The herbicide 2,4-D, which is in the weed control product “Killex” that we use, has been available commercially throughout the world for more than 50 years.

Despite many studies that provide, at worst, only weak evidence of any association between 2,4-D and the risk of cancer, the general public continues to be somewhat fearful of the lawn spray. This unfounded fear is perpetuated by the false claims of various fanatical environmental groups. One of these groups, The Sierra Club, was slammed by Terrence Corcoran of the Financial Post in his editorial on Dec. 22, 2000.

“Sierra Club’s misrepresentation of pesticide risks goes back years.

The American Council on Science & Health has frequently discredited Sierra Club’s claims.” Corcoran goes on to say “There is ample evidence these groups are distorting pesticide risks, to the point where they are misrepresenting the considered views of other, more responsible agencies. An example is the Dec. 8, 2000 letter from the CMA (Canadian Medical Association), effectively ordering the Sierra Club to stop claiming the CMA supports the group’s alarmist cant on the risks of pesticide use.”

A further abuse of power and privilege can be seen in a report purportedly completed by the Canadian Environmental Law Association called “Environmental Standard Setting & Children’s Health” - the impetus for an article in the Globe & Mail on Aug. 22, 2000.

The report, billed as the most comprehensive examination to date on the health of our country’s children, stated there has been a 25% increase in the rate of childhood cancers in the last 25 years, and that certain types of cancers have risen dramatically. Much of the report, The Globe article, and other associated articles focused on this statistic and its relationship to pesticides.

We first heard of this report and it’s purported findings at a lawn care symposium in Toronto in January of this year. We were very concerned.

After investigating ourselves, fortunately we found the statistic and many comments in the report are wrong; grossly inaccurate; misleading; false; a lie. What ever you want to call it, the percentages are not true!

Wagner researched childhood cancer rates via the web, sourcing Health Canada and related web sites. Graphs and statistics on cancer are plentiful and show no massive increase in cancer incidence or cancer mortality in children. Thus, on Jan.12, 2001, we e-mailed the Canadian Institute on Child Health (CICH) and asked “can you please advise where you got this research and these percentages? We could not find any source for the information noted in the article.” We received the following response via e-mail from Don Houston, Director, Environmental Programs, CICH. “In response to your request about the source of statement that there has been a 25% increase in the rates of childhood cancer over the past 25 years, we found the information in a report completed by the Canadian Environmental Law Association called “ Environmental Standard Setting and Children’s Health”. This is a very good report with one exception - that statistic is wrong! They correctly sourced it but a review of the information showed the Statistic to be in error. The odd fact is that at the moment no one has a good idea of the trend in childhood cancer rates in Canada.” We forwarded Mr. Houston’s response to Dr. Len Ritter, Dept. Of Toxicology at the University of Guelph. We think you’ll be enlightened by Dr. Ritter’s comments e-mailed to us on Jan. 21, 2001. “Glenn, thanks for the note. Tragically I find their response neither illuminating or re-assuring.

While I suppose I can take some cold comfort in the re-assurance that they now accept that their statistic was incorrect, they have done little since their revelation to relax the many, many parents whom they terrorized with the original claim. It is also of great concern that they would have cited such an important and terrifying statistic without feeling any sense of responsibility to verify the information - the abuse of power and privilege is unbelievable. If their answer wasn’t depressing enough, their further statement that the trends in childhood cancer are not known is simply another attempt to extend the lie even further.

The irony is that these people are by far and away the worst enemies of the very people they claim they seek to protect by diverting attention away from the real causes of childhood disease and toward those that we know full well are contributing nothing at all. If I sound angry and passionate, it is because I am. Thanks for letting me know.”

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves! Certainly Dr. Ritter should know. He has been involved in much research concerning environmental persistence, exposure, and human health with 2,4-D and other turfgrass pesticides. In a paper summarizing many studies, Dr. Ritter and the Center for Toxicology at the University of Guelph noted, “In studies with 2,4-D the highest level of observed exposures for homeowners and commercial applicators were all well below acceptable daily intake as established by the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). There was no detectable exposures for passive bystanders who resided in homes of the homeowner, or commercial treated lawns or for barelegged bystanders who actively walked or sat on the turf for one hour on the day after spraying.”