{"id":356,"date":"2011-06-01T08:49:30","date_gmt":"2011-06-01T11:49:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/?p=356"},"modified":"2011-06-01T08:49:30","modified_gmt":"2011-06-01T11:49:30","slug":"controversial-pesticide-24-d-deemed-not-%e2%80%98dangerous%e2%80%99-but-still-banned-in-quebec","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/2011\/06\/01\/controversial-pesticide-24-d-deemed-not-%e2%80%98dangerous%e2%80%99-but-still-banned-in-quebec\/","title":{"rendered":"Controversial pesticide 2,4-D deemed not \u2018dangerous\u2019, but still banned in Quebec"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Controversial pesticide 2,4-D deemed not \u2018dangerous\u2019, but still banned in Quebec <\/strong><strong><br \/>\nBARRIE McKENNA <\/strong><strong><br \/>\nFrom Friday&#8217;s Globe and Mail<br \/>\nPublished Thursday, May. 26, 2011 8:38PM EDT<\/strong> <strong><br \/>\nLast updated Thursday, May. 26, 2011 8:49PM EDT<\/strong> <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/www.theglobeandmail.com\/news\/national\/quebec\/controversial-pesticide-24-d-deemed-not-dangerous-but-still-banned-in-quebec\/article2036662\/comments\/\">12 comments<\/a><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.theglobeandmail.com\/news\/national\/quebec\/controversial-pesticide-24-d-deemed-not-dangerous-but-still-banned-in-quebec\/article2036662\/email\/\">Email<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/license.icopyright.net\/g2\/3.8425?icx_id=%2ficopyright%2f%3fartid%3d2036662\" target=\"_blank\">Print<\/a>\/<a href=\"http:\/\/license.icopyright.net\/3.8425?icx_id=%2ficopyright%2f%3fartid%3d2036662\" target=\"_blank\">License<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.theglobeandmail.com\/news\/national\/quebec\/controversial-pesticide-24-d-deemed-not-dangerous-but-still-banned-in-quebec\/article2036662\/\">Decrease text size<\/a> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theglobeandmail.com\/news\/national\/quebec\/controversial-pesticide-24-d-deemed-not-dangerous-but-still-banned-in-quebec\/article2036662\/\">Increase text size<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Quebec  has acknowledged, in a settlement of a pivotal NAFTA trade case, that a  controversial pesticide it banned in 2006 doesn\u2019t pose a significant  risk to humans or the environment.<\/p>\n<p>But  the settlement isn\u2019t likely to put the 2,4-D back on store shelves any  time soon in Quebec \u2013 or in several other provinces where its use is  restricted.<\/p>\n<p>U.S.-based  Dow AgroSciences LLC, which makes the pesticide, said Thursday that a  deal to drop its North American free trade agreement challenge  vindicates its contention that the product is safe if used as directed.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cQuebec\u2019s  decision never had a basis in science,\u201d said Brenda Harris, the  company\u2019s Calgary-based manager of regulatory and government affairs.  \u201cAnd it cast a shadow on the safety of our product.\u201d Ms. Harris said the  case is about making sure governments are \u201ctransparent in their  decision-making.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In a statement, Quebec said its ban remains firmly in place and that 2,4-D continues to be a restricted chemical.<\/p>\n<p>The  pesticide 2,4-D, once sold widely throughout Canada under brand names  such as Killex, is prohibited for lawn care in most provinces east of  Manitoba as part of a much broader prohibition on so-called cosmetic  lawn care products. The chemical is still widely used in agriculture and  forestry. It\u2019s also sold for cosmetic uses in the four western  provinces and throughout the United States, Europe and Asia.<\/p>\n<p>In  justifying the ban, Quebec had initially identified 2,4-D as a possible  carcinogen \u2013 a claim it failed to demonstrate. And that put the  province at odds with Health Canada, which deems the product safe,  sparking the company\u2019s NAFTA case against the federal government. Claims  can only be brought against NAFTA\u2019s three signatories \u2013 Canada, the  United States and Mexico.<\/p>\n<p>Lisa  Gue of the David Suzuki Foundation said the settlement would have  little effect because even the threat of a NAFTA challenge did not  dissuade provinces from banning the chemical. She also suggested the  company may have withdrawn its lawsuit because it feared it would  ultimately lose the case.<\/p>\n<p>In  2009, Dow filed a challenge under NAFTA\u2019s chapter 11, which allows  companies to sue governments for actions that affect their investments.  The company was seeking $2-million (U.S.) in damages. No cash was  involved in this week\u2019s final settlement and Dow agreed to withdraw its  challenge.<\/p>\n<p>For  its part, Quebec agreed to a statement that \u201cproducts 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>More  significantly, the repudiation of Quebec\u2019s health warning helps the  company protect a much larger market for the product in farm and  forestry use, worth at least $120-million (Canadian) a year.<\/p>\n<p>The  pesticide, used since the 1940s, is popular because it\u2019s relatively  cheap compared to other newer chemicals that are still protected by  patents.<\/p>\n<p>Officials of the federal government were not immediately available for comment.<\/p>\n<p>According  to Didier Bicchi, the Quebec Ministry of the Environment\u2019s director of  agriculture and pesticides, 2,4-D will continue to be prohibited in  Quebec because the government has found the product to be  \u201cnon-essential\u201d as a weed killer in the province.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe  Pesticide Management Code remains as is. The ingredient 2,4-D continues  to be prohibited in the province. The situation for the company\u2019s  product hasn\u2019t changed. The only difference is that it will no longer be  labelled as a dangerous product,\u201d Mr. Bicchi said in an interview.<\/p>\n<p>According  to the government expert, the settlement may eventually help the  company in its effort to fight a potential ban being considered by other  provinces.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Controversial pesticide 2,4-D deemed not \u2018dangerous\u2019, but still banned in Quebec BARRIE McKENNA From Friday&#8217;s Globe and Mail Published Thursday, May. 26, 2011 8:38PM EDT Last updated Thursday, May. 26, 2011 8:49PM EDT 12 comments Email Print\/License Decrease text size Increase text size Quebec has acknowledged, in a settlement of a pivotal NAFTA trade case, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[91,87,68,88],"class_list":["post-356","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-membersubmissions","tag-2-4-d","tag-dow","tag-pesticides","tag-quebec"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=356"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=356"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myavma.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}