I explained to my NDP MP that he has been misled by old information, re the PMRA and the withdrawal of imidacloprid (a “neonic” – bee killer).
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE:
- PMRA = Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada.
- Director of the PMRA – Richard Aucoin.
- Deputy Minister, Health – Simon Kennedy, his bio
- Minister responsible – Marie Ginette Petitpas Taylor representing New Brunswick, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl.gc.ca
- Parliamentary Secretary, Health – Bill Blair, Scarborough Southwest
- Ag Canada (agricultural chemicals) also plays an influential role in the PMRA, as witnessed by (from my letter to my MP):
In response to the PMRA decision, Agriculture Canada established a multi-stakeholder forum on neonicotinoids, which lead to the development (of) the EMWG. (Working Group)
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
SUMMARY
My MP (BC, NDP, Gord Johns, Gord.Johns@parl.gc.ca) replied to petition I signed re the neonic, imidacloprid (killer of bees & songbirds).
I think Gord Johns sincerely believes what he sent.
Political parties in general, will have a template reply for MP’s to use for the neonics.
If all the parties are relying on the same information from the PMRA, they are being duped.
We are the closest we’ve come to de-registering the bee killer chemicals. Now is not the time to be re-assured by false info, and therefore stop the actions that WILL end their use.
(Municipal bylaws circumvent the infiltration and control of the PMRA by the industry. But simultaneously, municipal bylaws do not address the serious problem of corruption of governance – – which is the root, the reason for regulatory inaction (“regulatory capture”.)
MP’s and the public need to know: The PMRA HAS NOT MADE A DECISION TO DE-REGISTER IMIDACLOPRID.
As I explained to Gord Johns:
I hate to tell you this: a decision on imidacloprid has NOT been made. You were misled by old information.
I hope you will look at http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=21075 (my full reply to you).
I think you will find the documentation to be more than sufficient: the initial decision has effectively been retracted. And then delayed a couple of times. Currently, the stated expectation for the first of the 3 neonics is a decision by the end of 2018. So the actual status of the neonics in Canada is thus far unchanged.
The decision is hanging in the balance.
IF a decision to de-register is made, the PMRA will grant (my guess) 5 years for the manufacturers to sell off existing product. (In the past they allowed the manufacturer of “mecoprop” NINE years to sell off an unsafe, de-registered product. IF a decision to ban imidacloprid is made in December 2018, effectively, we will be looking at “by December 2023“.
The industry has thus far been effective in subverting the stated original decision by the PMRA to de-register. I don’t think one can predict the final outcome with any confidence.
Sometimes things just get spun out and spun out; the initial statement (decision made to de-register) becomes an embedded belief (as in Gord Johns’ email to me). Citizens are reassured, they move on to other priorities, . . . they forget about bees and neonics. Meanwhile, the act never happens, the established practice of use just continues.
You will notice in the PMRA documentation that the pollinators (or “bees”) are never mentioned – – in spite of the 46,000 communications they received, most of which would have been based on the killing of the pollinators.
There will be a reason, like: they cannot refute the research when it comes to bees. So they focus on aquatic insects and then do industry-influenced research (see my full reply to you, http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=21075) to show that imidacloprid really has minimal impact on the aquatic creatures, so there’s no need to de-register imidacloprid. Strategy: never say the word “bees”.
I suggest that we keep the “Bees” front and centre by relentlessly referring to them. Don’t adopt, don’t allow the diversion.
/Sandra