Posted: January 7, 2009

For any who may doubt that there is a comprehensive, orchestrated anti-chemical campaign advocating the urban cosmetic pesticide bans sweeping Canada, simply Google the name "K. Jean Cottam." Cottam's name can be found virtually wherever there is an opinion on this issue and Canada Sprayer Guide has proven no exception. We recently received the following correspondence from Cottam in response to our Special Report on the impact of municipal pesticide legislation on farmers, which featured an interview with prominent crop protection industry advocate Lorne Hepworth.

For the record, Canada Sprayer Guide did this report to shed light on the relevance of this issue to the future of agricultural pesticide use in Canada and to reinforce the importance of farmers using crop protection products properly. Shortly after we received Cottam's e-mail, this news item reporting fears that new pesticide regulations in the European Union will "wipe out" Britain's carrot industry came across our desk. Think about that as you read Cottam's letter.

"Re The impact of municipal pesticide legislation on farmers – six questions for CropLife president Lorne Hepworth.

A retired federal intelligence analyst, who is well-versed in the status and performance of Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), I am currently honorary Canadian observer on the Pesticide Working Group with headquarters in Washington, D.C.

On the other hand, CropLife Canada's president, Lorne Hepworth, former veterinarian from Saskatchewan, is notorious for grossly misrepresenting the federal pesticide registration process.

The working conditions for Health Canada's 300 toxicologists and a single epidemiologist are substandard. There are no labs and the process consists of evaluating toxicological studies provided by the industry, with inconvenient data routinely withheld. The capability to examine human, peer-reviewed epidemiological studies of first-rate scientists with an international reputation is notoriously weak.

The fact that Health Canada declared herbicide 2,4-D safe is immaterial as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the verdict of Health Canada's PMRA was arrived on the basis of incomplete, secret information received from the industry, without any peer-reviewed human data factored in the decision. Above all, secret science is suspect science.

Dr. Hepworth says: "It's almost like they go out of their way to make sure that Health Canada's story doesn't get told." Indeed, Health Canada's story should be told. Unfortunately, it happens to be not a pretty story.

Dr. Hepworth lives in a fantasy land. Where are the environmental professionals/scientists at the PMRA? They are conspicuous by their absence. Moreover, we know first-hand that the lot of the biologist at the PMRA is not to be envied. The Precautionary Principle is most definitely NOT the regulatory approach in Canada at the federal level.

Dr. Hepworth tells us that "Any citizen can go in and look at test data and judge for themselves whether the companies are somehow not reporting the results of tests or assessing the tests accurately. It's a very transparent system." Again, this is pure fantasy, according to my own personal experience. And what Hepworth calls "good" or "sound" science is in fact unreliable, industry-biased science.

Clearly, the industry studies PMRA examines are secret and not open to public examination in the highly publicized Reading Room. What the public has access to is only the selected, unhelpful information.

Bill 64 exempts the use of pesticides to control rodents and West Nile Virus, so raising such public health issues, as Dr. Hepworth does, to weaken the case for urban pesticide bans is another red herring intended simply to cause mischief.

As well, Bill 64 clearly exempts agriculture, but nevertheless Hepworth is determined to enlist rural stakeholders in his struggle against the impending ban on cosmetic use of pesticides. His allegation that agriculture is the next target for so-called anti-pesticide activists is not based on facts, just as his perception of the federal regulatory process has very little to do with the reality.

Use of 2,4-D in both lawn care and agriculture tends to be exploited in the cause of demonstrating that there is no rationale for distinguishing between the urban and rural use of this herbicide. However, second-hand exposures to 2,4-D, unnecessary in the urban environment, may be compared to the now banned exposures to second-hand smoke.

When children walk beside a recently sprayed lawn, they are exposed, via inhalation, to the industry-untested but highly toxic breakdown product of 2,4-D, 2,4-dichlorophenol, more toxic than the original herbicide, the residues of which go directly to their brain bypassing the liver which is the cleansing organ.

Thus, we are dealing here with two different toxic exposures: via inhalation (turf) and ingestion (food) – in the latter case the herbicide does not bypass the liver, the cleansing organ."