• Print
  • Send to a friend
  • Comment (4)
  •  

Stick to the facts on 2,4-D spraying

Published on September 6, 2012
Published on September 6, 2012
Topics :
American Journal , B.C. Ministry of Forests , Purdue University , Canada

Dr. Ian Simpson’s Aug. 22 letter “Pesticide concerns not ‘scaremongering’” was ironically laced with more scaremongering.

There’s no reason to assume that a substance is bad simply because it’s a pesticide.

If there are peer-reviewed articles discussing a certain substance, then discuss it in specific terms.

By listing a series of serious health conditions alongside “pesticides” in general, with insufficient context or specifics, Simpson’s letter is indeed unfair, unscientific and counterproductive.

Simpson then discusses the herbicide 2,4-D.

There have been thousands of studies and decades of testing on 2,4-D.

Studies were conducted for, or published by, the Journal of Industrial Medicine, Environmental Health Perspectives, American Journal of Epidemiology, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Purdue University, National Cancer Institute of Canada and many more. They concluded that 2,4-D does not pose unnecessary health risks.

Evaluate the full body of evidence, not just the small sensational pieces that fit your narrative.

Simpson seemed dismissive of thorough review processes here in Canada and the U.S.

While that by itself seems unfair, it’s worth noting that even in the far more sensitive regulatory climate of the European Union, 2,4-D was reviewed and approved.

Proper use is the key of course.

Anyone with so much as a nanogram of common sense understood that Transportation and Works Minister Tom Hedderson’s comments about 2,4-D were meant within the context of proper use.

Blanket bans are often not based on science.

But they can be sensational and emotional.

If Dr. Simpson wishes to avoid being referred to as a “scaremonger,” he would be well-advised to stick to discussing specific substances, specific studies, and fairly and transparently evaluating the massive body of evidence. It might also help if he avoided generalizations like those in his letter.

 

Michael O’Brien

St. John’s

 

 

 

Comments

  • Username
    WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G
    - September 11, 2012 at 23:05:18

    Scientific research shows, as reported through EPA's and Health Canada’s VAST TOXICOLOGY DATABASE, that NO harm will occur when pest control products like 2,4-D are used according to label directions. The toxicity of 2,4-D is not very high when compared to TABLE SALT. ( See information on web-page http://wp.me/P1jq40-1J8 ) Despite the opposite claims of activists, NO regulatory body in the world classifies 2,4-D as a human carcinogen. 2,4-D has been used for the control of broad-leaved weeds in the Urban Landscape SINCE 1946. 2,4-D has a 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health. 2,4-D is probably THE MOST studied and best understood of ANY chemical ... not just pesticide ... in existence. Nonetheless, Anti-Pesticide Activists COULD NEVER BE BOTHERED to use the EXTENSIVE TOXICOLOGY DATABASE that is available from either Health Canada or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evidently, these activists prefer to attempt PROFITING from Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION with their own organizations or businesses, at the expense of the Professional Lawn Care Industry. 2,4-D is SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and will CAUSE NO HARM. http://wp.me/P1jq40-1J8 Please take a look at The Industry Task Force II On 2,4-D Research Data. http://wp.me/p1jq40-57Y WILLIAM H. GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G http://pesticidetruths.com/

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Anon
    - September 7, 2012 at 11:10:21

    Ban the damn chemical spraying and hire a few hands to help clear the brush there's lots of people looking for jobs. Why are we still debating this nonsense?

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    John W. Sullivan
    - September 6, 2012 at 13:29:59

    well, my position on this is simply this. If this pesticide kills, then just what are we supposed to think of this product? And where does the pesticide go after it does it job? Does it just disappear? I do believe that this is a good time, to be a doubting Thomas. In my opinion, all pesticides, herbicides, germicides, insecticides, and such are all killers,and those who are against the use of them have every right to be. When will we learn from our mistakes of the past?

    Submit a comment

  • Username
    Colin Burke
    - September 6, 2012 at 09:13:33

    OK, so all sorts of eminent authorities have concluded that 2,4-D does not pose unnecessary health risks. Is it unfair, though, to ask what for what purposes these various eminent authorities deem health risks to be necessary?

    Submit a comment

Submit a comment

Submit a comment (we keep all emails private)
Agreement

We ask that users remain courteous. You may not post insulting, discriminatory or inappropriate content, which may be removed at our discretion. We are not responsible for user content and opinions. Use of this site as well as content submission & ownership are governed by our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.

Member organizations should be non-profit in nature, and promote legal activities. Any organization found promoting illegal activities or commercial products or services will be deleted from the site.

I agree with these conditions.

Advertising

Newsletter

Please enter your email to receive our free newsletter

Subscribe to news alerts
loading...

Tely Twitter

Advertising