in Canada drew press coverage under headings such as: THE ‘PURE’ MONSANTO CO. AND HEALTH CANADA.
“Scientists pressured to approve cattle drug. Health Canada researchers accuse firm of bribery in bid to OK a questionable product.” The bribery amount was a million dollars. Monsanto was unsuccessful in its attempt to get BGH registered because Health Canada scientists blew the whistle.
Senator Eugene Whelan was instrumental in getting a Senate Hearing.
(3) BLATANT DISREGARD FOR LAWS AND FALSE ADVERTISING:
Dec 2003, The Attorney General for the State of New York fined DOW CHEMICAL $2 million (the highest amount ever for this kind of charge) for making false safety claims in pesticide ads. This was after the State, BEGINNING IN 1994, negotiated settlements under which the Company agreed to not use the ads.
They turned around and ran the ads anyway. They are accustomed to getting their way. The Attorney General of New York was a surprise for them.
(4) CORRUPTING SCIENCE AND THE REGULATORY PROCESS:
A reporter for the Regina Leader Post gained temporary notoriety for his persistence in tracking down information related to the “IBT scandal” in the early 1980’s.
Monsanto’s RoundUp was implicated. All its safety studies had been done by IBT (laboratory). This was a huge scandal in the United States, well documented, which had implications for Canada: the largest commercial laboratory in the United States, IBT, one of several companies supplying the research studies needed by the pharmaceutical/chemical company complex to get their products registered by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was investigated and found to be routinely falsifying data. At the time, Canada automatically licensed any product which had received licensing from the Americans. The scandal brought about changes in the Canada licensing system. (And now a reversal – – the Canadian system is pretty well back to “harmonized” with the American.)
Thousands of IBT studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent or grossly inadequate. One of IBT’s top executives was Dr. Paul Wright, a Monsanto toxicologist who took a job at IBT Labs in part to supervise the PCB tests. He then returned to Monsanto. Wright was eventually convicted of multiple counts of fraud in one of the longest criminal trials in U. S. history, with his legal fees paid by Monsanto.
(5) MORE LIES:
Then there’s “Trade Secrets“, a documentary I watched on PBS in March 2001, by Bill Moyers. It arises out of an “Erin Brockavitch” type story of a woman whose husband’s life ended prematurely. She was convinced that a connection existed between his death, deaths and rare diseases among his co-workers and their workplace – connections the Company not only denied, but for which it supplied “the science” to refute. “Trade Secrets” reveals how the public’s right to know the truth about the thousands of chemicals in the world has been compromised. It shows documents from a secret archive uncovered during the lawsuit against the chemical companies. Their own words show how these companies sometimes hid the truth about the health implications of their products from the public.
(6) DECEPTION, INDUSTRY FRONTS, TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION:
This tool for manipulation of information became better known during Toronto’s pesticide bylaw struggle (which was successful). Chemical industry associations establish in-name-only “organizations” used to sell the public on the benign nature of their products.
The Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Toronto Environmental Coalition sound like sister organizations. They aren’t. One is a bona fide volunteer organization whose work is environmental protection; the other is an industry front, a telephone number and a name under which press releases are issued. Unsuspecting media pick up the content and feed it to a public that has no way of distinguishing the reliability of the information. Other Fronts in Ontario include the “Pest Control Safety Council of Canada” and the “Environmental Coalition of Ontario“.
(7) CROPLIFE CANADA, MAIN INDUSTRY LOBBY, CHEMICAL AND BIOTECH,
also known as the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada “represents the manufacturers, formulators, distributors and allied associations of specialty pest management products, for the consumer or professional markets used in turf, ornamental, pest management, forestry, aquatic, vegetation management and other non-food/fibre applications.
The Council is involved in all aspects of industry-wide and public education, communication, stewardship, legislation and regulation appropriate to pest management in the urban environment. The Council is dedicated to the protection of community health and the environment.”
CropLife Canada is part of CropLife International. Lorne Hepworth is President. The preceding description of who they are is courtesy of their web-site.
(8) 2005: attempted bribery in Indonesia.
You should not dismiss it on the basis that corruption is expected in Indonesia. Monsanto also tried to bribe officials in Canada and was caught. I assume they are successful in their bribery attempts more often than they are caught.
(9) The Vermont dairy Monsanto took to court because the dairy labelled its milk as being free from bovine growth hormone.
Correct labeling of the milk was a threat to Monsanto’s product sales in the U.S. (Canada and Europe would not and have not licensed BGH.)
thanks to George:
(10) $52 MILLION AWARD AGAINST BASF (chemical company) FOR PESTICIDE CONSUMER FRAUD REAFFIRMED ON APPEAL
the CFIA (Cdn Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture Canada) has licensed BASF’s herbicide-tolerant wheat – introduced in email #2a).
http://www.pestlaw.com/insider/articles/200403020104/01-BASFdecision.htm
Insider eJournal, Vol. 1, No. 4 (March 2, 2004)
Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Jury Verdict Awarding $52 Million To Farmers Who Alleged BASF Fraud In Its Sales And Advertising For Similar Herbicide Products
A legal decision that sends a serious warning to pesticide producers was handed down Feb. 19 by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld a $52 million judgment against BASF Corporation for consumer fraud.
… For the complete text of the February 19th, 2004 Minnesota Supreme Court Decision, see:
Ronald Peterson, et al. v. BASF Corporation
(11) From the February 2001 Idaho Observer:
Some of the president’s Monsanto men
By The Idaho Observer
There is a reason why Bill Clinton was the president: His antics kept the dominant media, and therefore the people, preoccupied with nonsense while the real agenda moved forward. There is a reason why GW is the president:
His affable and unpolished down home charm is a perfect contrast to the power players that have been chosen to be his cabinet.
Robert Cohen, author of “Milk, The Deadly Poison” which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of our nation’s milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone, says that the new Bush administration could accurately be described as the Monsanto Cabinet.
Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign from Monsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcroft’s contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any other congressional hopeful.
Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas were instrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for Monsanto’s controversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments that include Alzheimer’s disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memory loss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000).
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford.
Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical, another company currently owned by Monsanto.
Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct ties to Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a “biotech zone” for the use of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed the designation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies during his election campaign.
Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linked to many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) and makes cows sick.
Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S.
And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo, who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also a Monsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labeling mandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones. Pombo helped kill the bill in committee.
Monsanto also holds the patent on the “terminator gene” which prevents plants from producing viable seed so that farmers, and therefore people, will be dependent upon the multinational corporation for their food supply.
Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverent corporations in world history. One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time.
====================
POLICY NEWS – November 1, 2006 Environmental Science and Technology Online
Chemicals management may be getting tougher
The effects of Canada’s assessment of chemicals and the new European chemicals law are likely to reverberate through the international market.
Canada is poised to release an assessment of 23,000 chemicals, making it the first country in the world to systematically review all of the chemicals in current use within its borders. Coupled with the impending adoption of a new chemicals policy in Europe, the Canadian action could change the mix of products on store shelves worldwide, experts say.
Canada’s list of 4000 suspect chemicals includes bisphenol A, used in pacifiers; di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), found in perfumes and hairsprays; cyclotetrasiloxane, common in lip balms and conditioners; and toluene, a solvent used in cleaning products.
In 1986, rules in Canada mandated that all newly introduced substances undergo toxicity screening. At the time, 23,000 chemicals already on the Canadian market were “grandfathered” in without proof of their safety.
Now, after 7 years of study, Environment Canada and Health Canada officials have combed through all 23,000 substances. They flagged 4000 that are toxic and either persistent or bioaccumulative or that present the greatest potential for human exposure. Of these, 400 were found to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, a combination that calls for immediate action, says Fe de Leon, a researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.
Although the list was submitted to the ministers of environment and health in September, it won’t be made public until the end of the year, says Steve Clarkson, director of the Bureau of Risk and Impact Assessment at Health Canada. The government will conduct another screening process for the 4000 chemicals, based on the scientific literature and other existing data to determine whether they need to be managed. Clarkson predicts that it will take 10–15 years to get through all of them.
In Europe, an even slower pace of risk assessments—5 years for only 150 substances—led in part to the EU’s proposed chemicals law, Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH), says Rob Donkers, an environment counselor with the European Commission’s delegation to the U.S.
Instead of the government taking responsibility for proving that a chemical is “unsafe to handle”, which is the practice in the U.S. and Canada, draft [mmm] REACH legislation puts the onus on industry to prove that products are safe.
Expected to be adopted by the end of this year, REACH will require companies to register roughly 30,000 high-production-volume chemicals. Companies will have to seek authorization to use the more than 1500 chemicals that are either PBT or cause cancer, genetic mutations, or birth defects, Donkers says. “This information from Canada is very important because that will enable us to quickly establish a list in Europe for these 1500–2000 chemicals,” he says.
REACH was further strengthened on October 10, when the European Parliament’s environmental committee approved new rules compelling chemical producers to replace dangerous chemicals with safer alternatives when those alternatives exist.
The establishment of a list of 4000 suspect chemicals in Canada has already raised doubts for industry over the continued use of some of the substances, de Leon notes. Even before a chemical is listed as being of concern, simply the fact that information is requested about it could cause manufacturers to decide that sales in Canada are not worth the trouble, says Karen Levins, vice president of the chemicals group at Cantox Health Sciences International. However, environmentalists fear that little will change unless the government sets aggressive timelines for further assessment of the chemicals and takes steps to ban or eliminate PBT substances, de Leon says.
The measures taken by Canada and the EU should be adopted by the U.S., says Mike Wilson, an environmental health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. California is getting ahead of the U.S. EPA by crafting a comprehensive chemicals policy. In a report commissioned by the California legislature, Wilson found that the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) is at the root of flaws in the regulation of the U.S. chemical market.
Wilson’s critique was echoed in testimony from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) at an August 2 Senate oversight hearing on TSCA.
EPA hasn’t adequately screened chemicals, because the burden of obtaining data is on EPA rather than on chemical companies, said John B. Stephenson, the director of natural resources and environment at GAO.
— JANET PELLEY
Fe de Leon, Researcher
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Tel: 416-960-2284 ext 223
web site: www.cela.ca
====================
Hi,
Re: Peter MacLeod on PMRA Advisory Council
The web address lists the members of the Advisory Council. I think I should send every one of them the story on vaporooter so they know how the PMRA operates. I’d want the hell off the Advisory Council in order to keep my reputation!
Sandra
===============================
Wed 18/10/2006 12:18 PM
Hello,
I retrieved your voice message. Please see the following link for information on the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC):
http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/advbod/pmac-e.html
In the list of members
(http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/advbod/membership06-ef.pdf), you will find the following information:
Mr./M. Peter J. MacLeod
CropLife Canada
21 Place Four Seasons Place, Suite 627
Etobicoke, ON M9B 6J8
416-622-9771 ext 234 tel/tél
416-622-6764 fax/téléc
So, the answer to your question is yes, Mr. Peter J. MacLeod is a member of the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC).
Best regards,
Iulia Popa
Regulatory Information Officer / Agent d’information sur la réglementation Pest Management Regulatory Agency/Agence de réglementation de la lutte antiparasitaire
2720 Riverside Drive
Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9
1-800-267-6315
613-736-3799
==================================
—– Original Message —–
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Health Minister Appoints New Members to the Pest Management Advisory Council
Hi Jim;
Well the fox is still in the hen house. Peter McLeod works for CropLife. I don’t know about the others but they are all men. None of them, unless they are really unlucky, will get breast cancer.
—– Original Message —–
Subject: FW: Health Minister Appoints New Members to the Pest Management Advisory Council
The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health, today announced the appointment of Peter MacLeod and Dr. Robert Whiting to the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC) for two-year terms. In addition, Ambrose Hearn and Derek Daws were re-appointed for a second two-year term.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2006/2006_100_e.html