Here is one of her statements just recently:
Ross McKitrick has turned his sights on the health effects of smog, concluding in a new study that pollution has no impact on the number of hospital admissions for respiratory illness.
Monica Campbell, a toxicologist and manager of the Toronto health department's environmental health office, said the majority of research - literally hundreds of studies - have found a link between pollution and health. She called some aspects of the professor's method "troubling," noting he failed to consider cardiovascular and other diseases linked to pollution.
"We rely on the wealth of evidence in the scientific community, particularly from epidemiologists, who have demonstrated for many years - and repeatedly - the significant correlation between ambient pollution and health," she said. "We'd be remiss and, quite frankly, irresponsible to ignore that."
What is troubling about her statement is that when it comes to PESTICIDES it seems we are remiss of quite frankly, irresponsibly ignoring the Scientific Evidence and applying the Precautionary Principle.
Here she says:
”When we place
children’s health at
the centre of our
regulators will need
to re-examine their
contaminants in the
on the greater
Toronto Public Health
Has the PMRA (Health Canada) not taken this into consideration?
They said they have:
Can Approved Uses of 2,4-D Affect Human Health?
2,4-D is unlikely to affect your health when used according to the revised label directions.
When assessing health risks, two key factors are considered: The levels at which no health effects occur and the levels to which people may be exposed. The dose levels used to assess risks are established to protect the most sensitive human population (e.g., children and nursing mothers). Only those uses for which the exposure is well below levels that cause no effects in animal testing are considered acceptable for registration.
Reference doses define levels to which an individual can be exposed over a single day (acute) or lifetime (chronic) and expect no adverse health effects. Generally, dietary exposure from food and water is acceptable if it is less than 100% of the acute reference dose or chronic reference dose (acceptable daily intake). An acceptable daily intake is an estimate of the level of daily exposure to a pesticide residue that, over a lifetime, is believed to have no significant harmful effects. Human exposure to 2,4-D was estimated from residues in treated crops and drinking water, including the most highly exposed sub-population (e.g., children 1-6 years old).
This info was posted on the Blog previously. "The Lawn is Safe" Excerpts from the PMRA Re-Evaluation of 2,4-D.
The PMRA (Health Canada) has also commented on the Precautionary Principal:
The PMRA is supportive of the Precautionary Principle. Under both the existing and new PCPA, a pesticide can not be or remain registered for use in Canada unless any associated risks to health or the environment have been determined to be acceptable. Risks are acceptable if, on the basis of extensive scientific data, it has been determined that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result when the pesticide is used as directed. This standard of acceptability applies to both the pre-market evaluation of pesticides proposed for registration and the re-evaluation of registered pesticides for continued registration. It provides a high level of protection from risk of harm by addressing risks in general, not restricted to threats of "serious or irreversible damage".
Info has been posted previously on the Blog. "Allan Taylor Petition"
Is it possible that Monica Campbell and Tyrone Hayes are one in the same when it comes to using their job position to promote their Environmental beliefs. The truth comes second?
Mark Mackenzie of the Green Party is on the board of directors for Prevent Cancer Now and runs an organic Lawn Care Business. Will he use politics to promote his beliefs?
Some 2009 info on Mark: http://greenparty.ca/campaign/35066