Killer in a bottle
A dog’s cancer death highlights the mounting
evidence against pesticides
Adrienne Beattie
FFWD
June 10, 2004
On December 8, 2003, Nova, my
two-year-old puppy was diagnosed with lymphoma cancer.
Nova was an active pup who was fed well and exercised
regularly. Her illness came on quickly and aggressively,
causing her spleen and liver to become enlarged, the
development of anemia, a loss of weight, fatigue,
weakness, coughing, sore joints, growths on her abdomen,
intestines, lungs, and liver and swollen lymph nodes. Nova’s
lively personality dramatically changed and she became
increasingly weak, preferring to spend time alone. Nova
died on December 30, 2003.
While it would be impossible to make a solid link between
Nova’s cancer and pesticide use in Calgary, increasing
evidence indicates pesticides, including herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides, pose a risk to
human health, the environment and, as more pet owners are
finding out, pets.
It’s not fear-mongering fanatics who
are raising these concerns either. Johanne Gélinas,
Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development reported last October, "the government’s
failure to produce timely results leaves Canadians
wondering if they are being unnecessarily exposed to
dangerous toxic substances on their own front lawns."
Gélinas, who presented her annual
report to the House of Commons went on to say,
"Ottawa is not managing pesticides effectively, nor
can it honestly say that pesticide use in Canada is
safe."
Such comments are a marked contrast to
assurances from the industry and some government
departments who say proper use of pesticides is harmless.
A pamphlet from Health Canada about pesticides claims
"When proper precautions are followed, registered
pest control products can be used without posing a
significant risk to health or the environment."
A high-profile study released this
spring by the Ontario College of Family Physicians,
however, tells a different story. It warns exposure to
pesticides can cause various forms of cancer, neurological
diseases and reproductive disorders, and recommends
Canadians "avoid exposure to all pesticides whenever
and wherever possible."
PESTICIDE USE
The amount of pesticide used for
cosmetic purposes is staggeringly high, with private
households (over two-thirds of American households and
one-third of Canadian households) regularly using
pesticides on their yards, and most municipalities using
pesticides on such public green spaces as parks, golf
courses, pathways, boulevards, school playgrounds, and
around day cares and hospitals.
Homeowners seem hooked on flawless turf,
with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service reporting
"homeowners use up to 10 times more chemical
pesticides per acre on their lawns than farmers use on
crops."
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) reports that nearly 30 million
acres of lawn are routinely treated with lawn care
chemicals carrying at least 80 million pounds of active
pesticide ingredients annually.
THE DANGERS OF PESTICIDES
Most people assume that such widely used
products available for sale such as pesticides are safe.
Packaging labels for pesticide products and advertisements
for lawn-care companies are allowed to contain words and
slogans such as "green," "healthy lawn,
healthy environment," "environmentally
sound," "environmentally friendly," and
"ecologically friendly." Some deem this to be a
"green-washing" tactic, or a method of cloaking
the toxic dangers of pesticides in the guise of
environmental health.
Determining whether a product is safe or
not is a daunting task with more than 3,000 applications
submitted to Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory
Agency (PMRA) every year.
And products already approved may not be
safe. According to Gélinas, "many pesticides were
registered for legal use decades ago when health and
environment standards were lower… If an old pesticide is
found to be unsafe, the PMRA has no rule on how quickly it
should be taken off the market."
In fact, the chemicals in pesticides are
normally only tested singly, not in combinations, even
though most pesticide products are a combination of
ingredients. Chemical interactions of these ingredients
can produce adverse effects. Not only that, but
environmental, social and genetic research is often done
in isolation. Furthermore, most testing is modelled to
reflect the effects on a healthy adult male. This clearly
does not sufficiently account for effects on the elderly,
women, those who are ill, and especially those with
smaller bodies like children and pets. Nor do the tests
account for long-term exposure.
Pesticides can permeate the environment
long after application. A 1998 study funded by Agriculture
Canada found high amounts of the herbicide 2,4-D in
rainfall in southern Alberta. The herbicide was found in
all 150 samples of rain collected during May 30 to August
17, 1998, at eight locations, including the backyards of
three city residences, a rural golf course and a farm.
Scientists suspect the high level of 2,4-D is specific to
the region due to the area’s persistently hot, windy and
dusty weather, which circulates pesticides in the air. The
2,4-D levels in the study were 10 to 50 times higher than
herbicide levels reported at other Canadian locations,
such as Manitoba and Ontario.
RISKS NOT LIMITED TO PEOPLE
Pets and children are particularly
vulnerable to pesticide exposure for a variety of reasons:
they often spend many hours a day outdoors close to the
ground where pesticide concentrations are highest, they
tend to put dirt and other things found outside in their
mouths, and pets are prone to ingest pesticides when
grooming themselves.
Many studies published in prestigious,
peer-reviewed medical and epidemiological journals and
reports point to strong associations between chemical
pesticides and serious health consequences for people
ranging from endocrine disruption and fertility problems
to various neurological effects and an assortment of
cancers. Risks to pets have been identified such as
short-term mild and acute effects, and more serious
long-term effects like canine malignant lymphoma and other
diseases and cancers.
A Swedish study shows that non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma risk rises with increasing exposure to phenoxy
herbicides. Other studies indicate that a pet’s risk of
developing lymphoma doubles with exposure to pesticides;
particularly those with the ingredient 2,4-D. Sweden
banned the use of 2,4-D in 1988 and pet health seems to be
stronger because of it – many dog breeders, such as
Shannon Flynn of Coppermoon Golden Retrievers just south
of Calgary, are choosing to add Swedish dogs to their
breeding programs because many of the Swedish lines
experience greater longevity and lower cancer rates than
North American dogs.
The Globe and Mail recently reported
that federal regulators have found traces of dioxin and
furans, some of the most feared environmental
contaminants, in 10 pesticides currently used in Canada.
Although dioxins may not be intentionally added to
pesticides, they are an unwanted byproduct of some
manufacturing processes and are potent cancer-causing
agents.
Dr. Sheela Basrur, Toronto’s Medical
Officer of Health says, "there is enough compelling
evidence to warn the public of health risks that may
result from long-term exposure to pesticides. It's time to
shift to alternatives." Basrur also warns that
because pesticides are in widespread use and are mobile in
the environment, it is virtually impossible to avoid
contact with them.
The pesticide industry continues to deny
such dangers. Donald Page, the executive director of the
American-based Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research
Data, for example, recently issued a seven-page release
criticizing the methodology of the damning Ontario College
of Physicians report. "The review does not attempt to
make ‘weight of the evidence’ decisions, as required
by sound science and regulatory agencies," he wrote.
Such industry voices, however, are
becoming a minority next to a growing chorus of opposition
to pesticides. With the incidences of all sorts of cancers
on the rise, consumers seem to be looking at environmental
toxins with a more critical eye and considering the
long-term implications of cosmetic pesticide use. And when
the possibility of those dangers hits home like it did
with Nova’s death, comments like this one from the
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
take on new poignancy: "There is growing evidence
that the health of future generations may be severely
harmed by pesticides, alone or in combination with other
chemicals now permeating the global atmosphere."
Editor’s note: this is the
first in a two-part examination of the dangers of
pesticides. Next week: pesticide use in Calgary.
Increase Your Knowledge
To learn more about the health dangers
of pesticides, read Living Downstream: A Scientist's
Personal Investigation of Cancer and the Environment by
Sandra Steingrabe, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, and
Designer Poisons: How to Protect Your Health and Home from
Toxic Pesticides, by Marion Moses.
© Copyright 2004 FFWD
To write letters to the editor, send to info@ffwd.greatwest.ca.
