It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thursday March 5, 2009
That's right Montreal. Our federal tax money is being spent as we speak on defending Quebec's Pesticides Management Code -- a code that limits the use of cosmetic or non-essential lawncare products -- to a company that brought you innovations as varied as saran wrap, Styrofoam and napalm-b!
Dow AgroSciences -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical -- and their legal team invoked a nifty NAFTA provision and want compensation in the order of $2 million plus legal fees reimbursed over Quebec "wrongfully" banning the use of products containing 2,4-D (which is, incidentally, the "safer" of two herbicides used, in ester form, to make chemical superstar Agent Orange, another fine Dow product).
Originally posted by teklordz
Why should we allow corporations to impose any products that we dont want? i mean, really...
The LD50 determined in an acute toxicity rat study is 639 mg/kg. Single oral doses of 5 and 30 mg/kg body weight did not cause any acute toxic effects in human volunteers.
The amine salt formulations can cause irreversible eye damage (blindness); ester formulations are considered non-irritating to the eyes.
On August 8, 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a ruling which stated existing data do not support a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure. However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified 2,4-D among the phenoxy acid herbicides MCPA and 2,4,5-T as a class 2B carcinogen - possibly carcinogenic to humans. 
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Just to bring another perspective to this discussion.
"WE" did not desire that Dow stop selling cosmetic pesticides in Quebec.
How will anyone know that this statement is true?
Because if "WE" didn't want to buy and use those pesticides then we would not have freely and willingly walked into a store and plunked our money down on a counter in exchange for those products. If the general public didn't want to use these products, they simply wouldn't buy them! The fact is that most members of the public do want to buy and use these pesticides!
A small group of people wanted to stop the use of cosmetic pesticides and mounted a public opinion campaign to convince the public that these products were a health risk. They were unable to convince the public that these insignificant risks outweighed the benefit of using the pesticides.
So in true democratic fashion - this small group of people usurped government power to get their way. The government was only too willing to go along with it because they could then present themselves to the public as being environmentally responsible and concerned about health.
The reason those non-toxic pesticides were banned is because a very small group of people would like to see ALL pesticides banned and the most innocent way they could start on their personal campaign of control was to demonize the pesticides that were the least toxic! Just like the anti-smokers only wanted smoking to be banned on all flights lasting less than two hours back in the 70's
So we have a situation where the majority of the public wants to buy a product, a company wants to sell it to them but a small minority want to enforce their will on the public.
Isn't it reasonable that if you want to interfere with the livelyhood of others for no scientifically supportable reason, that you should have to pay for that privilege?
Pesticides are the reason why we have been able to grow sufficient food to feed the population and protect the crop from rats and other animals. If you think expose to pesticides is a health risk - you should try starvation sometime. If the side effects of pesticides concern you, you should try looking at the chemicals in the food you eat each and every day.
Further, without the use of these non-toxic products, we can expect the spread of noxious weeds. NO I am not referring to dandelions. I am referring to poison ivy, thistles ect. The fact that we will have these weeds in our cities is not so bad but when they start infecting agricultural fields, farmers will be forced to use the more toxic products to keep the fields weed free. And when people want to keep their lawns weed-free, they will also be forced to use the more toxic products.
And exactly how is this all helping the environment?
And exactly where is this small group of people getting their funding - why from the government!
Tired of Control Freaks