TOXICS
INFORMATION PROJECT (TIP)
P.O. Box 40572, Providence, RI 02940
Tel. 401-351-9193, E-Mail: TIP@toxicsinfo.org
Website: www.toxicsinfo.org
(Lighting
the Way to Less Toxic Living)
PESTICIDES
AND HUMAN HEALTH - MARCH - APRIL 2005 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, page
89-92 VOLUME 96, NO. 2
COMMENTARY - Pesticides and Human Health - Why Public Health Officials Should Support a Ban on Non-essential Residential Use Neil Arya,BASc,MD,CCFP,FCFP
Below
are excerpts from this article
Pesticide Review OCFP Report 11 - Method
The College of Family Physicians
of Ontario,concerned that published reviews and studies which led to ultimate
government approval were not adequately systematic or comprehensive and that
many studies showing harm or safety were poorly conducted,chose to critically
evaluate this body of work.Led by academic physicians from three Ontario
medical schools,a team from the College examined peer-reviewed works from 1992
to 2003 in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese,initially surveying Medline
and CancerLit and other language databases.Beginning with over 12,000
studies,they then filtered out the extensive literature concerning
organochlorines, which are already banned,as well as those with poor or
uncertain methodology. This provided a dataset of 30 high-quality reviews and
over 250 well-done primary studies (100 cancer and 150 non-cancer) on which the
reviewers performed detailed analysis.
Results
Triazine herbicides were found to
be associated with increased breast cancer risk; phenoxy herbicides and
carbamates with increased lung cancer risk;while the indoor use of insecticides
was linked to brain cancer (including astrocytomas and gliomas) and acute
lymphocytic leukemia in children. Exposure to pesticides in the home and garden
during pregnancy increased the risk of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia.
Even offspring of occupationally exposed men had higher rates of kidney
cancer. Six pesticides,including 2,4-D
and Dicamba, were associated with increased time to pregnancy and pyrethrins
with delayed, chronic neurological effects (Parkinson 's disease), chromosome
aberrations, rashes in licensed pet pesticide applicators, and fetal
intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR).
Fungicide exposure had positive association with dermatitis. The herbicides, glyphosate and
glufosinate, were associated with congenital malformations, Parkinson's
disease and possibly amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Alzheimer's
disease in men (one study only for each of the last two), all were linked to long-term
pesticide exposure. Despite evidence of
toxicity to the developing nervous system, only two studies were undertaken on
adverse neurological effects in children, but both demonstrated significant
reasons for concern. Included here was
the justifiably well-known work of anthropologist Elizabeth Guillette.12
Especially impressive was Hardell
and Erikson's 2003 study of the decline in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in
countries where the herbicide 2,4-D had been banned for over ten years. The authors concluded that 5%of NHL is
attributable to pesticide exposure.13
No clear link of any harm to the
fetus was found when pregnant women used the insect repellent DEET during the
second and third trimesters of pregnancy.
The final conclusion, i.e., that
exposure to all commonly used pesticides (phenoxy-herbicides, organophosphates,
carbamates and pyrethrins) has shown positive association with adverse health
effects, made headlines throughout North America.14-16
CONCLUSION
It seems we are already past a tipping
point. Political will is finally being
mobilized regarding cosmetic pesticide use, with Canada's three largest cities
already having passed restrictive bylaws, and with the province of Quebec and
municipalities in all parts of the country also acting forcefully to limit
use. Even prior to this report, the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
report 31 stated: "Given what is known or suspected about the harmful effects
of these products and given the purely esthetic purposes they serve ,the
Committee favours a ban on the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes ",
adding that "hopefully, the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes will
become as frowned-upon as smoking cigarettes in public, thus making a full moratorium
a more socially acceptable solution."
The Canadian Cancer Society,
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Registered
Nurses Association of Ontario have each spoken out against cosmetic pesticide
use. The Ontario Public Health
Association has generally supported bans on use and most recently came out in
support of Toronto's bylaw.32 The
report of the College of Family Physicians of Ontario provides ample evidence
for these stands.
In 2002, the Canadian Public
Health Association called upon Canadian municipalities "to restrict the
non-essential use of chemical pesticides on public and private land " and
"to strengthen legislation governing pesticide use,...educate the public
about health effects", and called for "adequate resources for
provincial public health units so that they may act as a resource to
municipalities on pesticide reduction initiatives ".
Many provincial governments have
since reviewed their policies and the federal government began an Action Plan
on Urban Use Pesticides with three elements: "reducing the reliance of
Canadians on lawn care pesticides, registration of new reduced risk products,
and product re-evaluation."
Currently about half of reviewed pesticides have been removed from
market and several more have had new restrictions on their use.1
Public health officials, whose
opinion is more sought after than ever in the wake of SARS, West Nile and
Walkerton, cannot remain silent. Their voice should be measured, credible,
allowing uncertainty as to the precise magnitude of effects, but they certainly
must support a ban on any and every non-essential pesticide use.
REFERENCES
1.Ontario College of Family
Physicians.Sanborn M.et al.2004.Available on-line at:
www.ocfp.on.ca/English/OCFP/Communications/CurrentIssues/Pesticides/default.asp?s=1 .
2.City of Toronto.Available
on-line at: www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pdf/pesticides_bylaw_appendix_c.pdf
www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pdf/pesticides_lawnandgarden.pdf.
3.City of Toronto.Available
on-line at:
www.city.toronto.on.ca/health/hphe/pesticides/
bylaw.htm.
4.City of Halifax.Available
on-line at: www.halifax.ca/pesticides/index.html.
5.City of Vancouver.Available
on-line at: www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/bylaws/13376v7.pdf CBC website
www.cbc.ca/consumers/indepth/lawn/index.html.
6.Government of
Quebec.Available on-line at: www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/pesticides/permis-en/.
7.Government of
Alberta.Available on-line at:
8.Schafer KS.Biomonitoring:A
tool whose time has come.Finding pesticides in our bodies. Pesticide Action
Network-North America.
Available on-line at: www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_200404.14.1.02.dv.html .
9.World Health
Organization.Jeyaratnam J.Acute pesticide poisoning:A major global health prob-
lem.World Health Stat Q 1990;43(3):139-44. Available on-line at: www.communityipm.org/toxictrail/Documents/Jeryaratnam-WHO1990.pdf .
10.Carson R.Silent Spring
.Boston,MA:Houghton Mifflin;Cambridge,MA:Riverside Press,1962.
11.Sanborn MD,Cole D,Abelsohn
A,Weir E. Identifying and managing adverse environmental health
effects:4.Pesticides.CMAJ 2002;166(11):1431.Available on-line at: www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/11/1431
12.Guillette EA,Meza MM,Aquilar
MG,Soto AD, Garcia IE.An anthropological approach to the evaluation of
preschool children exposed to pesticides in Mexico.Environ Health Perspect
1998;106(6).Available on-line at: www.caps.20m.com/guillette.htm.
13.Hardell L,Eriksson M.Is the
decline of the increasing incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in Sweden and
other countries a result of cancer prevention measures? Environ Health
Perspect 2003;111:1704-6.
14.Ontario doctors warn of
dangers of pesticides. CTV News Staff.Available on-line at:
www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1082735824419_7/?hub=TopStories.
15.CBC News.Available on-line
at: www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/23/sci-tech/pesticide040423.
16.Muhtadie L.Canada lax on
pesticide risks, groups say.The Globe and Mail May 11,2004. Available on-line
at: www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040511.wpest0511/BNStory/National/
.
17.Canadian Association of
Physicians for the Environment CAPE.Available on-line at: www.cape.ca/toxics/pesticidesps.html.
18.Crop Life.Available on-line
at: www.cropro.org/ .
19.Urban Pest Management
Council.Available on- line at: http://urbanpestmanagement.ca/eng/pdf/Quick%20Reference20030221.PDF.
20.Croplife Canada 2003-2004
Annual Report. Lorne Hepburn,President. www.leverus.com/cpinew/english/pdf/annnualreport/2004.24.09.pdf
.
21.Health Canada,Pest
Management Regulatory Agency.Available on-line
at:www.hc-sc.gc.ca/
pmra-arla/english/aboutpmra/about-e.html.
22.Available on-line at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/english/index-e.html
;
www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/english/aboutpmra/about-e.html.
23.Environmental Protective
Association Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT)Chemical Program
DDT.Available on-line at: www.epa.gov/opptintr/pbt/ddt.htm.
24.San Diego Earth Time
Dec.2000.Available on- line at: www.sdearthtimes.com/et1200/et1200s15.html
;US Environmental
Protection Agency,Available
on-line at: www.epa.gov/pesticides
.
25.Pest Management Regulatory
Agency Information Note:Ontario College of Family Physicians,Report August
4,2004.Available on- line at: www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/highlights/in20040804-e.html .
26.Zeigler HI.Toxic effects of
chemical mixtures. Arch Environ Health 2003;58(1):23-29.
27.Cullbridge Marketing and
Communications and Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention.Tools of
Change.Available on-line
at: www.toolsofchange.com/English/CaseStudies/default.asp?ID=164
.
28.Available on-line at: www.city.waterloo.on.ca/pws/parks/operations/PHCP.html
.
29.Science and Environmental
Health Network. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle,January
1998.Available on-line at: www.sehn.org/precaution.html.
30.Die Off Available on-line
at: dieoff.org/page31.htm, O 'Riordan T,Cameron J (Eds.),Interpreting the
Precautionary Principle.
Washington,DC:Earthscan Publications Ltd, 1994.
31.Government of
Canada.Pesticides:Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the
Environment.Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development, May 2000.Available on-line at:
www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/04-toc-e.html .
32.Ontario Public Health Association Press Release. Implementation of Toronto's Pesticide By-law.
May 14,2004.Available on-line at: www.opha.on.ca/advocacy/letters/pesticide-to-04.html .