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

[email protected]

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]


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


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


4/16


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.


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


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


8/16

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


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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)


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

Documents

Reference -- John J. Holland -- 2009 05 09 -- Letter to CCS -- PDF Version