(0) COMMENTARY (1) L.A. TIMES, NOV
27/05, PESTICIDES AND PARKINSON'S DISEASE (Thanks to Kim) (2) "WHAT
ALWAYS SHOWED UP IS THAT PEOPLE EXPOSED TO PESTICIDES (e.g. FARMERS) TEND TO
BE 3 TO 4 TIMES MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO PARKINSON'S" (Thanks to
Hart) (3) UPDATE NOV 17: SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO HEAR APPEAL
FROM PESTICIDE INDUSTRY (TORONTO BYLAW UPHELD), A SERIES OF
ARTICLES (Thanks to
Mike) ===============================
(0) COMMENTARY My
apologies for taking so long to get the Supreme Court decision to you. It was
a "hallelujah" day! A number of municipalities were waiting for
the Supreme Court's ruling. They will now proceed with their own
bylaws. CropLife Canada (the pesticide industry) was ordered to pay for the
costs incurred by the City of Toronto - lovely!!
When you read the
articles regarding the connection between Parkinson's disease and pesticides,
it makes you angry that we pay the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA),
part of Health Canada, to regulate. And then have to fight in every
municipality across the country to get protection from exposure to pesticides
because the PMRA isn't doing its job.
The first article mentions Michael
J. Fox's Parkinson's disease and the work of Dr. Bill Langston. Fox
developed the disease at a younger age than most sufferers. A t.v.
documentary on Parkinson's disease mentioned that 3 people who worked
together at CBC in Vancouver, Fox being one, all
developed Parkinson's.
Langston theorized that maybe the effects of
chemicals on brain cells are like what happens to people in war: some
soldiers (cells) are killed outright, some die in hospital a little later
from mortal wounds, and others are injured but survive and die
prematurely. The disease becomes apparent when the premature deaths
start happening. It's an interesting theory.
The work of Dr. Lorene
Nelson from Stanford University is mentioned. We circulated her work a
few years ago. She was one of the first to draw a connection between
pesticides and Parkinson's disease via an epidemiological study. Her
work was not based on the farm population but on households that use
pesticides indoors.
This article in the Los Angeles Times states
"Scientists first observed a high rate of Parkinson's in rural areas in the
early 1980s in Saskatchewan, Canada." Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a
disease that is related to Parkinson's. Saskatchewan and Alberta have
among the highest rates of MS in the world. So we have high incidence
of Parkinson's, high incidence of MS, more and more confirmation that
Parkinson's is related to chemical exposure. ... I wish I had kept track of
the source of this statistic: Saskatchewan buys 36% of the agricultural
chemicals sold in Canada. Old-timers will remember my beef: (unless
they've changed their policy) the MS Society collects money to find a cure
but won't allocate money to investigate a possible link between MS and
exposure to chemicals.
Parkinson's disease, childhood cancer,
developmental problems, ... not to mention impacts on wildlife, water
supplies, etc. Crimes. Failures of credentialled people to assume
responsibility. Except for good people in Toronto, Halifax, ... they
are leading the way.
We need to keep up the pressure. Thank
goodness for the Supreme
Court.
Cheers! Sandra =============================
(1)
L.A. TIMES, NOV 27/05, PESTICIDES AND PARKINSON'S DISEASE
November 27,
2005 latimes.com : California Single page
Hot on Parkinson's
Trail Scientists have amassed evidence that long-term exposure to toxic
compounds, especially pesticides, can trigger the neurological
disease.
By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer
MERCED, Calif. - A
thousand acres stretched before him as Gary Rieke walked briskly behind a
harvester, the parched, yellow stalks of rice sweeping against his knees.
Stopping to adjust a bolt on the machine, Rieke struggled to maneuver a
wrench with his trembling fingers.
It was 1988, and Rieke was in his
mid-40s, too young and too fit to feel his body betraying him. For two
decades, he had farmed in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, and he knew
what he wanted his hand to do. But for some frustrating reason, it refused to
obey.
Unbeknownst to Rieke, by the time he noticed the slightest tremor,
some 400,000 of his brain cells had been wiped out. Like an estimated other
1 million Americans, most over 55, he had Parkinson's disease, and
his thoughts could no longer control his movements. In time, he would
struggle to walk and talk.
Rieke, who was exposed to weedkillers and
other toxic compounds all his life, has long suspected that they were somehow
responsible for his disease.
Now many experts are increasingly confident
that Rieke's hunch is correct. Scientists have amassed a growing body of
evidence that long-term exposure to toxic compounds, particularly pesticides,
can destroy neurons and trigger Parkinson's in some people.
So far,
they have implicated several pesticides that cause Parkinson's symptoms in
animals. But hundreds of agricultural and industrial chemicals probably play
a role, they believe.
Researchers don't use the word "cause" when linking
environmental exposures to a disease. Instead, epidemiologists look for
clusters and patterns in people, and neurobiologists test theories in
animals. If their findings are repeatedly consistent, that is as close to
proving cause and effect as they get.
Now, with Parkinson's, this
medical detective work has edged closer to proving the case than with almost
any other human ailment. In most patients, scientists say, Parkinson's is a
disease with environmental origins.
Scientists are "definitely there,
beyond a doubt, in showing that environmental toxicants have to be involved"
in some cases of Parkinson's disease, said Freya Kamel, an epidemiologist
with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who has
documented a high rate of neurological problems in farmers who use
pesticides.
"It's not one nasty thing that is causing this disease. I
think it's exposure to a combination of many environmental chemicals over a
lifetime. We just don't know what those chemicals are yet, but we certainly
have our suspicions."
For almost two centuries, since English
physician James Parkinson described a "shaking palsy" in 1817, doctors have
been baffled by the condition.
In most people, a blackened, bean-size
sliver at the base of the brain - called the substantia nigra - is crammed
with more than half a million neurons that produce dopamine, a messenger that
controls the body's movements.
But in Parkinson's patients, more than
two-thirds of those neurons have died.
After decades of work,
researchers are still struggling with many unanswered questions, such as
which chemicals may kill dopamine neurons, who is vulnerable and how much
exposure is risky.
Expressed in legal terms, pesticides are not guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt - but there is a substantial, and rapidly growing,
body of evidence, many scientists say.
Clues and breakthroughs are
emerging from an odd menagerie of laboratory flies, mice, rats and monkeys,
from bits of human brain, and from farmers like Rieke.
And it all
started with a junkie named George.
It was July 1982, and a 42-year-old
patient named George Carrillo had lingered in Santa Clara emergency rooms and
psychiatric units for more than two weeks. He seemed catatonic, unable to
move or speak. Dr. Bill Langston, who ran a neurology department, was brought
in to try to figure out what was wrong.
Langston gently lifted the
man's elbow. His arm was stiff, moving like a gearshift. Langston had seen
this odd, rigid movement many times before, in patients with Parkinson's
disease.
But this was no ordinary Parkinson's patient. His symptoms had
developed virtually overnight.
The doctors soon tracked the source: a
botched batch of synthetic heroin that contained MPTP, a compound that acted
like an assassin, targeting the same neurons missing in Parkinson's
patients.
Langston had stumbled across a powerful chemical that unleashed
an immediate, severe form of Parkinson's.
Still, it was obvious that
synthetic heroin wasn't the culprit for most Parkinson's patients. People are
exposed to some 70,000 chemicals in their environment. Which others could
cause the disease?
A few days later, a chemist contacted Langston. The
formula for the heroin compound, the chemist said, "looks just like
paraquat." Paraquat has been one of the world's most popular weedkillers for
decades. It was a good place to start.
Since that discovery,
scientists have conducted hundreds of animal experiments, at least 40 studies
of human patients, and three of human brain tissue. They have found "a
relatively consistent relationship between pesticide exposure and
Parkinson's," British researchers reported online in September in the journal
Environmental Health Perspectives.
The work has revolutionized the
thinking about Parkinson's, shifting the decades-long debate about whether
its roots are genetic or environmental. Among the research leaders are UCLA,
the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, Calif., which Langston founded and
now directs, and Atlanta's Emory University, each named national centers for
Parkinson's research in 2001 and given a total of $20 million in federal
grants.
Head trauma contributes to some cases of Parkinson's, and it
probably explains why boxer Muhammad Ali was stricken. But why does it
afflict others with seemingly nothing in common, such as the late Pope John
Paul II and actor Michael J. Fox?
A couple of genes seem to play a
role in early onset of Parkinson's in the small percentage of people who are
afflicted at a young age. But for 90% of people who get the disease, a broad
array of environmental factors are believed responsible. In fact, when
Parkinson's patients have identical twins who carry the exact same genes,
most of the twins do not contract the disease.
"All told, the forms of
Parkinson's with a known or presumed genetic cause account for a small
fraction of the disease, likely 5% or less," epidemiologists Dr. Caroline
Tanner of the Parkinson's Institute and Lorene Nelson of Stanford University
reported in 2003.
To pinpoint which environmental exposures are most
important, scientists are trying to unravel how genes and toxic chemicals
interact to destroy brain cells. One leading theory is that pesticides cause
over-expression of a gene that floods the brain with a neuron-killing
protein.
Exposure to chemicals early in life, followed by toxic exposures
in adulthood, may be especially important, triggering a slow death of
neurons that debilitates people decades later.
Compounds with little
in common, such as a fungicide and an insecticide, apparently can team up to
administer a one-two punch, decimating brain cells.
"Pesticides and
related industrial chemicals, those classes of compounds, clearly are
associated with some cases of Parkinson's," said Gary Miller, a toxicologist
and associate professor at Emory University's Rollins School of Public
Health. "The question is, how many? 5%, 10%, 50%? In a chemical-free society,
people would still get Parkinson's disease. It would just occur later in life
and at a lower incidence."
Even 5% would involve 50,000 Americans alive
today.
More than 1 billion pounds of herbicides, insecticides and
other pest-killing chemicals are used on U.S. farms and gardens and in
households. Nearly all adults and children tested have traces of multiple
pesticides in their bodies.
So far, animal tests have implicated the
pesticides paraquat, rotenone, dieldrin and maneb - alone or in combination -
as well as industrial compounds called PCBs, or polychlorinated
biphenyls.
Pesticide industry representatives stress that there are many
risk factors and insufficient evidence implicating any specific pesticide.
Scientists agree that they cannot specify an individual culprit.
"We
know for sure that if you expose animals to certain pesticides, it will kill
the same neurons as Parkinson's disease. That's a fact. In humans, there is
high suspicion, but there is no definite proof," said Dr. Marie-Francoise
Chesselet, director of the UCLA Center for Gene-Environment Studies in
Parkinson's Disease.
A connection to rural living or farming has turned
up worldwide. Scientists first observed a high rate of Parkinson's in rural
areas in the early 1980s in Saskatchewan, Canada. Since then a dozen
published studies have reported an increase of 60% to 600% among people
exposed to pesticides, according to the British scientists'
review.
Still, the science of epidemiology has inherent weaknesses. Most
of the human studies, for example, relied on patients' memories - most of
which cannot be validated - to report their pesticide exposures.
"You
need to be cautious in drawing conclusions when you know there are flaws in
these studies," said Pamela Mink, an epidemiologist who evaluated the human
studies in a peer-reviewed report partly funded by the
pesticide industry.
Most patients probably were exposed decades before
their diagnosis. Because there is no national registry for Parkinson's, as
there is for cancer, no one knows whether rates are high in places such as
the San Joaquin Valley.
Among those trying to obtain more definitive
answers, UCLA environmental epidemiologist Dr. Beate Ritz has contacted
nearly 300 Parkinson's patients and 250 healthy people in Tulare, Fresno and
Kern counties. She is pinpointing their pesticide exposures down to the day,
the pound and the street corner by overlaying their addresses with
California's extensive agricultural database, which details pesticide use on
farms since the 1970s.
Also, 52,000 farmers and other pesticide
applicators have been tracked by federal researchers since the mid-1990s and
one goal is to document their exposure and see how many wind up with
Parkinson's.
Animal studies provide more evidence but also have
weaknesses. Mink and toxicologist Abby Li, who co-wrote the report financed
partly by industry, concluded that the human and animal data "do not provide
sufficient evidence" to prove pesticides cause Parkinson's.
Scientists
first tested paraquat in rodents, but the findings were inconclusive.
Neurologist Tim Greenamyre showed that rotenone, a pesticide, could kill
rats' dopamine neurons and cause Parkinson's symptoms. But since rotenone is
a natural plant compound that is not used much on farms, it was not a likely
source of the human disease.
Neurotoxicologist Deborah Cory-Slechta has
presented the most compelling evidence yet on how everyday environmental
factors can play a role in Parkinson's disease. Her theory was that testing
one chemical at a time for its impact on the brain was
misguided.
"It's not how humans are exposed," she said. "You don't get a
single dose of a pesticide. You get chronic, low-level exposure."
She
injected mice with paraquat and the fungicide maneb. Use of the two sometimes
overlaps on farms. Alone, paraquat and maneb did not harm mice in her
laboratory. But "when we put them together, we were astounded," Cory-Slechta
said.
The most dramatic damage was in mice exposed to maneb as fetuses
and then to paraquat as adults. Their motor activity declined 90% and their
dopamine levels plummeted 80%.
The amounts used in those tests "are
not high levels of exposure. These are very, very low doses," said
Cory-Slechta, who now directs Rutgers University's Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences Institute.
Paraquat and maneb are unlikely
to be the only combination with such a devastating effect. Yet the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency considers only single exposures when
approving pesticides, an approach that "doesn't mimic environmental reality,"
Cory-Slechta said.
"There may be hundreds, if not thousands, of other
compounds that are silent killers of dopamine neurons," said Dr. Donato Di
Monte, director of basic research at the Parkinson's Institute.
"Each
of these risk factors, they kill 10, 20 or 30% of your neurons. It's like
eroding a house on a cliff, and the house finally falls over.
With so
much emerging human and animal data, Chesselet predicts that "in two years,
we will have a preponderance of evidence" against some classes of chemicals.
Kamel thinks specific pesticides will be pinned down within
five years.
For Rieke, it is impossible to determine which chemicals
may have played a role in his disease. He owned two dry-cleaners - handling
industrial solvents for seven years - and for 25 years he mixed and applied
at least a dozen herbicides and insecticides on his Merced farm.
At
59, Rieke had to sell the farm and retire. Now 64, he seems 10 years older
despite taking seven medications daily.
"Every year, there are things
that we all take for granted that my dad can no longer do," said his son,
Greg. "There's no cure, and it never gets better. There's not a lot of hope,
if you will."
Though it's too late for Rieke, scientists are confident
they'll soon be able to predict who is vulnerable to environmental assaults
on their brains.
"That would be the Holy Grail for us," Miller said. "To
actually pinpoint people at risk of this disease and protect
them."
Parkinson's and pesticides Scientists now believe that exposure
to toxic substances, particularly pesticides, could explain some brain cell
degeneration that leads to Parkinson's disease, a disorder that affects body
movement and coordination. -- Neurons Neurons or brain cells in the
mid-brain produce dopamine, one of two neurotransmitters that help the brain
and body communicate to produce smooth muscle movements and body
coordination. -- People with Parkinson's disease lose 60% to 80% of their
dopamine-producing neurons in a part of the mid-brain called the substantia
nigra, hindering communication between the mind and body. Scientists think
some pesticides may kill neurons in the substantia nigra. -- When
dopamine is present In a normal mid-brain, the substantia nigra has cells
that are pigmented, or colored black, a byproduct of dopamine
production. -- Absence of dopamine Parkinson's patients lack this
pigmentation because they've lost so
many neurons.
=======================================
(2)
"WHAT ALWAYS SHOWED UP IS THAT PEOPLE EXPOSED TO PESTICIDES (e.g. FARMERS)
TEND TO BE 3 TO 4 TIMES MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO
PARKINSON'S"
11/26/2005 ISU researcher helps fight Parkinson's
disease By: William Dillon
Anumantha Kanthasamy spent the early part
of his career at the University of California at
Irvine. While there, he worked on creating
compounds to protect the way the human brain produces dopamine, a chemical
essential to the body's function because it sends messages between nerve
cells in the brain. A drop in dopamine levels
below a certain point causes impairment of a person's motor skills and
movements, also known as Parkinson's disease.
In 2000, Kanthasamy brought his research to the campus of Iowa
State University, but his attention had shifted, focusing more on a trend
that strongly affects people right here in the heartland of
America. In a paper published in 2004,
Kanthasamy noted that "Some epidemiological studies have reported that
early-onset (Parkinson's disease) tends to be observed in rural areas where
farming is a major occupation." "When I looked
at the literature and all the data, what always showed up is that the people
exposed to pesticides tend to be three or four times more susceptible to
Parkinson's," he said. According to the paper,
farmers ranged up to 5.2 times more susceptible to Parkinson's disease.
Pesticide and herbicide users ranged up to 3.2 times more
susceptible. Kanthasamy's research now focuses
mainly on one particular degenerating pesticide called dieldrin. The
pesticide was first synthesized in 1946 and sold widely in the United States
between 1950 and the mid-1970s. The popular pesticide was used for the
treatment of seeds and to control soil pests like termites, grasshoppers,
locusts and beetles. With the huge number of
cells in the brain, Kanthasamy is now leading research to find why this
particular pesticide is attacking the localized area responsible for
Parkinson's disease and how it goes about killing
the cells. "If we know how they die, we can
try to save them," he said. Although dopamine
replacement therapy has been at the heart of Parkinson's disease research for
the past 30 years, researchers have been unable to positively interfere with
the destruction of cells fundamental to Parkinson's
disease. "We can say it kills, but nobody
knows how," Kanthasamy said. "You need to understand that, and that is what
we are focusing on." The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency restricted the use of dieldrin in 1974 because of the
harmful effects it could have to both humans and the environment. It
continued to be used mainly for termite control until 1987 when the
government organization banned it for almost all
uses. Given a patient's exposure to many
possible cell-degenerating chemicals, researchers have not been able to nail
down exactly which class of chemicals and pesticides kill the
dopamine-producing cells, but dieldrin is one that has been specifically
found to be degenerating, Kanthasamy said. The
long-term goal of Kanthasamy's research is to develop inhibitors, possibly in
the form of drugs, that could block these pesticides from damaging the
dopamine-producing cells, he said. He looks forward to one day not only using
these measures on patients of Parkinson's disease, but also in preventative
ways for those like farmers who are more susceptible to acquire the disease
through environmental conditions. Since 2001,
Kanthasamy has received nearly $3 million in funding from the National
Institutes of Health, the U.S. government's primary division for medical
research. Earlier this month, Kanthasamy was
named the W. Eugene and Linda R. Lloyd Endowed Professor at ISU. The
three-year professorship also contributes additional money to Kanthasamy for
his research. Although the pesticide at the
heart of Kanthasamy's research is no longer produced in the United States,
the dangers of it leading to future cases of Parkinson's disease still
exist. Dieldrin is still used in several
developing countries around the world, leaving people open to
exposure. Dieldrin was found to be the most
abundant pesticide in tested river sediments during an epidemiological study
recently conducted in Taiwan. In addition to
the low levels that still exist in the environment, a person can also be
contaminated from eating meat, dairy products or consuming fish or shellfish
from contaminated waters. Dieldrin can also accumulate in the body, storing
itself in the body's fat and leaving
very slowly. The half-life of dieldrin in
the environment is more than 50 years, Kanthasamy said. With its continued
use in some countries and its ability to accumulate, there is no telling
when, if ever, the pesticide will be gone from the Earth.
William
Dillon can be reached at 232-2161, Ext. 361, or William.Dillon@amestrib.com. ====================================
(3)
SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO HEAR APPEAL FROM PESTICIDE INDUSTRY, NOV 17, A
SERIES OF ARTICLES
November 17, 2005 Supreme Court rejects pesticide
by-law appeal
Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's Medical Officer of Health, is
pleased that the Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed a challenge to
the City's by-law restricting the use of pesticides.
Crop Life Canada,
a trade association that includes pesticide producers, had sought to appeal a
unanimous Ontario Court of Appeal decision upholding the City's authority to
adopt a by-law restricting pesticide use. The Supreme Court today denied Crop
Life's application for leave to appeal, ending legal challenges to the
by-law.
"The courts have consistently supported the right of
municipalities to pass laws protecting the health and safety of residents.
The Supreme Court's decision refusing to hear the appeal has affirmed
the City's program to minimize the non-essential use of pesticides,"
said Dr. McKeown.
Toronto Public Health launched a "Go Natural"
education campaign last spring promoting tips for pesticide-free lawn and
garden care. The campaign continued this fall and will be promoted again in
the spring of 2006.
The phase-in of the by-law enforcement began this
year. For commercial pesticide applicators and commercial property
owners, warnings are issued for first-time non-compliance. Following this,
a ticket or summons may be issued. Homeowners and renters may be fined for
non-compliance starting in September 2007.
The "Go Natural" campaign and
other by-law information materials are available on the City's Web site at http://www.toronto.ca/health. Residents
can call 416-338-7600 for gardening tips.
Canada's top court rejects final pesticide industry
challenge Groups ecstatic as Ciyt of Toronto pesticide by-law withstands
final legal assault
November 17, 2005
TORONTO - The Supreme Court
of Canada announced today that it has rejected the pesticide industry's last
gasp effort to challenge the City of Toronto's pesticide by-law. The bylaw
was passed in order to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides within the
city and was appealed by Croplife Canada, an industry association that
represents the manufacturers and applicators of pesticide products.
Croplife lost in the lower court and at the Ontario Court of Appeal, and
today the Supreme Court announced that it will not hear Croplife's
appeal, thus ending the challenge.
Sierra Legal Defence Fund and
Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) represented a broad coalition
of interveners in the case, including the Toronto Environmental Alliance,
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment, Sierra Club of Canada,
Environmental Defence, and Ontario College of Family
Physicians.
"Canada's top court has once again confirmed that communities
have the right to pass bylaws to protect the health of their citizens
and their environment," said Justin Duncan, lawyer with Sierra
Legal Defence Fund. "Other Ontario municipalities now have a clear
green light to consider passing similar by-laws."
The Toronto
pesticide by-law was closely patterned after a similar by-law passed by the
Town of Hudson, Quebec fourteen years ago. That by-law was upheld by the
Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 in a landmark decision that strongly endorsed
the power of municipal governments to restrict the use of pesticides within
their communities.
"This is a another great victory for the
environment and public health, and the ability for municipalities to act in a
precautionary way," said Paul Muldoon, Executive Director of CELA. "This is a
truly great day for municipalities in Ontario."
"Lawns, gardens and
parks can be maintained without chemical pesticides," said Julia Langer of
WWF Canada, who is also a Director of the Organic Landscape Alliance.
"Municipalities are simply responding to peoples' concerns for the
environment and their health. Instead of using the legal system to filibuster
legitimate local bylaws, the lawn-care sector should wake up, smell the
pesticide-free roses and go organic."
"It has been a long road, but
the pesticide industry has played their last card and lost," observed Katrina
Miller, campaigner for the Toronto Environmental Alliance (TEA). "A local
community's right to protect children's health and the environment has
prevailed once again."
-30-
For further information please
contact:
Theresa McClenaghan, CELA: 519.755.7579 (cell) Justin Duncan,
Sierra Legal: 416.368.7533 ext. 22 Julia Langer, WWF Canada:
416.484.7709 Katrina Miller, TEA: 416.596.0660
Sierra Legal (www.sierralegal.org) is a national
non-profit organization dedicated to environmental justice
TORONTO-The Supreme Court of Canada's refusal to hear a challenge
to Toronto's pesticide bylaw is a victory for public health right
across the country, says the Canadian Association of Physicians for
the Environment (CAPE).
CAPE says the Court's decision - which means
the bylaw's legal validity can no longer be questioned - should empower
other municipalities to pass similar legislation.
"This is a great day
for people's health and a great day for our drinking water, rivers, and
aquatic life," said CAPE's Executive Director Gideon Forman. "Lawn pesticides
are a significant threat to human safety, particularly the safety of
children. The Supreme Court's decision means the residents of Toronto will
continue to enjoy protection from these poisons."
CAPE provided expert
testimony to city committees when council was debating the bylaw.
The
bylaw -- which forbids pesticide use except in certain limited situations --
was previously upheld by the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of
Appeal.
"The doctors are urging cities which have not passed
a pesticide bylaw to take strength from today's decision and pass one as
quickly as possible," said Forman. "Otherwise, come Spring their residents
will again be exposed to chemicals linked to birth defects, neurological
disease, and leukemia. There are so many non-toxic lawn products now
available, pesticides simply aren't needed."
CAPE is a national
organization representing hundreds of medical doctors from coast to coast. It
takes a rigorous, science-based approach in its educational and public
advocacy work.
-30- For more information
Gideon Forman,
Executive Director (416) 306-2273 gideon@cape.ca
OTTAWA COALITION CONGRATULATES CITY OF
TORONTO - Supreme Court denies chemical industry leave to appeal City's
pesticide bylaw
(OTTAWA) The Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa (CHO)
congratulated Toronto on its victory for public health. The Supreme Court
denied Croplife Canada leave to appeal Toronto's pesticide bylaw and
ordered costs against the industry group. The decision dismisses the
final legal challenge to Toronto's pesticide bylaw.
Toronto's victory
comes one week after the Ottawa City Council failed to pass measures to
curtail pesticide use for landscaping. Council was split on issues
including how to address differences between urban and rural areas, and was
leery of a court challenge by the chemical industry.
"The Supreme
Court dismissal represents yet another in a string of losses for industry on
the pesticide bylaw issue, and being ordered to pay the City of Toronto costs
just adds insult to injury," said Angela Rickman, Senior Policy Advisor with
the Sierra Club of Canada. "Of the seventy seven bylaws in force across
Canada, not one has been revoked because of a court challenge in spite of the
chemical companies' best efforts and deep pockets. Other cities can
feel confident that they needn't fear the expense of resisting a
nuisance lawsuit from the chemical manufacturers."
CHEO and leaders in
Ottawa's medical community have warned that landscaping pesticides are linked
to myriad serious, pervasive problems with the nervous, reproductive and
immune systems. Doctors recommend not using synthetic pesticides for
landscaping, hoping to reduce asthma, allergies, autism, cancers, Parkinson's
Disease, and many other conditions.
CHO Science Advisor Meg Sears
explained why doctors are so concerned about federally registered products.
"Toxicology (animal studies of single chemicals) and epidemiology (human
disease in the real world) are supposed to be complementary. However,
the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is constrained by
legislation and international agreements to examining toxicology. For
instance, the PMRA's Science Advisory Panel recommended that child cancer
be examined in relation to the herbicide 2,4-D, but this was not
done because children are not exposed to only one chemical at a time!
The PMRA cannot and does not consider the epidemiological studies that our
doctors find extremely worrisome. PMRA studies are confidential, and
cannot be verified by independent scientists."
More than 70
municipalities across Canada have restricted cosmetic pesticide use, since
the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the right of municipalities to pass
anti-pesticide bylaws in 2001. Over 12 million Canadians are protected
from landscaping pesticides, with local bylaws and Québec's Pesticide
Code. -30-
For further information, please contact: Angela Rickman
(613) 241-1839 or 859-5701 Meg Sears (M.Eng., Ph.D.) (613) 832-2806 or
297-6042
Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge of pesticide
ban by producers
Mike Oliveira Canadian Press
TORONTO (CP) -
Environmental and health groups applauded a Supreme Court decision Wednesday
upholding a Toronto pesticide ban they say allows cities across the country
to stop the use of controversial lawn chemicals.
The court refused to
hear an appeal of the Toronto ban by Croplife Canada, a trade association
that includes pesticide producers.
It's a final blow to Croplife, which
had asked the high court to hear the case after the ban was upheld by the
Ontario Court of Appeal in May.
"It's been three courts now that have
looked at this case and six judges have all said now that Croplife Canada
doesn't have a case," said Justin Duncan of the Sierra Legal Defence
Fund.
"Municipalities have the jurisdiction to enact pesticide reduction
bylaws."
Toronto passed a bylaw in 2003 that essentially bans the use
of pesticides on private property with few exceptions. Croplife challenged
the ban, saying it was the domain of the federal and provincial governments
to regulate pesticides and therefore up to them to enforce laws on how
they're used.
Debra Conlon of Croplife said she was disappointed with the
decision, arguing that the matter has been taken out of the hands of
experts.
"There's an entire agency dedicated to the regulation of
pesticides in Health Canada and there's about 350 PhD types who look
at pesticides each and every day to make sure no pesticide causes
any unacceptable human health or environmental risk before it can
be used," Conlon said.
"It was really important to take the issue out
of the hands of municipalities and keep it with those regulators that are
skilled and have expertise on the issue."
The Canadian Association of
Physicians for the Environment says some 70 communities across Canada have
similar laws in place but municipalities often face tough battles getting
them passed - the city of Ottawa failed just last month to bring in a
pesticide ban.
Duncan said he thinks other jurisdictions will follow
Toronto's lead now that they have the Supreme Court of Canada on their
side.
"I think a lot of municipalities were just waiting to see
what happened with this case, I think we'll be seeing a flood of
these type of bylaws now that it's clear that municipalities
have jurisdiction to enact them," Duncan said.
Pesticide use has been
linked to a rise in childhood cancers, among other diseases. A 2004 study
found widespread evidence of pesticides in Quebec children.
Conlon
said the court fight was a matter of principle and that Toronto wasn't a
particularly lucrative market for pesticides.
"The majority of pesticides
are sold in agriculture (and not urban centres)," she said.
"Farmers
rely on pesticides to provide a safe, affordable and abundant food
supply."
A study paid for by Croplife Canada found that 80 per cent of
fresh foods tested in 2003 and 2004 were residue-free, and processed
foods were 90 per cent residue-free.
In foods that did have residues,
almost all were within the safety guidelines set by Health Canada.
But
Julia Langer of the World Wildlife Foundation said pesticides
are unnecessary, particularly with the growth of organic farming.
She
said lawns also do not need pesticides to grow.
"It really is time for a
new industry, an organic industry," Langer said. "It can be done without
pesticides. There are companies that do this and it's really just time to
move on."
In a decision hailed
as a victory for the environment and public health, Toronto's pesticide ban
has been upheld by Canada's highest court.
The Supreme Court of Canada
announced today that it has rejected the pesticide industry's challenge to
Toronto's bylaw that was passed in order to reduce the non-essential use of
pesticides.
The challenge was appealed by industry association Croplife
Canada. Croplife also lost in the lower court and at the Ontario Court
of Appeal.
The Sierra Legal Defence Fund and Canadian Environmental
Law Association (CELA) represented a broad coalition of interveners in the
case, including the Toronto Environmental Alliance, Federation of Canadian
Municipalities, World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canadian Association of
Physicians for the Environment, Sierra Club of Canada, Environmental Defence
and Ontario College of Family Physicians.
"Canada's top court has once
again confirmed that communities have the right to pass bylaws to protect the
health of their citizens and their environment," Justin Duncan, lawyer with
Sierra Legal Defence Fund, said in a release.
"Other Ontario
municipalities now have a clear green light to consider passing similar
bylaws."
Meanwhile, the Urban Pest Management Council (UPMC) said that
despite what it calls a "disappointing" court decision, other
communities don't have to follow Toronto's lead.
"Smart municipalities
will opt to leave the issue in the hands of federal regulators," UPMC
Executive Director Debra Conlon said in a release.
She added that city
councillors in cities like Ottawa, Saskatoon and Brandon "have shown
themselves to be responsible custodians of their taxpayers' money by leaving
the regulation of pest control products where it already lies - with the
scientists at Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency."
Lang Michener Supreme Court of Canada L@wLetter 60/2005 MUNICIPAL LAW: PESTICIDE
BYLAW The Applicant is a trade association representing
manufacturers, distributors and developers of pesticides for use in, inter
alia, agriculture and in urban settings in Canada. The city
had unsuccessfully applied to the Ministry for approval to enact a
by-law dealing with pesticides without success as the Ministry did not
want to proceed on a patchwork basis, hoping to develop a uniform
scheme throughout the province. The Ministry took no alternate
steps, however, and the city followed up by passing By-law No.
456-2003 pursuant to s. 130 of the provincial Municipal Act, claiming
its authority to do so under the general power to regulate the
health, welfare, morals and safety. The By-law purported to regulate the
use of pesticides within the city boundaries. Croplife Canada sought
to have the By-law quashed on the grounds that it was ultra vires
the city. Croplife's application was dismissed, as was its appeal
from that decision. Croplife Canada v. City of Toronto (Ont. C.A., May 13,
2005) (31036) "with costs"
Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Chair, Supreme
Court Practice Group Lang Michener 300 - 50 O'Connor Street Ottawa ON
K1P 6L2 Phone: (613) 232-7171 Fax: (613) 231-3191 Ontario, Alberta,
Yukon, NWT & Nunavut Licenced to Practise Law in the State of Arizona,
U.S.A. emeehan@langmichener.ca http://www.supremecourtlaw.ca
==================== Warning
Industry Propaganda Below ===================
Smart cities will
leave pesticide issue in hands of Health Canada scientists, despite Supreme
Court decision
Canada NewsWire - Thursday November 17,
2005
TORONTO, Nov. 17, 2005 (Canada NewsWire via COMTEX) -- The Urban
Pest Management Council (UPMC) says that despite today's decision by
the Supreme Court of Canada not to consider a legal challenge of Toronto's
by-law against lawn and garden pesticide use, smart municipalities will opt
to leave the issue in the hands of federal regulators.
"City
councillors in several municipalities, including Ottawa, Saskatoon, Brandon
and other centres, have shown themselves to be responsible custodians of
their taxpayers' money by leaving the regulation of pest control products
where it already lies - with the scientists at Health Canada's Pest
Management Regulatory Agency," said UPMC Executive Director Debra
Conlon.
"Municipal council members have a choice: they can spend huge
sums of their ratepayers' money on lawyers, consultants and staff time
in order to write, debate and pass by-laws governing the use of lawn
and garden pest control products, or they can let the federal regulators -
who have both the scientific expertise and the existing authority - continue
to oversee the registration and use of these already carefully-regulated
products."
UPMC and CropLife Canada had sought leave to appeal the City
of Toronto's by-law banning pesticide use to the Supreme Court of Canada,
saying the power of municipalities to remove, without any proper scientific
foundation, the benefits provided by the science-based federal regulation of
pest control products is a matter of importance to all
Canadians.
"We're obviously disappointed that the Supreme Court opted not
to consider our legal challenge of the Toronto by-law, but that
doesn't mean other cities have to follow Toronto's lead. We urge
any municipality that may be considering wading into the issue to
follow the example of Ottawa and the other centres who have resisted
the temptation to re-invent the wheel at taxpayers' expense," Conlon
said.
The Urban Pest Management Council of Canada is a Committee
of CropLife Canada and 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.
1.
Supreme Court of Canada Dismisses CropLife Appeal of Toronto
Pesticide Bylaw
The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an
application from CropLife seeking leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal
decision regarding the Toronto pesticide bylaw. In rejecting the pesticide
industry leave application, Canada's highest court also ordered CropLife to
pay the City's costs. This decision ends the pesticide industry's legal
avenues for challenging the Toronto bylaw. This decision confirms the
unanimous decision, released last May by the Ontario Court of Appeal which
reconfirmed the Supreme Court of Canada ruling (with respect to the Hudson,
Quebec pesticide bylaw) that Canadian municipalities must be able to govern
based on the health, welfare and interests of their
communities.
On-line:
November 18, 2005 Media Release November
17, 2005 Media Release from the City of Toronto May 13, 2005 Media
Release Ontario Court of Appeal Decision On-line collection of information
about the Hudson, Quebec Pesticide Bylaw Toronto's Go-Natural campaign and
by-law information
================================= Email
from: Sandra Finley Saskatoon, SK 306-373-8078 sabest1@sasktel.net
--
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/184 - Release Date:
11/27/2005