[All] Fw: Ontario must ban neonicotinoids in light of new EPA study

[Louisette Lanteigne]

Hi folks

Just sent this. 

Lulu 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Louisette Lanteigne <butterflybluelu at rogers.com>
To: "cfife-co at ndp.on.ca" <cfife-co at ndp.on.ca>; "ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca" <ahorwath-co at ndp.on.ca>; "kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org" <kwynne.mpp at liberal.ola.org>; "minister.omafra at ontario.ca" <minister.omafra at ontario.ca>; "rona.ambrose at parl.gc.ca" <rona.ambrose at parl.gc.ca>; "pmra.infoserv at hc-sc.gc.ca" <pmra.infoserv at hc-sc.gc.ca>; "jb at sierraclub.ca" <jb at sierraclub.ca>; Sara Elcombe <articling at waterkeeper.ca>; CELA Articling Student 1 <articling.cela at lao.on.ca>; "david at donnellylaw.ca" <david at donnellylaw.ca>; "sshrybman at sgmlaw.com" <sshrybman at sgmlaw.com>; "consultation at cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca" <consultation at cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca>; justin duncan <jduncan at ecojustice.ca>; "ontario at natureconservancy.ca" <ontario at natureconservancy.ca>; "abscott at environmentaldefence.ca" <abscott at environmentaldefence.ca>; "pprobe at pollutionprobe.org" <pprobe at pollutionprobe.org>; "justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca" <justin.trudeau at parl.gc.ca>; "stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca" <stephane.dion at parl.gc.ca>;
 "stephen.harper at parl.gc.ca" <stephen.harper at parl.gc.ca>; "Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca" <Elizabeth.May at parl.gc.ca>; "thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca" <thomas.mulcair at parl.gc.ca>; "peter.braid.c1 at parl.gc.ca" <peter.braid.c1 at parl.gc.ca>; "Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca" <Leona.Aglukkaq at parl.gc.ca>; "gerry.ritz at parl.gc.ca" <gerry.ritz at parl.gc.ca>; "maxime.bernier at parl.gc.ca" <maxime.bernier at parl.gc.ca> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:28 PM
Subject: Ontario must ban neonicotinoids in light of new EPA study
 


The EPA's study into bee killing Neonicotinoid Pesticed states the following:  
“EPA concludes that these seed treatments provide little or no overall benefits to soybean production in most situations. Published data indicate that in most cases there is no difference in soybean yield when soybean seed was treated with neonicotinoids versus not receiving any insect control treatment.” (1)
Source: (1) http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/benefits-neonicotinoid-seed-treatments-soybean-production
>
>
>
>
>
The Ontario government has committed to limiting the use of bee killing neonicotinoid pesticides through a licensing program to begin in the spring of 2016, meaning neonicotinoids will be used on all soybean and corn crops for one more year.

“This information radically changes the situation. The government no longer needs to weigh the interests of the environment against the interests of the soybean producers. Our interests are the same -- a clean safe environment,” said John Bennett, National Program Director of Sierra Club Canada. He states:  “If neonicotinoids don’t benefit soybean farmers there is no reason to wait 17 months before taking action,” said Mr. Bennett.

I agree with the concern of Mr. Bennett and I demand these products be banned immediately for use in Ontario not only for the harm they cause to bees and biodiversity but also for the economic tort damages it has created for Ontario's agricultural community who invested their money and time towards using a scientifically useless product. It's either flawed or fraud. I can't make heads or tails of why this product was approved but it's hurting an economic sector that provides the lion's share of Ontario's GDP wealth. How could this happen?

The PMRA and the Province may be held liable if they continue to facilitate the use of these useless products since it was their approval who allowed use to begin with. It makes me livid to see situations like this because with reasonable science and and a wider scope of peer review this mess could have been avoided. 

In light of the concerns, I would like a written response to these questions:

How could the products be approved with the absence of a proven net benefit/cost analysis? 

Was the data peer reviewed? If so by whom?

Who signed off on this product's use?

How much money was spent on these products in total from approval onwards by Ontario's farmers? 

Were any Canadian tax dollars invested in the creation and/or use of these products? If so how much? Who signs off?

Were any Provincial tax dollars invested in the creation and/or use of these products? If so how much? Who signs off?

Do taxpayers stand to loose any money if we ban the product outright? If so how much?

Canada's approval process includes EPA data yet it negates the review of international studies.  Why is that? What benefits are there in excluding international findings? 

If data used for approval is deemed fraudulent or flawed what protocols exist to address the issue?

Once a product has been released for use and the product is later deemed unsafe, or in this case, useless, what protocols exist to formally remove such product?

Is there any reasonable justification that can be given to continue to permit the wide spread use of an agricultural chemical product that has no proven net benefit?

Thank you kindly for your time. 

Louisette Lanteigne
700 Star Flower Ave.
Waterloo Ont.
N2V 2L2



________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20141021/0901641b/attachment.html>