|
Btk
Dear Members of Council:
Good afternoon,
I appreciate the opportunity provided to the citizens of Oakville to learn more about the ‘proposed’ Gypsy Moth
Spray Program. I was surprised that there were so few townspeople in attendance however those that came did so out of obvious
concern as to the safety of the product being used for this spray, Foray 48B, the active ingredient being Btk (bacillus thuringiensis
subspecies kurstaki bacterium).
I found the session to be informative however it failed to alleviate any of my concerns. I continue to be exceptionally disturbed
by the thought of tiny droplets of this pesticide brimming with live bacteria and other unknown “inert” ingredients
or “formulants” settling over our homes, parks, children, pets, flora and fauna. I feel this is a backwards step
from the pesticide by-law that came into force January 1st of this year.
I believe the project team feels that they have done a thorough job of reviewing the available information however I question
the design of the study and whether anyone on the team was truly thinking outside of the box. The approach appears to have
been to find information indicating the product is safe as used as opposed to any serious study or research into opposing
or controversial articles, of which there are many. The presentation was basically ‘oversell’. The choices listed
were ‘to spray or not to spray’ yet when I read supporting documents that were made available (Community Services
Report dated February 8, 2008), there are other approaches that were examined but cited to be effective only for small scale
control.
As much as I would not relish the thought of a major infestation of caterpillars, I would much prefer that the Town spend
the allocated budget of $160,000 on the small scale control methods such as scraping and barrier bands or alternative methods
such as natural predator control and let nature take its course which would at least not pose the health risk potentially
associated with Foray 48B.
In the majority of papers I have read, many health concerns identified in the short term are discounted because no link could
be proven. This pesticide has been in use for many years – where are the long term studies proving that it is safe?
Regardless of whether Btk is a “naturally occurring bacteria”, it is not natural to breathe it in. The second
and perhaps more disturbing aspect relates to the “formulants” or “inert” ingredients in the pesticide
to, among other things, help make it stick to the leaves. So now we are inhaling a “sticky bacterial solution”.
I wonder – does it smell and can you actually see this bacterial cloud mist?
These inerts do not need to be disclosed to the general public because they are a “trade secret” of the manufacturer.
In the presentation we were told that the inerts included in Foray 48B were all “List 4” food grade materials
as approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Examples given were “alfalfa, acetic acid, beer, bread crumbs,
decanol, glycerin, lactose”. I googled “decanol” and with very little effort found that it causes high
irritability to skin and eyes and ingestion can be harmful (refer to attached document). This is considered safe? I also
found “benzoic acid” included in this list of safe products and have attached further information on this. Here’s
a preview:
WARNING! CAUSES EYE IRRITATION. MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO SKIN AND RESPIRATORY TRACT.
I have a strong suspicion that Foray 48B contains one or more varieties of parabens, all of which are included on the list
of ‘acceptable’ inerts. Parabens are known to be endocrine disruptors, i.e. they mimic estrogen and play a role
in the development of breast cancer. Despite this, they are approved for use in, among other things, cosmetics and are absorbed
through the skin and accumulate in breast tissue. If they are one of the ingredients in Foray 48B, then we will now be inhaling
them as well?
Even if Foray 48B does not include any of the above 3 ingredients, my point is that this “EPA List 4 – food grade
materials” includes substances that should not be recognized as safe. The realization over the past few years is that
we are living in a toxic environment – we are not only destroying the planet but also our health. These toxins accumulate
in our bodies and many are fat soluble and become lodged in our fat cells. They disrupt hormonal balances and are being recognized
as a major contributor to the almost epidemic proportion diseases such as breast and prostate cancer, childhood lymphomas
and leukemia. Children are at particular risk – with their smaller weights and developing systems they are more susceptible
to all potential health threats.
Should we not err on the side of caution and not knowingly contribute to this toxic soup?
Standard acceptance has been wrong so many times – more and more products that have generally been recognized as safe
for human consumption and use are being questioned. Health Canada has recently taken the lead in identifying the chemical
Bisphenol A (BPA) as being a dangerous substance (reversing their earlier standard of safety based on weight). Declaring
it dangerous does not ban its use – it is one of the most widely used synthetic chemicals in the world found in baby
bottles, cups, toys and dental sealants and is an endocrine disruptor linked with breast and prostate cancers as early as
puberty. It’s disgusting that we do not adopt the standard of proving a substance is safe before use as opposed to
the reverse – waiting until people start to become ill and in some cases die. Thankfully there are Canadian retailers
who, in the case of BPA, are voluntarily taking action by pulling products from their shelves.
There are controversies about the use of fluoride, aspartame, food dyes, nitrites…the list goes on. The gypsy moth
is an annoyance, not a health threat. Do we undertake this massive spray program with unknown long term effects just to get
rid of a pesky nuisance? Can you honestly say that this is a sensible approach?
Another document available at the Town Hall was “Facts about Btk for Control of Gypsy Moth”. In this document
it states:
· Over many years of use worldwide, no public health problems have been identified from the use of Btk. Health Canada
and WHO have concluded that Btk poses little threat to human health…..
· Health Canada indicates that Btk does not appear to affect the immune or endocrine systems.
· Studies of the formulants in the Btk pesticide did not find any significant health risks.
I go back to my original question – where are the long term studies? These statements are anything but definitive because
no one knows the truth - yet.
There will be road and trail closures “to minimize risks as a result of the low flying helicopter”. At the meeting
I asked how the trails would be closed and was told that forest stewards would be posted at all entrances telling citizens
that they couldn’t use the trails. I further asked if these stewards would be wearing masks and was told that they
would be provided with a copy of the data sheet so that they could make an ‘informed decision’. I then said if
there was no concern over the safety of this product, it was unlikely that any of them would wear masks but no further comment
was made. It is my belief that these trails are not being closed because of a concern with low flying helicopters but rather
a concern over the safety of the product.
I am asking you to please reevaluate this decision – if there is an infestation and if the spray works the only short
term effect will be that the Town will not have to deal with uninformed residents who may complain about the caterpillar population.
As an exceptionally concerned resident, I would appreciate a response.
Barbara Bubel
|
