Weds., April 13, 2005 Walkerton Herald Times

2,4-D Is it Really Safe?

By Kelly Reid

Recently, the Pesticide Management and Regulatory Agency (PMRA), the Federal body responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada, deemed 2,4,D safe when used as directed. Proposing continued registration for lawn and turf use with fewer allowable applications per season and set to the lowest effective rate, this designation is in stark contrast to the extensive April 2004 report by the Ontario College of Family Physicians stating that no amount of any pesticide is safe.

Meg Sears (M.Eng, PhD), scientific advisor for the Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa, prepared a comprehensive critique; highlighting the major problems with the PMRA's Feb. 21/05 review, portions of which are mentioned here.

Chemical Toxicity

The PMRA relied upon animal studies with rats. Rats have unique genes for detoxifying chemicals, they can live in sewers and dumps while people cannot, therefore are a poor model for toxicity testing.

The highly toxic DEA form is in many herbicide and "weed and feed" products and was explicitly excluded from the review.

Synergistic effects with inerts and other chemical combinations were not considered. Many products containing 2,4-D, contain racemic mecoprop, now withdrawn by the manufacturer, but may be sold until 2009.

Label Directions

Children, pets and wildlife don't read signs to keep off grass. Research shows that people don't follow strict, detailed instructions on how to spray (quantities, weather restrictions, buffer zones) or avoid contact with skin, eyes, inhalation, wear protective clothing, chemical mask, gloves etc.

Cancer

The Ontario College of Family Physicians found the open, peer-reviewed literature regarding humans clear enough for doctors to advise pesticide avoidance if at all possible. The "Independent Science Advisory Panel" noted that childhood cancer (neuroblastoma, brain tumours, Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma) did merit more study. The PMRA said that this was a difficult area and preferred to rely upon animal toxicity data.

Scientific Process

Efforts to improve accountability and transparency, required by medical journals are not in place for pesticides. Problems include: industry-provided secret studies not open for peer review and reviews by interested parties rather than systematic reviews of primary literature. Canada does not track pesticide sales or use and has no adverse effects reporting system.

Ultimately, science cannot define "acceptable risk", that is up to us.

Do we trust the lawn care industry, which depends on the sale of their product? Does the government promote only safe products for public consumption? Should we listen to the health practitioners who are advocating for our health? Or scientists, with no ties to industry, producing research contrary to that of the industry?

"Approval by the PMRA is not proof of 2,4-D’s safety", said Dr. Kapil Khatter, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment president. It is dangerous to human health despite a recent regulatory announcement. "Leaded gasoline was once government-approved as well. No reasonable person would call [it] safe. Cigarettes are certainly approved for sale but used as directed they cause lung cancer."

Obviously research exists on both sides of the fence. We not only have to ask ourselves, is the grass greener on the other side but what methods were used to get it that way and how much are we willing to risk for the sake of a weed-free lawn?

Meg Sears’ entire critique :http://www.flora.org/healthyottawa/fs-5.htm

<<Back