Government Hypocrites on Pesticides & Children's Health

[Guest guest]

" Chris Gupta " <chrisgupta

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 15:55:42 -0400

[electroherbalism] Government Hypocrites on Pesticides &

Children's Health

 

 

 

 

1) London has one of the highest cancer rates in

Canada. See: <http://tinyurl.com/mzdhk>Breast Cancer Rates, 1986 to 1995

 

2) Pesticides are toxic and contribute to Cancer

and other diseases. Particularly in children*.

London's Public Health Officer, the individual

responsible for our health, has said pesticides

" pose a serious health risk to the residents of London. "

 

3) The government regulatory body is pretty much

funded by the industry. ( " The Pest Management

Regulatory Agency " basically sits in the lap of

its industry partners and throws pot shots at the

medical community without ever engaging them, "

she said in an interview. " It really does seem

they're acting with and for the pesticide

industry and not for the health of

Canadians. " " Extracted from:

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060607.HERBICIDE07/TPStory/?\

query=pesticide>Critics

blast Ottawa over leaked research Health Canada's

objectivity is questioned after findings on

herbicide safety were e-mailed out, posted on Web)

 

4) Accidents will happen hence there is no need

to take unwarranted risks above those already

posed particularly when there is no need to use

toxic products in the first place (for cosmetic

uses, especially when alternatives are available).

 

5) Non toxic ecological methods to maintain lawns

work. One great example is the Festival Theater at Stratford Ontario.

 

6) There is more potential for jobs form non

toxic ecological treatment of lawns than the

obsolete use of toxic products. So the loss of

jobs argument is about as hollow as:

 

7) The argument that cosmetic use of pesticides

violates an individual's property rights is

not legally valid, when potential for damage to

the health of the constituents is considered.

See: <http://tinyurl.com/l5ls3>The Pesticide

Debate: Property Rights Vs. Public Health

 

8) London voters by a wide margin are in favour

of a full ban. See: May 29th, 2006 week

" A-Channel News " poll on " What kind of pesticide

bylaw would you support in London? " here are the results:

 

1. A Total Ban – 61%

2. A Partial Ban – 17%

3. Current Regulations – 14%

4. No Regulations – 8%

 

With such a solid case particularly when the

London voters have clearly indicated their need

for a full ban, not to mention the many other

city precedents; yet half of the City's council

can't support what the people want? Why are so

many councillors especially Van Meerbergen,

Polhill, Miller, Gosnell, Monteith,

Hume, Chahbar, Tranquilli, Caranci, MacDonald

and Alder** so insistent in protecting the

essentially redundant use of these toxins?

" Actions speak louder than words " . Hence, one

need not even ask who these councilors are

working for? It is clear that this disgraceful

bunch are working for their industry cronies.

 

Constituents in London have given the City a firm

direction. The tax payers have spoken and demand

that these industry stooges listen to the voters.

We surely will remember them in the up coming election!

 

Chris Gupta P. Eng.

http://tinyurl.com/fvqj3

-----------------------------

 

*

<http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/reports/toxicnationFamily.htm>Polluted

Children, Toxic Nation: A Report on Pollution in Canadian Families

(June 2006)

 

**

<http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pesticide_Vote_(16=05=06).pdf>See

the pdf file for a detail breakdown of how each

MP voted on the opposition motion on pesticides here.

 

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

 

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, NDP): Mr.

Speaker, if the Prime Minister and his government

cared so much about this issue why did they vote

against an NDP motion to ban toxic pesticides

just two weeks ago? Actions speak louder than words.

 

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

 

<http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/031_2006-06-01/HAN031-\

E.htm#SOB-1564995>39th

PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

 

EDITED HANSARD * NUMBER 031

CONTENTS

 

Thursday, June 1, 2006

 

+-The Environment

+-

 

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, a groundbreaking study released

today shows that the Government of Canada is

failing to protect Canadians from toxic

compounds. The diseases caused include cancer,

developmental disorders and respiratory disease.

The most alarming thing in this study is to find

that the children very often have higher levels

of contamination in their bodies than their

parents. We should all be concerned about this.

 

Will the government continue the Liberal

practice of allowing our children to be poisoned or will it take

strong action?

+-

 

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the

Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the

House that this government will not continue on with the Liberal practice.

 

My office has been working closely with Dr.

Rick Smith from Environmental Defence. The House

might be interested to know that the Minister of

Health and myself have offered to participate in

a study to raise the profile of the toxins in our

children's blood and to take some measures to address those.

+-

 

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister and his

government cared so much about this issue why did

they vote against an NDP motion to ban toxic

pesticides just two weeks ago? Actions speak louder than words.

 

These parents volunteered for this study and

they are horrified at the level of toxicity in their children's bodies.

 

The Prime Minister has an obligation to make

industry accountable, to establish timelines and

to regulate the toxic chemicals and eliminate

them. Will he or will he not do it?

 

¸ +-(1430) +-

 

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the

Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it was this Prime

Minister who agreed to open up the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act for review by the

environment committee which the Liberals held off

doing for over a year. This is the act that

environmental groups want to see amendments

brought forward on to ensure we address these

important issues. It is actually the NDP members

who are collaborating with the Liberals to hold up that review in

committee.

 

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

 

Fri 26 May 2006

 

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Times

 

<http://www.mrtimes.com/issues06/054206/opinion.html>MP<http://www.mrtimes.com/i\

ssues06/054206/opinion.html>

played politics with pesticides

 

Editor:

Open letter to MP Randy Kamp:

 

Last week, Jack Layton brought a motion before

Parliament in Ottawa to put a moratorium on the

non-essential use of pesticides all across the

country. About 100 cities and municipalities all

across Canada, as well as the whole province of

Quebec, already have bylaws and our council here

is in the process of drafting a bylaw for Maple Ridge.

CPR! Maple Ridge (Campaign for Pesticide

Reduction) has sent you materials about

pesticides and we expressly asked you in a letter for your support.

 

You, Randy, our Member of Parliament , voted against this motion.

 

Are over 3,600 signatures on a petition last

year, 54 local physicians signing a letter

supporting restrictions of pesticide use and our

local council in the process of drafting a

pesticide bylaw, not enough of a mandate? I think

that your constituents in Maple Ridge have given

you a firm direction: they favour restrictions for non-essential

pesticides.

 

How then could you, Randy, in good conscience

vote against Jack Layton's motion to restrict non-essential pesticide use?

 

You have pledged to represent your constituents

of Maple Ridge in government. You were elected to

be our voice in Ottawa. However, you preferred to

play party politics rather than stand up for the

people you represent. You did not even speak to

the motion. Not a single Conservative member voted in favour of this

motion.

 

Have MPs become so emasculated that they have to

vote along party lines rather than the issue at

hand? Why then do we elect MPs, if they cannot

represent us, but have to vote as told?

 

Is this the government that ran on cleaning up

government, of listening to the people, on

representing ethics and values? Are you surprised

when people get cynical about politicians?

 

We are very disappointed. We had expected better.

 

Fortunately we have at least one politician who

is representing us. Our local MLA Michael Sather

stood up in the Legislative Assembly last week

and spoke about our campaign and had great praise

for the efforts in our community to restrict non-essential pesticide use.

 

Maria Raynolds

CPR Maple Ridge

 

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

 

Jun 2, 2006

 

NB Telegraph-Journal

 

<http://www.canadaeast.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/TPEBRIEF/60602040\

1 & template=printart>Teenager

diagnosed with blood disorder often caused by environmental poisoning

 

Jun. 2, 2006

 

Toronto Star

 

<http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_\

PrintFriendly & c=Article & cid=1149189012951 & call_pageid=991479973472>Toxic

tally alarms family Chemicals found in parents,

kids Watchdog group conducted study

..

 

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

 

June 2, 2006

 

The Globe and Mail

 

<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060602.TOXIC02/TPStory/Envir\

onment>Toxic

cocktail found in children Study discovers wide exposure to host of

pollutants

 

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

 

<http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060601/polluted_bodies_06\

0601/20060601?hub=CTVNewsAt11>Children

polluted with chemicals: report

 

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

 

<http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/024_2006-05-16/HAN024-\

E.htm>For

the full text of the debate go here

 

1Ž4 (1850)

 

Liberal Party of Canada makes wrong choice on pesticides

 

Based on the chronic failures of Health Canada's

Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, as stated

in the House of Commons on May 16, 2006. and

based on the outcome of the NDP

motion concerning non-essential pesticide use

one can only conclude that protecting the health

of all Canadians from the unwanted exposure to

synthetic lawn toxins, such as the controversial

herbicide 2,4-D, is clearly not a priority of the

current federal government.

<http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pesticide_Vote_(16=05=06).pdf>See

the pdf file for a detail breakdown of how each

MP<http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pesticide_Vote_(16=05=06).pdf>

voted on the opposition motion on pesticides here.

 

Yeas Nays Party

28 0 New Democratic Party

59 32 Liberal

0 124 Conservative

0 50 Bloc Québécois

0 1 Independent

87 207

 

The lack of support from the Bloc Québécois was

most disappointing. The Liberal MPs who either

failed to vote or failed to support this motion

should also be questioned to failing to respect

the wishes of their party membership as stated in

Liberal Party of Canada Priority Resolution #113

adopted at the Party Convention in Ottawa on March 19th, 2000:

 

----------

March 19, 2000 - At the annual convention of the

Liberal Party of Canada on March 16-19, 2000, in

Ottawa, party delegates adopted priority

resolution #113 concerning the cosmetic use of pesticides which states:

 

" Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada

urge the federal government to introduce an

immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of

chemical pesticides until such time as their use

has been scientifically proven safe and the

long-term consequences of their application are known. "

----------

 

--

 

Mike Christie

(613) 228-7499 / bus.

(613) 228-7487 / fax.

mikechristie / e-mail

 

The Laws of Ecology: " All things are

interconnected. Everything goes somewhere.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Nature bats last. "

 

by Ernest Callenbach

 

To /

:

<%20chrisguptachrisgupta

List information is at: http://tinyurl.com/2xohw

ARCHIVES: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/archives.htm

Share The Wealth: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/

Communication Agents: http://www.communicationagents.com/

Council Member: Friends of Freedom - http://www.friendsoffreedom.org

 

_