MAVERICK MEDLEYS - PESTICIDES, PROFITS, and PESTILENCE 

 by Pat Bennett from The Radical - June/July Issue

" Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money."

- Chief Seattle, Chief of the Dwarmish Native Americans

We can't trust the air we breathe; it is polluted. We can't trust the water we drink; it may be contaminated. We can't trust the food we eat; it may contain strange genes, or be treated with various chemicals. 

The consumer war against genetic manipulation of our food supply is already under way on a global scale; Noone asked us whether or not we would agree to being part of this massive genetic experiment. The powerful agro-industry sneaked this genetically engineered material into our national food supply, stuffing it down our collective throats, with no scientific assurance as to its safety, and we won't stand for it. Let them prove its safety first. That's our call.

Now consumers have focused on another major food-safety concern. What about the various chemical pesticides used to raise and manufacture our food? According to the " New Internationalist", every person on earth has currently absorbed at least 250 synthetic chemicals into their body. Agriculture to-day is not about producing safe food for the hungry masses; it is all about profit.

Pesticides are Big Business; they make huge profits. Pesticides are meant to kill. That is their sole purpose. They kill not only the target insect or plant, but also other beneficial species, and humans exposed to these toxic chemicals are also seriously affected; many die. According to the World Health Organization, at least three million people a year are poisoned by these toxins, and 200,000 people die. 

" Pesticides" include weedkillers, insecticides, fungicides, nematocides, rodenticides, algicides, miticides, molluscicides, growth regulators, defoliants, desiccants, and attractants. Unless our source of food is completely organic, we can bet our last looney that one or more of these chemicals is lingering in or on it. Animal feed is often chemically treated, while antibiotics and growth hormones contribute to the potential risk of ingesting meat; fish have also become contaminated with residual pesticides allowed into their waters over time, as many of these toxins, although now banned, like DDT, are persistent in the environment.

We are urged to eat our fruits and vegetables, yet many of our favourites contain major pesticides. A chart prepared by the Environmental Working Group of Washington, DC, using FDA (Food and Drug Administration) data, tells us that the top 10 pesticide-ridden types of produce are: Strawberries, cherries (US), apples, cantaloupe ( Mexico), apricots, grapes ( Chile), blackberries, pears, raspberries, and nectarines. Unless our source of other produce is completely organic, there will be residual chemicals to a lesser degree in or on all the rest.

Our national agricultural industry's dependence on pesticides, to the detriment of human health and the environment, moved the federal government's House of Commons Environment Committee to do a detailed study on the subject. Following months of hearings, the committee finally presented the government with a very clear anti-pesticide report entitled " Pesticides, Making the Right Choice".

Committee chair Charles Caccia introduced the report by saying: " The choice facing us is clear, either to continue with our chronic dependence on pesticides to the detriment of the environment, agricultural sustainability and human health, or give public health protection clear precedence."
And the Fat Cats began yowling. the Canadian Federation of Agricultural Pesticides said that although the report's intentions were good, the committee just didn't recognize the tremendous efforts and successes achieved by manufacturers and users of pest-control products. ( In other words, profits from the sale of these toxic chemicals might suffer, if the committee recommendations were to be followed.)

Canadian Alliance MPs joined their voices with those of the chemical manufacturers, and denounced the report as one-sided and unfair, that growers needed more than one chemical to control pests, etc., and there would be economic and social effects. 

( In other words, profits might drop, and those with their fingers in the profit pie might suffer some financial loss).

What, exactly, does the report entail? What scared the rabbits? There seem to be seven key recommendations:

1) Elimination over a five-year period of the use of chemicals for cosmetic purposes such as lawns and golf courses.

2) An increase in the standard by which chemical safety is judged.

3) Adding the precautionary principle to the mandate of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). This would mean that unless there is unchallenged scientific proof that a chemical has no health side-effects, it should be deemed harmful and banned or sharply restricted.

4) Encourage farmers to move to organic production. Government should fund research, market development, tax breaks, and possibly subsidies to promote organic farming.

5) End the PMRA's conflicting mandate of being required to both help the industry get access to chemicals while protecting human health. The committee said the primary mandate should be health protection.

6) Older, more toxic chemicals should be taken off the market as soon as a less toxic substitute is available.

7) Increase PMRA's government funding, thereby reducing its dependence on user fees from the industry it is supposed to be policing.
Nothing too alarming there, is there? It's just plain good common sense - from a consumer viewpoint, at any rate.

But the Canadian Federation of Agricultural Pesticides pointed an angry finger at number 3 - the Precautionary Principle. They didn't like number 6, either - the removal from sale of older, more toxic chemicals. After all, lost sales represent lost profit; can't have that, you know.
This report will become the focus of a debate on how the rules and mandate of the PMRA should be changed, and the new pesticide legislation will be unveiled next winter, before an expected election in 2001.

The increased use of pesticides has been ongoing since World War 2, when many of these toxins were developed. Noone paid particular attention until an alarming increase in certain diseases caught the attention of researchers in the field.

Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, (NHL) a group of cancers that arise in the white blood cells, is increasing rapidly in the industrialized world. One of the herbicides linked to NHL is glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the trade name ROUNDUP. This herbicide is a major profit-maker for Monsanto, particularly since the crafting of their GE Roundup Ready crops, which are unaffected by the herbicide, allowing copious amounts of this toxic substance to be sprayed on these fields.
A previous study done in 1998 on humans linked Roundup to hairy cell leukemia ( cancer of the blood-forming organs), and several animal studies have shown that Roundup can cause gene mutations and chromosomal changes.

Certainly Roundup isn't the only dangerous chemical used on our food supply, although it is one of the major contributors. A breakdown byproduct of DDT, known to interfere with the development of male sexual organs, has been found to be evident in the womb of many pregnant women. Other problems associated with the ingestion of these toxic chemicals are development of the brain, neurobehavioral problems in children, and suppression of the immune system. Many of these toxins are proven hormone disruptors.

Farmers in the organic industry are delighted with the committee report, as more and more farmers in B.C. and the Peace River area are turning to organic production. Organic growers are now into grain, hay, beef, chicken, vegetables, and fruits, according to a report in " Union Farmer". They realize that consumer demand for safe, clean food is a growing market, and they are eager to supply it. Incidentally, you can buy B.C. potatoes with confidence that they do not contain any strange genes; B.C. didn't follow the popular trend of genetic engineering with this crop. The use of chemicals, however, may be another story.

We need to keep our eyes on this one; it affects us all. Buy organic whenever possible, and write your MP and the Minister of Agriculture with your concerns. Letters to the local newspaper will focus reader attention on this important area of food safety, and our good old Health Protection Branch can use a wake-up call. Currently they rely too heavily on industry to police itself; it's time to put an end to the fox guarding the hen-house.

Translate this page automatically.