NEW – OCFP 2012 Literature Review – 112 pages – 1 reference to 2,4-D Lawn Pesticide – Costa Rican Coffee Farmer

The Ontario College of Family Physicians is at it again.  More Bull CWAP, who funds this group.  Please stop. 

This reveiw has once again nothing to do with lawn pesticides or the use of Cosmetic Pesticides.  Many recent studies and reviews supporting 2,4-D are not even referenced.

Where is the reference to Quebec agreeing that 2,4-d is safe to use?

Where is the BC Legislature findings on Cosmetic Pesticides?

This report will once again be discredited. 

Growing body of evidence, My AZZ.

2012-systematic-review-of-pesticide

Kathleen Finlay – Ontario College of Family Physicians Peer Reviewer

About Me
I am a Naturopathic Doctor practicing and living in Owen Sound for the past 13 years.  I did my post secondary education at Brock University completing a Bachelor of Science – Honours in Biology.   I returned to school in Toronto at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine and graduated in 1998.

I worked on the Owen Sound Pesticide Bylaw Review Committee to help pass a by-law restricting the non-essential use of pesticides in residential settings.  Anne Finlay-Stewart displayed her support by attending committee meetings as a public observer.  I am showing my appreciation for Anne and the local food movement by initiating this campaign.
————————————————————————————————-

Make an Action Plan to Get to the Future

So how do we get to the future? We need to do more of what works. We need to become solution oriented. To date our most successful Green campaign was Shane Jolley’s last provincial campaign. It was led by Anne Finlay-Stewart. I remember sitting in a room surrounded by old friends and some complete strangers. We were hopeful and excited and unsure of what would happen. Anne gave us a gift then too. She told us:

“There is no room for chicken littles in this campaign.”  Anne Finlay-Stewart [Campain Manager for the Green Party]

We will win the next federal election. Because you believe that we will. And we will inspire everyone to work their tails off.

———————————

MPP disputes paper’s poll numbers

Editor stands by story

Posted 4 years ago

MPP Bill Murdoch sounded off on a local radio station Friday over a Sun Times article he claims incorrectly stated his election rival received more votes in Owen Sound in the provincial election.

But the Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound maverick MPP didn’t provide numbers to back up his claim, telling the radio station he and Green party candidate Shane Jolley were “both in the 40 per cent range” in votes cast by city residents.

The article’s numbers reflected that, saying Jolley earned 43.2 per cent of city votes to Murdoch’s 37.8 per cent.

Murdoch did not respond to repeated telephone requests for an interview.

The purpose of the Sun Times story, which appeared in Wednesday’s newspaper, was to illustrate the Green Party’s strong showing in Owen Sound and the message it sent to municipal politicians about the importance to residents of “greening” initiatives.

The numbers used were from election day only, since votes cast by Owen Sound residents could be separated from overall results. Advance polls were not included because they cover areas beyond the city as well.

Sun Times editor Michael Den Tandt said the newspaper stands by the numbers and the story.

“The story was about the Greens’ performance in Owen Sound specifically, and advance polls were not restricted to Owen Sound. Based on the best numbers we have available to us, Jolley narrowly beat Murdoch in Owen Sound proper. In any case, let’s not split hairs; the point is that the Greens did surprisingly well,” he said.

Murdoch said on the radio the Sun Times is still “taking the green ink out from under their fingernails,” and accused the newspaper of twisting the truth.

The MPP also called an Oracle poll released before the election, which showed his support as 10 per cent lower than his own party’s poll, “phony.”

Den Tandt said Murdoch has been invited to send in a letter to the editor but has declined.

Other election stories have begun to surface in recent days, including one that accuses Murdoch of telling a Green party volunteer days after the vote that “we’re going to fix you.”

Green campaign manager Anne Finlay-Stewart said the volunteer, who canvassed for the Greens but didn’t have anything to do with campaign strategy, told her the story Oct. 12, the day she says it took place.

She wrote in a Sun Times column that the worker told her that Murdoch said: “Don’t talk to me. Don’t come into my constituency office. We’re going to fix you.”

The worker didn’t feel physically threatened and was more surprised than anything, but didn’t want to be identified, Finlay-Stewart said in an interview.

Attempts to contact Murdoch about the allegation were unsuccessful.

Jolley said he had heard of the story, but had no direct knowledge of it.

Other candidates contacted last week said they hadn’t heard of such problems involving any of their workers.

“I have never had a problem with Mr. Murdoch or, frankly, with anyone in his camp,” said Liberal candidate Selwyn Hicks, who called his visit to Murdoch’s office after the election “friendly.”

NDP candidate Paul Johnstone said there was no animosity directed their way from the PC camp.

“We had a good relationship with Bill during the election and still have a good relationship,” he said.

“I know he was upset with some of the Green tactics during the election,” he said, noting an argument at an all-candidates meeting in Meaford about a visit Jolley made to a Wiarton school and whether a Murdoch supporter had complained about it with Murdoch’s knowledge. Supporters of both camps started arguing in the audience.

Hicks said the only problem he had during the campaign was with someone he identified as a Green supporter who ripped out some Liberal signs.

“I’m not saying at all that it would have been condoned by Mr. Jolley. In fact I know he never would have condoned (it). It was just somebody who thought that was the best way to support his candidate.”

Jolley said he doubts it was someone with his campaign team.

http://www.intelligencer.ca/PrintArticle.aspx?e=743504

 

Doctor Sheela Basrur – Ontario Chief Medical Officer – Scared Public with Mispercetions

Ex Ontario Cheif Medical Officer discredited for her lack of understanding and promoting public misperceptions relating to Public Health

[scribd id=78887987 key=key-146yhvbk2gcdxfzcoqwx mode=list]

The full report can be found here: http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/Pesticides/Pesticides_Full_Report_EN.pdf

Cathy Vakil – Ontario College of Family Physicians

Cathy Vakil Co-Author of OCFP 2004 Pesticide Review Discredited by HEALTH CANADA:
———————————————————————————————————–

———————————————————————————————–

What HEALTH CANADA SAYS:

Information Note: Ontario College of Family Physicians Report

Consumer Product Safety

August 4, 2004

On April 23, 2004, the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) released a literature review on epidemiology studies on pesticides. The review linked pesticides to various illnesses, and stated that children are especially vulnerable to pesticides. In light of the public interest in this report, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) prepared this document to help Canadians better understand how human health and the environment are considered by the pesticide regulatory system in Canada. PMRA is the federal regulatory body responsible for the regulation of pesticides in Canada.

          Pesticide Regulation in Canada

Pesticides are stringently regulated in Canada. Before a product is registered for use, it must undergo a comprehensive and rigorous scientific assessment to ensure the product does not pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment and to assess its efficacy to ensure that the lowest rate possible is used. If the assessment does not indicate that a product can be used safely it is not registered for use in Canada. Currently, all pesticides registered prior to 1995 are being re-evaluated by using the most modern scientific risk assessment approaches to ensure they remain safe and effective for use.

The human health risk assessment looks for the short- and long-term potential of a pesticide to cause adverse health effects such as cancer, birth defects and endocrine disruption. All sources and routes (oral, dermal, inhalation) of potential exposure are assessed, including exposure from the diet, drinking water and from contact with treated areas like lawns and gardens. As well, occupational exposures, both during and after pesticide application, are specifically considered.

Pesticides are only registered if there is a wide enough margin of safety between what people are exposed to and the highest dose that causes no effects according to scientific research.

As the OCFP report notes, some population groups, such as children and pregnant women, may be more susceptible to potential effects of pesticides. This is why PMRA assessments include the application of extra safety factors to ensure that the most sensitive sub-populations are protected. For example, the PMRA pays special attention to the unique exposures and physiological characteristics of children, ensuring that factors such as their unique behaviours, different diets and lower body weights are considered.

Scientific Approaches to Understanding Pesticide Risk

The OCFP report is a review of epidemiology studies selected from the public scientific literature. There are many such studies published which suggest that there may or may not be associations between adverse health effects and pesticide exposure. As the report acknowledges, epidemiology studies are hard to interpret because of biases and confounding factors that make it very difficult to either establish or definitively rule out links between pesticide exposures and effects. For example, other chemical and physical environment effects are usually encountered at the same time as pesticide exposures and biases in the exposures remembered by study participants may affect the result. Without an actual exposure calculation, it is difficult to assess whether pesticides could have been responsible for an adverse health outcome.

When determining the acceptability of a pesticide, PMRA scientists critically examine the totality of the scientific database for pesticide active ingredients and end-use products, including the types of studies in the OCFP report. When new studies in the public literature are released, the PMRA examines them to determine if further regulatory action is required on the pesticides mentioned in the study.

Currently, much of the information submitted to the PMRA for pesticide risk assessments is protected under the Access to Information Act as confidential business information. Under the new Pest Control Products Act, the public will be able to view the data used in making pesticide registration decisions.

          Responsible Pest Management

The PMRA agrees with the recommendation of the OCFP report that Canadians can and should seek opportunities to minimise their exposure to and reduce their reliance on pesticides. As such, the PMRA supports Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices. IPM is an approach that combines biological, cultural, physical and chemical tools to manage pests so that benefits of pest control are maximized and health and environmental risks are minimized.

If Canadians choose to use pesticides, they should use products only for their intended and registered use while following all instructions on the label. The label instructions specify the conditions by which products can be used safely. The PMRA also agrees that, to prevent accidents, pesticides must always be stored out of the reach of children.

The PMRA provides information on IPM approaches to lawn and garden care. The PMRA also distributes a number of publications, including Pest Notes that provide information on the safe use of pesticides and on controlling common household pests using the principles of IPM.

OCFP 2004 Literature Review Located Here:  http://www.premierinc.com/epp/downloads/01-systematic-review-canada-pesticides.pdf