Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
-
Upload
uncleadolph -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
1/16
Box28182RPOEastKelowna
Kelowna,B.C.
V1W4A6
O9May2009
Ms.BarbaraKaminsky
CEO,CanadianCancerSociety,BC/Yukon
Ms.Kaminsky:
Ihavebeen following theCanadianCancerSocietyCampaign toban cosmeticpesticideswith great
interestandevengreaterdismay.ThepositiontheSocietyistakinghasnobasisinrealscience,andits
ramificationsarelikelytocostmoreinillnessthanitprevents.Ihaveinthepastrespectedtheaimsof
theSociety,
but
Ifind
that
its
position
on
this
issue
is
devoid
of
any
scientific
rationale.
Intheinterestoffulldisclosure:althoughIhavebeenretiredfor4years,IamstilltheCommunications
Director of the Integrated Environmental PlantManagementAssociationofWesternCanada. I am a
volunteerand,althoughelected,receivenopaymentfortheworkIdo.Ihavenoownership,shares,or
interestof any type in anybusiness even remotely connected to thepesticidemanufacturing, sales,
advertising,orservice industries. Inotherwords, Ihaveno financialstake inwhetherornotpesticide
bansareenacted. Icontinue inmyofficialpositionbecauseofmyconcernwithantipesticideactivist
organizationsspreading fearonbotha localandnationalbasis throughunfoundedaccusations,using
misrepresented,misunderstood,pseudoscientific,orpoorlyconductedstudies.
IamdeeplydisappointedtoseethattheCanadianCancerSocietyhasaligneditselfwiththeseactivists,
acceptingunqualifiedpersons as experts in adiscipline forwhich theyhaveno scientific training. I
knowfrompersonalexperiencethatmanyofyourhardworkingvolunteersdonotshareintheSocietys
stanceconcerningpesticides. Ihavealwayshadabelief inscience,and itmorethanangersmetosee
sciencetrivialized,misinterpreted,and/orignored. IamparticularlyappalledthattheCanadianCancer
Societywould officially embrace anuneven view of thewhole issueof the alleged health effects of
cosmetic pesticides, by using these unqualified persons as authoritative voices to underscore your
conclusions.Inthisrespect,pleaseconsiderthedefinitionofthewordexperttoseewhetherornotthe
Societysadvisorscouldpossiblybeincludedinthatcategorywhenitcomestotruescientificexpertise
on pesticides. The MerriamWebster Dictionary defines an expert as one with the special skill or
knowledgerepresentingmasteryofaparticularsubject. Iwouldappreciate it ifyoucould informme
whether thoseused tohelp formulate theSocietysantipesticidestancecanclaim suchmastery.For
example,physiciansarerarelyexpertsineitherepidemiologyortoxicology:ifsuchwerethecase,they
wouldbeepidemiologistsortoxicologists.
Page1of16
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
2/16
Isupposesomeepidemiologistswhowillsupportyourpositionmightbefound,buthaveyouconsidered
discoveringwhatthetrueconsensusofscienceandscientistsactuallyis,andnotthatoftheindividuals
theSocietymaychoosetosupportitsownviewsandbiases?AstheauthorAnatoleFranceoncesaid,If
fiftymillionpeoplesayafoolishthing,itisstillafoolishthing.
Perhapsyou
could
listen
to
the
words
of
noted
toxicologist
Dr.
Chris
F.
Wilkinson
(even
though
they
obviouslydonotreflect theSocietys interpretationofscientificconsensus,andarenot inagreement
withitsgrowingbodyofevidence):
Unfortunately,despitetheabsenceofsupportingdata,alargesegmentofthepubliccontinues
to believe that most human cancers are directly associated with exposure to synthetic
chemicals.There isnowgeneralconsensusthatthepersonalandculturalhabitsof individuals
arethepredominantdeterminantsofhumancancer.
(Dr.ChrisF.Wilkinson,BeingMoreRealisticaboutChemicalCarcinogenesis,availableonthe
CornellUniversityWebsite)
Therearemanygoodphysicians inCanada,butfewwouldhavetheexpertiseandtrainingrequiredto
comprehendthescienceofthefunctioningandenvironmentalfateofpesticides.Asaneditorialinthe
BritishMedicalJournal stated (in referring todoctors),asmedical students theywere filled fullwith
information on biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, and other sciences, but information does not a
scientistmakeotherwise,youcouldbecomeascientistbywatchingtheDiscoverychannel(Doctors
AreNotScientists,Editorial,BMJ,June19,2004).
InthewordsofDr.LenRitter (ExecutiveDirectoroftheCanadianNetworkofToxicologyCentres,and
ProfessorofToxicology,DepartmentofEnvironmentalBiology,UniversityofGuelph):
I dont offer patients advice on when they should have their gall bladder taken out. And I
sometimesthink itwouldbebetter ifphysicians, largely familyphysicians,whoreallyhaveno
training inthisareaatall, itwouldbebetterto leavethe interpretationofthedatatopeople
whoarecompetenttodoit.
(quotedinYouReadItHereFirst...butYouShouldntHave,byDanGardner,TheOttawa
Citizen,May28,2008)
Dr.Ritter isalsoresponsiblefora largenationalresearchprogramtoadvancetoxicologicalknowledge
relatedtoenvironmentalandhumanhealth.
EverythingIoutlineinthisletteriscommonknowledgeintheworldofrealscience.Checkwiththereal
experts,anditmightbesurprisingwhatcanbelearned.
Page2of16
TheactionsoftheCanadianCancerSocietywill,morethanlikely,increasetheincidenceofcancer:more
fearaboutpesticides leads to lessconsumptionof fruitandvegetables,andlow intakeof fruitsand
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
3/16
vegetables isan important risk factor forcancer (Gold,Ames,andSlone,MisconceptionsAbout the
CausesofCancer,inHumanandEnvironmentalRiskAssessment,TheoryandPractice,2002).
Noteveryonecanaffordtobuyorganic. Noteveryonecanaffordenoughorganicfoodstooffsettheir
decreasedpurchaseofconventionalproduce.Manypeoplewillbuymuch lessproducebecauseofthe
fearof
pesticides
that
the
Society
has
instilled
in
them.
If
the
Societys
campaign
frightens
some
people
enoughaboutthefearofpesticides(as,nodoubt,hasalreadyhappened),theywillstopeatingfruitand
vegetablesaltogetherwhentheycannolongeraffordorganic.
As stated, less consumption of fruit and vegetables leads to increased cancer incidence. This is not
rocketscience,andyour expertsshouldbeabletounderstandthis. IsnttheSocietytheorganization
thatmaintains itwants tomakecancerhistory?Theantipesticide stance ithas taken iscertainlya
majorstepinthewrongdirection.
According to Dr. Anthony Trewavas (Professor of Plant Biochemistry at the Institute of Cell and
MolecularBiology,
University
of
Edinburgh),
The
stomach
is
the
most
likely
tissue
substantially
exposed
to ingestedpesticidesbutstomachcancer rateshavedeclinedbyabout60% in the last50years (A
CriticalAssessmentofOrganicFarmingandFoodAssertions,CropProtection23,2004). Thedoubling
inconsumptionoffruitandvegetables(fromconventionalnotorganicagriculture)iscreditedforthe
reduction.Also,accordingtoDr.Trewavas,Forvirtuallyallthemajorcancers,adiethigh infruitand
vegetablescutscancer ratesapproximately inhalf.Even switching to totally organicwillnot lessen
exposuretocarcinogens,astheseproductsoftenhaveamuchgreaterloadofnaturalcarcinogensthan
conventionalproductsduetoaplantschemicalresponsetoattack from insectsanddisease.Besides,
virtuallyallfoodcontainsmuchmorenaturalcarcinogensbyweightthananypesticideresidue(andthe
residuewouldnotevenbecarcinogenic,anyway).
TheSocietysrecentconference inNovember2008 (ExploringtheConnection:AStateoftheScience
ConferenceonPesticidesandCancer),tolookattheuseofpesticidesfornoncosmeticreasonssuchas
agriculture,hypes up the scare factor even higher. If agriculturewere forced, through regulation or
publicpressure,toforgotheuseofconventionalpesticides,itisacertaintythatproductionwoulddrop
whilethecostoffoodwouldrisesignificantlyinrelationtodecreasedavailabilityandincreaseddemand
(as population increases). According to Dr. Norman Borlaug, theNobel Prizewinning father of the
GreenRevolution(andwhoiscreditedwithsavingmorelivesthananyoneinhumanhistory),thetotal
amountofavailableorganicmatterthatcouldpossiblybeusedforfarmingwould,atmost,beableto
feed4billionpeople(quotedbyRonaldBaileyinNormanBorlaug,ReasonOnline,March26,2009). Do
weletthereststarve? Ifweswitchedtoorganiconlyfarming,thetotalamountoffarmlandwouldhave
togreatly increase (ibid;GeraldR.StephensonandKeithR.Solomon,Pesticidesand theEnvironment,
2007; Alex A. Avery, Natures Toxic Tools, Center for Global Food Issues; Indur M. Goklany and
AnthonyJ.Trewavas,HowTechnologyCanReduceOurImpactontheEarth,Nature,May8,2003).
Page3of16
Inotherwords,ifagriculturewereforcedtoforgotheuseofconventionalpesticides,therewouldhave
tobeacorrespondingreductionintheamountofforestandothernaturallandsurfaceassumingthat
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
4/16
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
5/16
Thetreatmentofreviewpapersisunclearandappearsinconsistent. Thereviewtakesarathersuperficialapproach inbringing togetherthe findingsofthe
individualstudies.
Fewofthecitedstudiesadequatelyaddressthe issueofconfoundingbycoexposures.Muchoftheevidencesupportinganassociationbetweenpesticideexposureandcancer
isderived
from
occupational
exposures,
e.g.
in
agriculture,
where
animal
viruses,
diesel
fumes,fertilisersandotherfactorsmayplayarole.
The review seems tooverinterpret the findings,given the limitationsof the relevantstudies;strongconclusionsaredrawnfromevidenceofratherweakquality.
Something thatall theantipesticideactivist groups seem to forget is thatoneof thebasic tenetsof
epidemiology is that correlationdoesnotmean causation.Onceanepidemiological study indicatesa
possible correlation, the vastamountof toxicologicaldata that isavailablemustbeused to indicate
biologicalplausibility.AccordingtoDr.FrankDost,arespectedAmericantoxicologist:
Afundamentalprincipleofepidemiologyisthattohavemeaning,findingsmustmeetstandards
ofplausibility. Dothefindingsmakesenseinthelightofthemassofexperimentalinformation
thatprovidesthebiologicalandchemicalbackgroundofeachpesticide? Inthesimplestsense,
isitlikelythatachemicalthatisnotcarcinogenicormutagenicinanimalsatnearlylethaldaily
doses over a lifetime, does not change in the body and is excreted immediately will be
carcinogenicatdoseratesathousandtimeslower?
(Dr.FrankDost,AnalysisofCanadianCancerSocietyStudiesUsedasaBasisfortheirStance
onCosmeticPesticides,April,2009)
The minute quantities of residue from any governmentapproved pesticide that an individual
homeownermay
come
into
contact
with,
either
on
food
products
or
in
the
environment,
is
very
unlikely
toleadtoanyhealthproblems,andcertainlynottocancer.
OnecorrelationthattheCanadianCancerSocietyandotheractivistgroupsdonotbothertopointoutis
thefollowing:althoughSaskatchewanhasthehighesthouseholdpesticideuseinCanada(Households
and theEnvironmentSurvey,StatisticsCanada,February10,2009) it isalmostat thebottom forall
Provincesinagestandardizedincidenceratesforcancer(TableA4,ActualAgeStandardizedIncidence
Rates for Selected Cancers by Sex andGeographic Region,Most Recent Year, Canada, in Canadian
CancerStatistics2009,CanadianCancerSocietyetal,2009).
Page5of16
B.C.has,byfar,thelowestincidencerateinCanada(combinedmale/femaleincidencerates).Evenmore
interesting,onpage1ofthecancerstatisticsdocumentitisstatedthatgenerally,bothincidenceand
mortality rates are higher in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Compare this conclusion to the
aforementioned Statistics Canada paper which states that pesticide use is lowest in the Atlantic
provinces and Quebec. So does this inverse correlation mean that the more pesticides used in a
Province,thelowerweshouldexpecttheincidenceofcancertobe?Correlationscanbeusedbothways
onanissue.
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
6/16
WhydoestheSocietydismissorrefusetoevenconsidertheanalysesofpesticidesbytherealexperts:
Health Canadas PestManagement RegulatoryAgency? The PMRA has in its employmore than 350
qualifiedscientists,includingbiologists,chemists,toxicologists,epidemiologists,andplantpathologists.
ImustconcludethattheSocietyconsidersallthesescientistseitherincompetentorpaidindustryhacks,
sinceitdoesnotmakeuseoftheirexpertise.Canyoupleasecommunicatetomeyouropinionofthese
actualexperts?
TheSocietyignorestherealscientistsandreliesonadvicefromthosewhoareunqualifiedand/orlinked
to extreme antipesticide activist groups. This isnot a sciencebasedpath the Societyhas chosen to
follow:itisapoliticalone.ThepoliticstotheextremeiscertainlyevidencedbytheSocietyspersistent
andpublicattemptstoforcetheB.C.Governmenttomakethebanningofpesticidesanelection issue
(i.e.,fromyourwebsite:CancerIsanElectionIssue,appearingabovetheheadingCosmeticPesticides
andOther CancerCausing Substances; CBC news report of April 5, Cancer Society Pushes for B.C.
Pesticide Ban; your April 20 press release, BC Health and Environmental Powerhouses Call for
CosmeticPesticideBanasElectionCampaignRampsUp;andmuchmore).
Inrecentyears,oneofthemainthrustsoftheSocietysadvertisingcampaignsaswellastheroleof
theactivistsontheB.C./YukonBoardwiththeirProvincialtravelstoencouragemunicipalbans,andthe
sponsoringofsuchantipesticideeventsasCaroleRubinsB.C.appearancesforherbookGetYourLawn
offDrugshasbeen todemonize the roleof cosmeticpesticides inorder to frighten thecitizensof
bothB.C.andtherestofCanada,throughtheuseofmoneydonatedforcancerresearch.Formuchof
the general public, a pesticide is a pesticide, regardless of whether it is used by homeowners,
professionalapplicators,golf courses,oragriculture.Asa case inpoint,duringanApril23rd industry
meeting in Richmond, a group of agitated protestors picketed outside the hotel with signs reading
pesticides kill our children, and other related nonsense. The signs did not refer to cosmetic
pesticides,justtopesticides.Intheemailalertsenttotheantipesticidesupporterstoattendtherally,it
wasstatedthatFirsttheypollutedourfoodwithchemicalsandGMOs(fromAlertentitled,Joinus
for an Earth Day/Antipesticides Rally inRichmond on Thursday, April 23). The attempts to link
pesticideswithcancerorotherdiseasesarecreatingfearofallpesticides,foritisimpossibletodetach
onefromtheotherinthepublicconsciousness.Anattackonanycategoryofpesticideswhetherthey
aretermedcosmeticoragricultural leadstosuspicionandfearofallpesticides.
Areyouawarethatmodernpesticidesaredesignedforrelativelyspecificpurposes,ratherthanthenon
specificeffectsofnaturalsthathaveusuallybeenfoundbyaccident,withnoconsiderationofadverse
effectsatany level? Themain factor thatdistinguishes natural fromconventionalpesticides istheir
origin. Asagroup,theyareneithersafernorlesstoxicthanmanyoftheconventionalpesticides,and
manyarecertainlynotfriendliertotheenvironment(forexample,checkoutcopperandsulphur,both
ofwhichareconsideredorganic).
Page6of16
Manyofthe organicsarealsomuchmorecausticthantheirconventionalcounterparts.Forexample,
compare glyphosate (RoundUp) to commercial acetic acid (organic), both recommended forweed
control.ThelatterproductalsohasalowerLD50,whichdefinesitasmoretoxicthanRoundUp.Because
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
7/16
of theirgenerallymuch lowerefficacy,many organicshave tobeappliedmoreoftenandatheavier
ratesthanconventionalproducts(forexample,seeNaturesToxicTools,AlexA.Avery,CenterforGlobal
Food Issues,availableonline). Asanadditionalproblem, this increases thecarbon footprintof those
applying the organics. In sum, the organics cost more, work less well, increase pollution (more
applicationstranslatestoan increase infueluse),requiremore labour,andmanymaywellbemore
notless
dangerous
to
both
humans
and
the
environment.
Forover25years,Dr.LoisSwirskyGoldhasdirectedtheCarcinogenicPotencyProjectattheUniversity
of California, Berkeley and E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Her research has been
supported by, among others, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Institute of
EnvironmentalHealthSciences(NIEHS),theU.S.NationalToxicologyProgram,theU.S.NationalCancer
Institute, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Bruce Ames is a member of the U.S.
NationalAcademyofSciences,hasbeenontheboardofdirectorsoftheU.S.NationalCancerInstitute,
received the U.S National Medal of Science (among many other awards), is one of the most cited
scientists inanyfield,and isthe inventoroftheAmesTest,usedtotestthemutagenicity(whichcan
leadto
cancer)
of
chemicals.
These
globally
recognized
and
celebrated
scientists
state
that
the
low
levels of human exposure to residues of industrial chemicals are toxicologically implausible as a
significant cause of cancer or reproductive abnormalities, especiallywhen compared to the natural
background (Gold, Ames, and Sloan, Misconceptions About the Causes of Cancer, inHuman and
EnvironmentalRiskAssessment,TheoryandPractice,2002).
And,accordingtoanotherrespectedscientist,Dr.ChrisF.Wilkinson,Inviewofthefactthatourtotal
dailyintakeofnaturalcarcinogenscouldexceedourintakeofsyntheticmaterials[notjustpesticides]by
asmuchas10,000fold,itishighlyunlikelythat,forthegeneralpopulation,thecombinedcarcinogenic
effectsofall synthetic chemicalscaneverbedistinguished from thenaturalbackground (BeingMore
RealisticAboutChemicalCarcinogenesis,availableontheCornellUniversityWebsite).
Inaddition,astudybytheCommitteeonComparativeToxicityofNaturallyOccurringCarcinogens(U.S.
NationalResearchCouncil),entitledCarcinogensandAnticarcinogensintheHumanDiet:AComparison
ofNaturallyOccurringandSyntheticSubstances(NationalAcademiesPress,1996),foundthat,Overall,
thebasicmechanismsinvolvedintheentireprocessofcarcinogenesisfromexposureoftheorganism
toexpressionoftumoursarequalitativelysimilar,ifnotidentical,forsyntheticandnaturallyoccurring
carcinogens. As a conclusion to this study, it was stated that there is no notable mechanistic
difference(s)betweensyntheticandnaturallyoccurringcarcinogens. Inotherwords,thehumanbody
cannotdifferentiatebetweennaturalandsyntheticcarcinogens.
Since,asnotedabove, theremaybea10,000 timesgreater intakeofnatural compared to synthetic
carcinogens, it ishardlyprobablethatsuchamountsarecapableofcausingcancer.Furthermore,Trish
MacQuarrie, Director General of Health Canadas PMRA stated, on March 31 of this year, Health
Canadaapprovesonlythosepesticidesthatshownosignificantincreasedhealthrisk,includingcancer.
Page7of16
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
8/16
AsanexampleofhowridiculoustheSocietysattemptsaretoconnectpesticidestocancer,onehasonly
to look at the caseofpeanutbutter.Almost allpeanutbutter contains tracesof aflatoxin, apotent
carcinogen. AccordingtoAmes,Gold,andSloan(MisconceptionsAbouttheCausesofCancer,Human
and Environmental RiskAssessment: Theory and Practice, 2002), there is a synergistic effect in the
human liverbetweenaflatoxin (genotoxiceffect)and thehepatitisBvirus (celldivisioneffect) in the
inductionof
liver
cancer.
It
has
been
estimated
that
consuming
peanut
butter
that
contains
an
averagelevelofonly2ppb[partsperbillion]ofaflatoxinonceevery10dayswouldresultinacancerrisk
ofseveninonemillion.Thatriskmayseemminute,butitismuchlargerthantheriskexpertsestimate
exists from most pesticides (Aflatoxin and Peanut Butter: an Unavoidable Combination,
EnvironmentalNutrition,February,1995). Haveyouconsideredrunningacampaignagainstthedangers
of eating peanut butter? After all, exposure to aflatoxin creates a greater risk formany than does
pesticides.
InhisbookTheFlyintheOintment(ECWPress,2004),Dr.JoeSchwarcz(ChemistryProfessoratMcGill
UniversityandDirectorofMcGillsOffice forChemistry and Society)explains that salt, vitaminB6,
vitaminA,
and
caffeine,
on
aweight
for
weight
basis,
are
more
toxic
than
many
pesticides
Should this fact inspire the Society to lobby forabanon theuseof salt?Andperhaps the Societys
expertsshoulddoastudyontheadverseeffectsonhumansofswimminginsaltwater(especiallythe
possibletoxiceffectstochildren).
Anargumentusedby theSocietyandothers is thatnoteverypesticide registered inCanadahas
beenreevaluatedusingthe latestavailablescience.This istrue,butallreevaluationsareexpectedto
becompletedby theendof thisyear,and75%are finishedalready (Personalemail,March31,2009,
fromTrishMacQuarrie,ExecutiveDirector,PMRA).
TheargumentregardingreevaluationsofpesticidesdoesnotexplaintheSocietysobjectionstotheuse
ofsuchproductsas2,4D,thereevaluationofwhichwascompletedsometimeago.Andjustbecause
productsareundergoing reevaluationdoesnotmeanthatsomething iswrongwith them.But, if the
Societystillwantstousesuchanargumentasa rationale for theirposition, thensuggestthat those
productsstilltobereevaluatednotbeuseduntilthosereviewsarecompleted. Ibelievethatallofthe
commonlyusedcosmeticpesticidesareinthereevaluatedcategory.
TheexpertstowhomtheSocietyclaimstolisten,seemtometoconsist,forthemostpart,ofeither
physicianswhohavenoappreciation,understanding,ortrainingintheactualsciencebehindpesticides,
oractivistswhoaresimilarlyunqualified,orworse. TheLinkbetweenPesticideExposureandCancer:
KeyResources(BC/YukonCanadianCancerSociety)is,apparently,thedocumentthatformstheformal
basisoftheSocietysstanceagainstpesticides.Thisresourcelistdoesnotseemtobeavailableonline,
butIdidmanagetosecureacopy.Ihaditanalyzedbyaprominent(retired)toxicologistwhowasmore
thanwillingtolookatit,withoutcharge,duetohisowndismaywiththosewhoignoretruescience.
Page8of16
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854/is_n2_v18http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854/is_n2_v18http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854/is_n2_v18http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854/is_n2_v18http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0854 -
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
9/16
Dr.FrankDoststates:
Iammorethandisappointedintheapproachtakenbythismovement,whichistocharacterize
all pesticides as alike, then take information about substances long out of use to try to
frightenthecommunityintobanningcosmeticpesticides. Eithertheyareworkingwithoutthe
basicknowledge
necessary,
or
they
have
designed
deception.
Either
possibility
is
unacceptable.
Unless they arewilling todiscuss theunique characteristics and the scientificbackgroundof
eachindividualpesticidethiscannotbeconsideredanhonestefforttoprotectthepublic.
(Dr.FrankDost,AnalysisofCanadianCancerSocietyStudiesUsedasaBasisfortheirStance
onCosmeticPesticides,April,2009)
Some ofDr.Dostsother comments regarding the CanadianCancer Societys Key Resources are as
follows:
Theauthors [of the OntarioCollegeof FamilyPhysicians Pesticide LiteratureReview]areidentified
as
medically
or
scientifically
trained,
and
such
generalization
[of
pesticides]
is
inexcusable. It does not differ in concept from describing allmedications as having similar
effects. Wouldthesephysiciansclaimthatimodiumisjustlikeibuprofen? Isanoveractivegut
thesameasanachingback? Thatcouldalsomeanthatallmedicinesarecarcinogenic;some
are,youknow.
Iamtryingtorationalizethestatementthatthesearticleshavebeenpeerreviewed,given
thedeficienciestheyexhibit. Certainlytheywerenotreviewedbyanepidemiologist,although
there isanepidemiologistamongtheauthors.(referringtoBassiletal,Cancerhealtheffects
ofpesticides,Systematicreview).
IARC [InternationalAgency forResearchonCancer] isquotedasstating that occupational
exposure topesticides isaprobablehumancarcinogen. Aside from themisstatement, IARC
lists among probable human carcinogens only nonarsenical insecticides, presumably
chlorinatedhydrocarbons,noneofwhich canbe considered for cosmeticorotherhousehold
use. Inthelistofpossiblecarcinogensarechlordaneandchlorothalonilneitherofwhichareof
concernhere.(referringtotheSocietysviewofthe IARCssupposedsuggestionsofpesticide
carcinogenicity).
Page9of16
The [U.S.] National Toxicology Program, eleventh report on carcinogens, is listed as
classifyinganumberofactiveingredientsinpesticidesasreasonablyanticipatedtobeahuman
carcinogen. Theproblemhere isthatwhilethe listdoes includesomepesticides,theyareno
longer used or are not accessible to homeowners. A possible exception might be certain
fumigants that could only be used in drastic circumstances where the home would be
evacuated. Inreferringtothisdocument,asisthepracticeinthismovement,allpesticidesare
seenasequivalent. Evenatthat,thisreporthasnotbeenwellread.(referringtoReporton
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
10/16
Carcinogens,EleventhEdition;U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,PublicHealth
Service,NationalToxicologyProgram).
ThereportbyClappetalisausefulsummarythatagainisseenmuchmoresuperficiallythan
theauthors intended. Aswithany review, it is intended to lead the reader todetailsof the
generalizationsdescribed.
It
does
not
seem
that
the
references
to
herbicides
(the
principal
concerninthisissue)reallysupportthesentimentthatCCSintendsbythisinclusion.Thereview
byClappetalispresentedasasourceofinformationsupportingabanoncosmeticpesticides,
thebulkofwhichareherbicides.Itisausefulpaperbutdoesntsupporttheideaofaban.
Another source presented as support for thismovement is a useful report by Boyd and
Genuis (2008). Unfortunately it tells us nothing about the role of cosmetic pesticides,
mentioning pesticides only once, referencing Fritschi et al (2005). They describe the
environmentalburdenofrespiratoryandcardiovasculardisease,cancerandcongenitaldisease
inCanada,usingasetof environmentallyattributable fractionsof thetotaldiseaseburden
Theystate:Importantly,pesticides isagenerictermthat includessubstanceswithavarietyof
differentchemicalstructuresandmechanismsofaction. Onlyparticulartypesofpesticidesor
specificchemicalsmightberelatedtononHodgkinslymphoma. Whatdotheyfind? Fromthe
Abstract:Subjectswithsubstantialexposuretoorganochlorines,organophosphates,andother
pesticides (all other pesticides excluding herbicides) and herbicides other than phenoxy
herbicideshadsimilarlyincreasedrisks(inmostcasesnotstatisticallysignificant). Fritschietal
included discussions of the inconsistency of epidemiological findings, including difficulty in
assessingexposure.
The reviewbyBelsen etal (2007) examines the literatureon acute leukemia in children.
They concluded that of all the risk factors considered, including pesticides, only one
environmental source, ionizing radiation,hasbeen significantly linked toeither typeofacute
leukemia. It is useful to look at the pesticide studies they considered in this effort The
difficultiesof reachingconclusions fromepidemiology studiesalonearewell illustrated; small
populationsandpoorexposurehistorieshaverealinfluenceonoutcomes.Theresulthereisthat
some presumably lower exposures have higher risks, and that often calculated risks are
indistinguishableamongquitedifferentclassesofchemicals.
Page10of16
Also disturbing is the fact that the Canadian Cancer Society does not even quote the Precautionary
Principle
correctly.
The
actual
Principle
addresses
threats
of
serious
or
irreversible
damage
(1992
Rio
Declaration). The Society has incorrectly and perhaps purposely paraphrased the precautionary
principleasthatwhichnecessitatesactionwhenanactivityraisesthreatsofharmtohumanhealthand
theenvironment(asoneexampleofmany,seeReducingyourRiskforCanceronyourwebsite). The
seriousorirreversiblehasbeendeletedbytheSociety,nodoubtsothatitbetterfitswithitsowngoal
ofbanning allcosmeticpesticides.Inthisrespect,itissignificanttonotethatcosmeticpesticidesdonot
qualifyforconsiderationundertheactualdefinitionoftheprecautionaryprinciple.
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
11/16
AsDr.Keith Solomon (Centre forToxicologyandDepartmentofEnvironmentalBiology,Universityof
GuelphandDirector,CanadianNetworkofToxicologyCentres)explains:
Landscape and garden use of pesticides does not qualify for consideration under the
precautionaryprinciple.Theyarenot serious, theyare selective topests,have low toxicity to
nontarget
organisms,
and
are
well
understood....
The
effects
of
these
pesticides
are
not
irreversible.There is rapid recovery through reinvasionandweed seedsandmostneed tobe
usedatleastonceperyear.
(QuestionsandAnswersaboutLandscapeandGardenPesticides,March27,2007)
TheCanadianGovernmentrecognizesthattheprecautionaryapproach/principlecanbeuseful insome
circumstanceswhenfullscientificcertainty isnotavailable.But,guidanceandassurancearerequired
astotheconditionsgoverningthedecisionsthatwillbemadeandCanadahasalongstandinghistory
of implementing the precautionary approach in sciencebased programs of health and safety,
environmentalprotectionandnatural resources conservation (from ACanadianPerspectiveon the
PrecautionaryApproach/Principle,
Environment
Canada
Website).
Obviously,
this
stance
of
the
Canadian Government leads to the logical conclusion that common sense should prevail over
unscientifichysteria.
AccordingtotheBritishSocialIssuesResearchCouncil,referringtothePrecautionaryPrinciple:
This form of prescientific thinking presents a serious obstacle to rational discussion. The
absenceofaneffect canneverbeproved, in theway that I cannotprove that there areno
fairiesat thebottomofmygarden.All Icansayare two things: firstly, sustainedobservation
overthepast20yearshasrevealednoevidenceoftheirpresence,andsecondlytheexistenceof
fairies,inmygardenorelsewhere,isveryunlikelyonapriorigrounds.Thisishowscienceworks
preciselyinaccordwiththeprinciplesofKarlPopperthathypothesescannotbeproved,only
refuted.
The precautionary principle is, however, a very useful one for consumer activists precisely
because itprevents scientificdebate. Theburdenof evidence andproof is taken away from
thosewhomakeunjustifiedandoftenwhimsicalclaimsandplacedonthescientificcommunity
which,because itproceeds logicallyandrationally, isoftenpowerlesstorespond.This iswhat
makes theprinciple sodangerous. It generatesaquasireligiousbigotrywhichhistory should
havehastaughtustofear.Itsinherentirrationalityrendersitunsustainable.
(Availableonlineathttp:www.sirc.org/articles.htm)
CassR.Sunstein isoneofthemostcitedexperts injurisprudence intheworld,and in Januaryof this
yearwas selectedbyU.S.PresidentBarackObama tohead theOfficeof InformationandRegulatory
Affairs (operated out of the White House). One of his responsibilities is to oversee all rules and
regulationsrelatingtotheenvironment. Sunsteinwritesthefollowing:
Page11of16
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
12/16
Idonotcontendthatprecautionsareamistake,oreventhatitisimpossibletoreconstructthe
PrecautionaryPrincipleonsensiblefoundations.Fornow,myonlyclaimisthattheprincipleisa
crudeandsometimesperversewayofpromotingdesirablegoalsandthat if it istakenforall
thatitisworth,itisparalyzing,andthereforenothelpfulatall.
(CassR.Sunstein,LawsofFear:BeyondthePrecautionaryPrinciple,2005)
One of themain attacks on pesticides involves those productsused for lawn care.On the Societys
website,inthesectionentitledCosmeticUseofPesticides,itisstated:Weareveryconcernedabout
thecosmeticandnonessentialuseofpotentiallycancercausingsubstancesongreenspaces.Oneof
the diseases constantly referred to inmany of your press releases is nonHodgkins lymphoma, the
cancerthattheantipesticideactivistgroupsconstantlytrytolinkto2,4Dand,liketheSociety,pointto
childrenasthosemostatrisk.Inaddressingthepossibilityofchildrencomingintocontactwithtreated
lawn areas immediately after a 2,4D application, Health Canadas PMRA stated in its recent re
evaluationoftheproduct:
Thiswas
considered
to
be
ahigh
end
exposure
scenario
because
it
was
assumed
children
would
beexposeddermallythroughcontactwithtreatedturfaswellasorallythroughingestionofsoil,
turfmountingandhandtomouthcontact.Theuniquephysiology,behavioursandplayhabits,
suchastheirlowerbodyweightsandhandtomouthcontactwhileplaying,werealsotakeninto
considerationintheexposureassessment.
Inaddition,extrasafetyfactorswereappliedtothenoeffect level identified inanimaltoxicity
studiestoprotectpopulationgroups,suchaschildrenandpregnantwomen,thatmaybemore
susceptibletothepotentialeffectsofpesticides.
(HealthCanadasPMRA,ReevaluationDecisionRVD200811,May16,2008,online)
Whenitcomestoblaming2,4DfornonHodgkinslymphoma,itwouldbeofusetohavealookatthe
SocietysownCanadianCancerStatistics2009.YouwillnoteinTable2.3(EstimatedAgeStandardized
IncidenceRatesforSelectedCancersbySexandProvince,Canada,2009)thatwiththeexceptionof
Newfoundland,whichhasalowerreportedincidenceduetowhatisstatedasanunderestimatethe
malecasesofnonHodgkinslymphomaisvirtuallythesame20to22per100,000across9Provinces.
Forfemales,thestoryissimilar:12to16casesper100,000,acrossalltenProvinces.Itdoesnotseemto
matter howmuch or how little 2,4D is used in a Province (the Prairies having the greatest rate of
application):thereisessentiallynostatisticallysignificantchangeintheincidencerate.
SincetheSocietyconstantlyattemptstopromotethefearofpossiblenegativeeffectsofpesticideson
children particularly cancer itbearshaving yet another look at Canadian Cancer Statistics 2009.
UnderthesectionentitledCancerinAdolescentsandYoungAdults(1529Years),notethefollowing:
Page12of16
However,most cancers inAYAs [adolescents and young adults] do not appear to be due to
environmental carcinogens since individuals in this age group have not had enough time to
accrue themutations that lead to cancer.When amalignancy inAYAs has been linked to a
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
13/16
specific cause, that cause is usually exposures before birth or during childhood to known
carcinogens or is a second cancer in patientswhowere treatedwith chemotherapy and/or
radiotherapyforapriormalignancy.
(CanadianCancerStatistics2009,CanadianCancerSociety,StatisticsCanada,andthePublic
HealthAgencyofCanada,p.70)
Furthermore,pesticides registered inCanadaarenotknowncarcinogens.Thequestion thatcomes to
mindhereis:doesanyoneintheCanadianCancerSocietyevenreaditsownstatisticsanddocuments?
Continuing on the subject of 2,4D, it should be noted that it has undergone numerous recent re
evaluationsbyboththePMRAandtheU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA). OnAugust8,2007,
theEPAstated: TheAgencyhasdetermined that theexistingdatadonotsupportaconclusion that
links human cancer to 2,4D exposure (Decision not to Initiate Special Review, August 8, 2007,
availableonline). Inaddition, thePMRA states: Noother internationalbody considers2,4D tobea
humancarcinogen.Basedonallavailableand relevantdata,HealthCanadaagreeswith thisposition
(Questionsand
Answers:
Final
Decision
on
the
Re
evaluation
of
2,4
D,
PMRA,
January
14,
2009,
online).
Astoanyotherquestionaboutthecarcinogenicityof2,4D,thetoxicologistDr.FrankDoststates,the
thoroughlyunderstoodmechanistictoxicologyofthisherbicidedictatesthatifitreallyiscarcinogenicit
wouldhavetobebyamechanismneverseenbefore,withatrulyastonishingpotency(Dr.FrankDost,
AnalysisofCanadianCancerSocietyStudiesUsedasaBasisfortheirStanceonCosmeticPesticides,April,
2009).
IfindtheSocietyspositionofinstillingunfoundedfearaboutpesticidestobequitedisturbing.Evenone
deathfromcanceristoomuch,andthesenselesscampaign(alongwiththerecklessspendingoffunds
donatedforresearch)onantipesticideadvertisingandsupportofactivistroadshows,iswithoutmuch
doubtgoingtoresultinmoresufferingamongthoselessabletobuytheexpensiveorganicproducts
thattheymistakenlybelievearecarcinogenfree. Anotherwasteofdonatedfunds isthefearinvoking
advertisements the Society has run. Take, for example, the large ad that ran in numerous B.C.
newspapersin2008featuringthefaceofayoungchild,and,includedinthetext,thefollowing:Didyou
know,forinstance,thatpesticideexposuremightcausecancer?Thesefundscouldactuallyhavebeen
used on something useful, such as to increase and reinforce public awareness of proper diets an
expenditure that might actually save lives. As evidence of this need to educate the public re the
correlationbetweencanceranddiet,a2007surveybytheAmericanInstituteforCancerResearchfound
that71%ofAmericansbelieve thatcancer iscausedbypesticide residueonproduce,whileonly49%
believe that cancer could be caused by diets low in vegetables and fruit (2007AICR Facts vs Fears
Survey: Summary, American Institute for Cancer Research, online). I believe a similar situation is
applicabletoCanada.
Page13of16
TheonethingtheSocietyaccomplishesbyitsantipesticidestanceisthetarnishingofthereputationof
ahighlyrespectedorganization. I,andothersfamiliarwiththerealscience,aredoingeverythinginour
power to enlighten the public to what is, in actuality, a waste of resources and reputation. My
acquaintancesandcolleaguesare inagreementthattheCanadianCancerSocietyshouldno longerbe
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
14/16
therecipientoftheirdonations.WheneverIcan,Imakethesuggestionthatavailablefundsshouldbe
forwarded to those charitable institutions that are noble and sensible enough to abstain from fear
tactics and attempts at uninformed political interference. I am receiving very positive and gratifying
responsestothisview.
TheCanadian
Cancer
Society
is
tainting
all
the
actual
good
works
that
the
Society
has
done
in
the
past,
andindeed,muchofwhich it isstilldoingatpresent.Iwas,however,verysurprisedtolearnasIdid
recentlythatonly22%ofthemoneycontributedtotheSocietyactuallygoestoresearch.Thisisalso
alarming toeveryone towhom I speak,as theyand Ihavealwaysassumed that themajorityof
money collected goes towards searching for a cure for cancer, with a small amount required for
administrationandrelatedcosts:afterall,yoursisavolunteerorganization.
IalsowanttoknowwhytheSocietychoseto ignoretheactualexpertsthe350PMRAscientistsand
the many other available experts nationally and internationally while cherrypicking those
epidemiologicalstudiesthatseem toserve itspurposes,and listeningtotheunscientificprejudicesof
theactivist
anti
pesticide
groups
with
which
the
Society
has
aligned
itself.
Anyone
with
an
open
mind
canfindthescientificevidenceprovingthesafetyofproperpesticideusebutonly ifoneiswillingto
take the effort tounderstand the real science. TheCanadianCancer Societymakes the claim that it
holdsthesameviewasorganizationssuchastheCanadianMedicalAssociationandtheCanadianPublic
HealthAssociation,but,again,thesearenotscientists,andtheyhavealsoobviouslybeenswayedbythe
activistrhetoricandtheunfoundedclaimsofscientificproof. Althoughtheyhavenottakenasforceful
and active role as the Canadian Cancer Society, these groups will also share in the blame for an
increased incidenceofcancer, fortheirdisinterest inseekingout the realscientificconsensus. Inthe
wordsofDr.LenRitter(ExecutiveDirectoroftheCanadianNetworkofToxicologyCentres):
Tosuggesttoparentswhove lostachildtocancerthatmaybe lawnchemicalscontributedto
theirloss...Ihavevery,verystrongfeelingsaboutthat.To implythatawomandyingofbreast
cancermayhavebeenpoisonedbyherlawnIdontthinkthatismorallycorrect.Thesepeople
haveenduredenough.
(quoted inPesticidePanicZapstheFacts,byMargaretWente,TheGlobeandMail,May
24,2003)
Page14of16
The Societymay state that its suggestive body of evidence also includes peerreviewed published
studies, such as Sears et al, Pesticide Assessment: Protecting Public Health on the Home Turf
(PaediatricChildHealth,Vol.11,No4,April2006).This isanunscientificpaperIoftenseeprovidedas
proofofaproblemwithpesticides.Dr.KeithSolomon,writingin2007,statedthatthepaper[Sears]
publishedissorifewitherrorsthatitwouldmakeanundergraduateblushwithshame.Thelatterpartis
merely apoliticaldiatribe against the PMRA. Thispaperhasoftenbeen attributed to theCanadian
Paediatric Society, but you will find that this group actually has no official stance on pesticides.
Furthermore,manyofthese peerreviewedstudies inpublicationsgenerallyhavenotevenhadtheir
dataverifiedoranalyzedforaccuracy(seeChecktheNumbers,RossMcKitrickandBruceMcCullough,
NationalPost,February19,2009).
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
15/16
Infact,Dr.Dostalsomakesthecasethat:
Publicationsaboutpesticidesalltoofrequentlyemergefromresearcherswhoknownothingof
theway the chemical they study isused,or theway itbehaves in theenvironmentor in the
organisms thatmay absorb it.When reviewers have the same limitation,we find time and
journalspace
wasted
on
work
that
tells
nothing
about
possible
risk,
mechanism
or
other
usable
information.Iftheworkmakesnosense,themostelegantmethodologycannotmakeituseful.
(PeerReviewataCrossroads: aCaseStudy,Dr.FrankN.Dost,EnvironmentalScienceand
PollutionResearch,August13,2008)
Thoseopposedtoeventheproperuseofpesticideshavecertainlybeenexpertsinsomeareas:e.g., the
leadingofboththegeneralpublicandsomemedicalorganizationsdownthedarkpathofantiscience;
and the convincing ofmunicipalities and some ProvincialGovernments of impending doom. In
BritishColumbia,theSocietyassertsthatapproximatelythreequartersofallBritishColumbiansbelieve
thatpesticideshaveanegativeimpactontheirhealth,aswellasthehealthoftheirchildrenandpets
(BCHealth
and
Environmental
Powerhouses
Call
for
Cosmetic
Pesticide
Ban,
Canadian
Cancer
Society
PressRelease,April20,2009). Idoubtthatfigureisclosetothetruth,butevenifitwere,canitbemuch
ofasurprisewhentheSocietyandotheractivistantipesticidegroupsspreadtheirunscientificfearsin
themediaandelsewhere,andrealscientistsareno longerheard?So,hereyouhaveproof (assuming
thepoll isevencorrect)byyourown survey thatpeopleare increasingly frightenedby the supposed
effectofpesticidesontheirhealth.Isitlogicaltoassumethatthisinstilledfearofpesticidesallowsthe
publictodiscerncosmeticfromagricultural,oranyothercategoryofpesticide?
Thebottomline:
Neitherepidemiologynortoxicologysupportsthe ideathatexposures toenvironmental levels
ofsyntheticindustrialchemicalsareimportantasacauseofhumancancer.
(Dr.LoisSwirskyGold,Dr.BruceN.Ames,andThomasH.Slone,Misconceptionsaboutthe
Causes of Cancer, inHuman and Environmental RiskAssessment, Theory and Practice,
2002)
There'snoscientificbasisforit.
AnswergivenbySirRichardDoll (preeminentepidemiologistof the20th century,credited
with the firstpublishedpaper showinga causal linkbetween smoking and cancer)when
askedin2003ifhewouldsupportabanofpesticidesinthecityofGuelph).
(quotedinPesticidepaniczapsthefacts,byMargaretWente,TheGlobeandMail,May
24,2003)
Thepublicsuppositionthatsyntheticpesticidesaredangerousbecausetheykill insectsfailsto
recognisethatnaturalpesticides,thatweconsumeeverydayinabundance,doexactlythesame
thing.
Page15of16
(ACriticalAssessmentofOrganicFarmingandFoodAssertions,Dr.AnthonyTrewavas,
CropProtection23,2004)
-
8/8/2019 Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version
16/16
Page16of16
Thisisnotaletterthatshouldeverhavehadtobewritten,andnoneoftheaboveshouldhavehadtobe
explained.TheCanadianCancerSocietyandmedicalassociationsonlyneeded to checkwith real
scientists with real expertise in the science of pesticides. I want the Society to fully realize and
appreciate the scope and recklessness of the path upon which it is now treading. Before your
organization thathadpreviouslybeenbuiltuponasolid reputationwas impetuously steered into
newterritory,
it
had
the
obligation
and
responsibility
to
take
the
time
to
consider
the
possible
and
likely
consequencestohumanhealth.
TheSocietys seeming refusal toexamineall sidesof the cosmeticpesticide issue is inexcusable.The
CanadianCancerSocietyshouldneverhavereached itspresentpositionofcontributing to (insteadof
attemptingto lessen)the increased incidenceofcancerandsuffering.Whatan ironicandsadfate
fortheSociety.
IdonotslightthevaluablecontributionsthatthevolunteersoftheCanadianCancerSocietyprovide:it
istheunwiseactionsofitsadministrativeboardandunqualifiedadvisorsthatIquestion.
Iwelcomeyourcommentsonalloftheabove.
________________________________
JohnJ.Holland(formerCCSsupporter)
CommunicationsDirector
IntegratedEnvironmentalPlantManagementAssociationofWesternCanada
Email:[email protected]
cc:Premier
Gordon
Campbell
PrimeMinisterStephenHarper
HonourableJimPrentice,MinisteroftheEnvironment
Dr.MichaelIgnatieff,LeaderoftheOpposition
Dr.RichardAucoin,ExecutiveDirector,PMRA
Ms.TrishMacQuarrie,DirectorGeneral,PMRA
Mr.AlJohnson,Director,WorkSafeBC
Ms.ShantalNadeau,ExecutiveAssistant,CanadianMedicalAssociation
CanadianNursesAssociation
Ms.KathrynSeely,PublicIssuesManager,CanadianCancerSociety,BC/Yukon
Ms.Heather
Logan,
Senior
Director,
Cancer
Control
Policy
and
Information,
Canadian
Cancer
Society