next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Tip: Your message to SUST-MAR must be html-free. So, BEFORE you hit SEND, please go to your "Format" pull-down menu and select "Plain text." Thanks! ____________________________________________________________________________ Dear Friends I would like to correct a mistaken impression that might have been created by my previous note. When I said: "It is absurd to speak of the "safety" of spreading chemicals in the environment when we have literally no idea what new compounds they may form with other chemicals they encounter, nor of the damage those new compounds may cause", I was thinking in the broadest sense. In fact, scientists do know something about some specific compounds of glyphosate (the known active ingredient in Vision). "The problem with glyphosate...is that it combines readily with nitrites, found in normal human saliva, to form an N-nitroso compound called N-nitrosoglyphosate. Although that particular compound has not been tested as a cancer-causing agent, over 75% of all other N-nitroso compounds so tested have been shown to cause cancer by way of tumour formation." (Dr. Ruth Shearer, consultant in genetic toxicology, quoted in the Chronicle Herald, 4 Aug 84). And in its latest review of the scientific literature on glyphosate (1995), Health Canada notes that "Some concern has been expressed over the possibility that glyphosate could react with nitrite in the diet to form N-nitrosophosphonomethyl glycine (NPMG), a putative carcinogen." So the federal government, through its labelling process, is applying the precautionary principle. It would be contrary to federal law to spray Vision on people (or waterways), because the intent of the labelling process is to absolutely minimize contact between the chemicals and humans, animals or fish. How could such contact happen? What I saw in 1984 was field workers being unconcerned with personal contact or spillage of Roundup (Vision at a lower concentration), and people being sprayed, as if to demonstrate the government assertion of the time that the product was "safe". I saw provincial regulations so written that helicoptors were permitted to continue spraying for up to half an hour after wind speeds were known to exceed maximum allowable levels, which in turn allowed drift of the chemicals on neighbouring lands, the workers, and the observer group, which included DNR employees. I saw totally inadequate signage to warn people that the spray had taken place, or that the chemical would remain active for up to two weeks on berries the community was accustomed to picking in the clearcut. I saw inadequate buffer areas around streams that were increased through public pressure, then violated by the drift, and no account taken of the machine tracks and erosion that would allow the active chemical, well-bonded to clay soils, to be carried downstream into neighbouring properties, wells and waterways in any heavy rainfall for weeks following the spraying. In other words, following the Monsanto marketing strategy of falsely claiming the "safety" of these chemicals, our government of-the-day was directly increasing the risk to the health of humans and other forms of life. Again, the trust necessary for responsible government evaporates when government promotes an industry agenda over sound precautionary public health policy. Thanks to everyone who responded to my first note on this. Anne Rogal points out that Stora now much more than just a "Swedish" corporation. Its head office is in Helsinki, Finland, its international office in London, U.K. with head office functions in Stockholm, Sweden. More to come. Cheers. Don Black Bluedoor.chebucto.net ____________________________________________________________________________ Did a friend forward this to you? Join sust-mar yourself! Just send 'subscribe sust-mar' to mailto:majordomo@chebucto.ca
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects