WHO GETS TO CHOOSE

WHO GETS TO CHOOSE

Let’s take a survey.

From : The Executive Summary CNFER Technical Report TR – 010

Centre For Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Lakehead University

For

Ontario’s State of the Forest Report OMNR, 2002  (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources)

From:

Telephone/mail survey of residents of Ontario and Interviews with LCC members (Local Citizen Committee)

Finding excerpts:

“Southern Ontarians were least supportive towards human use of natural resources.

Southern Ontarians were least knowledgeable about forest issues and least often used the forest.

LCC were most supportive toward human use of natural resources.

LCC were most knowledgeable about forest issues and most often used the forests.

Most Ontarian agreed that the concerns of communities in close proximity to forests should receive more weight in forest decision making than should the concerns from more distant communities.”

Wouldn’t it be loverly!

"WHAT DO WE WANT FROM OUR FORESTS?"

“What do we want from our forests?”

This question was posed by George Marek in 1993.

I’ve been reading Ralph C. Krueger and Bruce Mitchell’s 1977 Methuen publication, “Managing Canada’s Renewable Resources”.

On page 21 they state: “ Efficient use requires a steady response to changing economic and social conditions that continually alter the optimum pattern.   Our policies of assigning land and resources to particular uses, so popular among planners, tend to obstruct the required flexibility.”

Continuing on page 23:  “ The goal of maximum sustained yield contains no economic logic… More value could be gained by exploiting more when values are high and less when values are low.”

If this was in place would Atikokan and Dubreuilville have had their wood taken on the revamp of wood allocations?

In 1993, Peggy Smith, Professional Forester, was on a tour of Limestone Lake’s Plantation with George Marek.  She wrote of that experience in “The Watch Dog Barks”  a free publication published by The Lake Nipigon Watch Dog Society, Beardmore, Fall1993/Winter 1994 edition Volume 2 Number 3. Edgar Lavoie, Editor.

Excerpt from page 6 and 7:

“ In the same area, some stands were left to natural regeneration. The humus layer was not scraped, and site preparation involved dragging barrels.  This area had regrown to mixed wood, with jackpine, black spruce, balsam, and poplar – very different from the original stands, which were almost pure spruce and jackpine.  Marek did not consider this area very satisfactory for timber production, but from the point of biodiversity or wildlife habitat, these stands were satisfactory.

The question Marek faced here is one he thinks none of us have yet answered – what do we want from our forests?

Do we want a forest for timber production, or one which satisfies biodiversity and wildlife habitats? Everywhere in Canada today, we are still debating the merits of each.  We have to ask ourselves what we really want.  The forester can help decide if he understands the terrain and the site (but his understanding is imperfect yet).  We can help decide if we understand the landscape and the prescriptions required to produce the results we want.  The choice is ours.”

WHO'S DOING WHAT

WHO’S DOING WHAT

PESTICIDES 6

France is sticking to its ban on neonicotinoids.

Sierra Club Canada wants them off the market in Canada.  John Bennett, head Sierra Club, “ My question to the Minister (of Agriculture/Premier Wynne) is why are these pesticides  still on the market since (the producers) have never proved they’re not harmful?”

David Suzuki Org. – as of last winter – was more concerned with the carbon footprint of their manufacturing process and the use of fossil fuels. David Suzuki finally got on the Bee death bandwagon a few months ago.

Health Canada asked manufacturers in 2014 to provide information on the toxicity of the neuro-active insecticide.  None has been provided and the government doesn’t expect any till 2015.

March 26, 2014

Health Canada won’t make any decision this year. “Not on the table this year.” – Sean Upton.

Pest Canada Regulatory Agency is re-evaluating all risks.

This is what Premier Wynn is waiting for?

February 28, 2014

Ontario Bee Health Working Group

Reduce Risk to Honey Bees ahead of Planting 2014

OPTIONS

Option A: Update Best Management Practices

Option B: Invest in Integrated Pest Management  (IPM)

Option C: Promote the availability of non-insecticide treated seeds.

Option D: Encourage Development of New Seed Treatment.

Option E: Centralize and Communicate Bee location data.

Option F: Develop Strategy for Pollinator Friendly Habitats.

Option J: Update Pesticide Training Course.

Option K: Encourage Crop Rotation.

Option L: Require Grower Consultation

REGULATORY APPROACH  Option M. Consider Temporary Ban on Neonicotinoids.

February 28, 2014  Letter to Ontario Minister Wynne from Deb Sikora Ass. Deputy Minister

Excerpt: 3^rd paragraph:

“These Options were not critically evaluated within the Working Group against scientific principles.”

“They are provided with the understanding that further development and systematic evaluation of the merits and implications of a number of Options may be required prior to consideration for implementation.”

“It is recognized that these Options are not equivalent in terms of impact on either bee health or on (the) agricultural sector.”

“… no single Option will address the issue.”

“…(it may take) a suite of Options to mitigate risks.”

Ontario will establish a Pollinator Health Working Group to expand focus to wasps, butterflies and bumble bees.

$1.2 million allocated to research factors affecting Bee Health.

If we look at Option F: Developing strategy for Pollen Friendly Habitat , it has been put forward that areas near the treated fields be planted with a more enticing food/nectar crop or even weeds to distract the bees from the “killer” crops.  This idea flaws that one Italian Study showed – the toxic “drift” the first few days after planting…

“Flowers bordering the fields had residues as high as 124 ppb the day of planting ( corn seed with Gaucho – the European Brand name for Imidacloprid) and 9ppb three days later.”

Key features of the 2013 Action Plan of Bayer CropScience and Syngenta in Europe - #1 “Significantly scale up the creation of pollen rich flowering field margins across the EU to provide essential habitat and nutrition for Bees.”

The “Plan” was in response to the “theoretical” risk to Bees from neonicotinoid pesticides.

If we look at the five key features of the Syngenta/Bayer CropScience proposal we can easily fit them right into the 2014 Ontario Bee Health Proposals – F,L, J, D, and B. Why re-invent the wheel ?

Friday March 21, 2014 The Chronicle-Journal page A-5

The Canadian Press and the Chronicle-Journal

“Bee Report Rejected”

Ontario Beekeepers Association president, Dan Davidson said, “ This report does not reflect the magnitude of the threat to bee health in Ontario.”

“The Association says it believes that until Ontario suspends the use of neonicotinoids on field crops, any voluntary Options around Best Practices will be ineffective.”

GLORY BEE

Monday December 1, 2014 The Chronicle Journal page 1

Brian Meadows, Northwest Bureau reports:

“The Ontario Bee Association President , Tibor Szabo said: “Today (Tuesday November 25, 2014) the government has shown bold leadership, unique in North America, in moving decisively and measurabily to significantly limit the use of these toxic chemicals.”

Ie. “ Working toward an 80 percent reduction in the number of acres planted with neonicotinoid treated corn and soybean seed by 2017.”

The government will establish a comprehensive Pollinator Health Action Plan.

This was an announcement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs for the Province of Ontario.

Claims of Bee deaths due to the application of neonicotinoids have been confirmed by Health Canada.

A strange statement shows later in the article: Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Jeff Leal, said in a news release , “ Our agricultural industry depends on safe, healthy land to be productive. That is why Ontario Farmers have taken significant action to reduce pesticide use, reducing overall usage by some 45 % in the last three decades.”

If the Agro Info total I Posted previously were for 2010 as indicated is the 45% REDUCTION total what must have been going on the land in the 1980’s?

Health Canada is re-evaluating:

Imidacloprid

Clotheanidin

And Thiamethoxam

In partnership  with U.S. regulators.

POLLINATOR HEALTH PROPOSAL FOR ENHANCING POLLINATOR HEALTH AND REDUCING THE USE OF NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES IN ONTARIO

Is found at omafra.gov.on.ca.

INTERMISSION

Looking out the window, the return of the deer. November 29.

First arrival.

One of last years twins, maybe.

Checking tracks.

The Big Guy has returned. November 30, 2014.

Deer head and feeder.

Reflections in the eye of "Big Guy".

USE AS DIRECTED

USE AS DIRECTED

PESTICIDES 4

CropLife America states: “ As the plant grows it reduces by orders of magnitude the amount (of pesticide) present in the plant when it flowers.  If the dose is extremely low it is not going to be toxic.” End quote.

Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station:” Two neonicotinoids – imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were present in nectar and pollen of squash where pesticides were applied as directed.” End quote.

Bayer CropScience:” We can use them safely and not endanger the health of bees.” End quote.

Metabolites = the products the pesticides “break down” to , some of which are even more toxic to bees.

Rare Research on Combinations of Chemicals:  the “synergistic effect”

The fungicide, PROCURE,  used on cucumbers, melons, squash, pumpkins and zucchini; and apples, pears, strawberries and cherries,  combined with a neonicotinoid, becomes a thousand times more toxic to bees.

Miscelaneous

For pre-emergent seed treatment there seems to be no replacement for the use of neonicotinoids.

RFDTV, March 27, 2014 reports an increase of 4 to 15 bushels of corn with the use of fungicides.

American Seed Trade Associations reiterates the importance of seed treatment.

Dupont opens Tech Centre to bring agricultural innovation to African Farmers.

Noam Chomsky would likely call it : - “Maximizing short term profits and not being concerned with long term effects.”

2014: - China turned away an 8,000 tons shipment of U.S. G.M. Corn. ( genetically modified)

AGRO INFO from DMAFRA c. 2010

532,794 Kg of pesticides used on Ontario fruit

3,659,447 Kg herbicides used on Ontario field crops

10,969 Kg of insecticides used on Ontario field crops

219 Kg of fungicides used on Ontario field crops

Grand total of  3,935,275 Kg pesticides used  per year on Ontario Farms

IT MANIFESTS IN BEE FOOD

IT MANIFESTS IN BEE FOOD

PESTICIDES 3

QUOTING Mother Earth News of May/June 1984:

“… chemical companies had a tremendous vested interest in seeing today’s approvals remain in place and powerful vested interests seem to determine our Nation’s agricultural policies.” End quote.

Neonicotinoids are nerve poisons.  They “target an insect’s neurotransmitters and manifest in bee food.” It  “forms a permanent chemical bond to receptors in place of acetylcholine so that the neurons can’t communicate ,” causing crossed signals in nerves producing:-

Disorientation

Short term memory loss

Appetite loss

Tremors

And spasms leading to paralysis and death

“Look for wings flared, tongue sticking out and trembling.”

Or, in lay terms, a bee –

Can’t locate nectar

Can’t locate its hive

Forgets to groom for mites

Forgets its hive duties

Has impaired navigation, foraging and feeding behaviour

They starve to death

Neonics also compromise the bee’s immune system leaving them susceptible to virus that ultimately leads to death.  It’s all in the wording.

Insects vs Mammals (including humans)

While neonicotinoids produce permanent bonds in insects – causing “dementia” within an hour – it flushes out of mammals in 2 days.

Imidacloprid  was first made in 1985 by Bayer CropScience and granted a patent May3, 1988.

Imidacloprid is the neonicotinoid of choice.

While neonics were “created” to replace organophosphorous compound, imidacloprid is more toxic to bees than organophosphate dimethoate.

It’s Everywhere

Imidacloprid is sold under 20 different Brand names and used for pest control on 40 different fruits and vegetables.

Neonicotinoids are approved for use on 140 different crops in one hundred countries.

U.S. Geological Survey environmental chemists have documented neonicotinoids in rivers and streams and Washington State Benbrook and Collegues shows residue in numerous foods.

Systemic Poison  means its in the total plant: roots, stem, leaves, tissue, flower and ultimately the nectar and pollen.

Treated seed means a mature plant full of imidacloprids. It doesn’t wash off.

However, coated seeds “dust-off” as they are being planted creating a “chemical drift” onto nearby acreage where bees forage.

Besides farms, neonicotinoids are used in landscaping, controlling pests in urban home gardens and on your pets.

The Township of Nipigon has a pesticide ban, in place prior to the Provincial Cosmetic Pesticide Ban  of 2008 , which has been highly rated.

THE WAR ON WEEDS AND INSECTS

THE WAR ON WEEDS AND INSECTS

PESTICIDES 2

Should we be surprised to read that left-over chemical weapon stocks of WWII were converted “en masse” to herbicides? (It’s all in the wording POST)

I was.

I had lived with the assumption “destroy” meant destroy.

2,4 – D was introduced in 1945.  It was,  and still is, the most widely used synthetic  organic chemical.

2,4 – D is a herbicide that accelerates growth.

2,4 -DB won’t affect the field crops.

However, weeds have “enzymatic versatility” – they change 2,4 -DB and convert it to 2,4 -D and grow themselves to death.

Forward 60 years –

Quebec vs Dow (Agrosciences) : trying to get a re-evaluation of 2, 4 -D.  (Dow Agrosciences – organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, head office: Indianapolis, Indiana )

Decision, May 16, 2008:

“The Government of Quebec agrees that products containing 2,4 – D do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, provided that the instructions on their label are followed – as concluded by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)”

It’s all in the wording

PESTICIDE RISK FACTORS:

Chronic toxicity

Dermal toxicity

Plant surface half life

Soil half life

Mode of action

Systemic absorption in plants

Leaching potential

Fish toxicity

Run-off potential

Bird toxicity

Bee toxicity

Beneficial arthropod toxicity

By the late ‘60’s organic phosphate pesticides had been used long enough for the Federal Aviation Agency (U.S.) to make a study relating to human health.

Besides mental disturbances, the study found chronic exposure to pesticides is associated with:

Anxiety

Uneasiness

Giddiness

Insomnia

Somnambulism

Lassitude

Drowsiness

Tinnitus

Nystagmus

Dizziness

Pyrexia

Paralysis

Paresthesias

Polyneuritis

Mental confusion

Emotional lability

Depression with weeping

Schizophrenic reactions

Dissociation

Fugue

Inability to get along with friends and family

Poor work performance.

PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ACT  (S.C. 2002 c 28) defines “acceptable risk” as risk for which there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result from exposure to or use of the product taking into account its conditions or proposed conditions of registration.                                         

A Known “Killer” is Approved

When the U.S. E.P.A. (Environmental protection Agency) approved the registration of the neonicotinoid pesticides in the mid 1990’s it was right there in the submitted documents – that neonicotinoids were toxic to BEES as well as Earthworms and Terrestrial and Aquatic Invertebrates.

Neonicotinoids were first registered for use on corn in 2001.

Health Canada reports: “The mass deaths of Ontario and Quebec bees in 2012, showed 75% of the Ontario bees tested positive for neonicotinoids.”

These bee deaths were linked to treated corn and soybeans planted in the area.

Bayer Crop Science says “No bees died with neonicotinoids.”

In 2012 Canada lost 200,000 (two hundred thousand) colonies  of bees.

Bayer Crop Science says,” There is not a correlation with the use  of these products and the loss of the colonies.”

Pesticide manufacturers – Bayer Crop Science and Syngenta and CropLife America – say:

“Neonicotinoids are safe – if used as directed”. (It’s all in the wording.)

“They have tests that prove risks to bees and “non-target” insects are minimal.”

September 4, 2014 The Chronicle –Journal, Thunder Bay, Ontario

The Canadian Press report: “Bee Death Lawsuit proposal”

A class-action lawsuit to “recover significant losses and damage that were suffered by Canadian Beekeepers due to the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides.”

The allegations were that Bayer Inc and Sergenta International AG were “negligent in their development and distribution of neonicotinoids, as well as permitting , and failing to prevent, damages to beekeepers.”

Also noted in the Statement of Claim: - several neonicotinoid products produced by these companies have received conditional approvals from our Federal Government.