Regulatory rulings and expert panel reviews clear 2,4-D

In responding to the report released by the Ontario College of Family Physicians today, the Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data today reminds the medical community that several recent regulatory rulings and expert panel reviews clear the pesticide 2,4-D.

Since 1986, more than a dozen government and independent expert panels, including the Canadian Centre for Toxicology review conducted for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, World Health Organization and European Commission, have concluded that 2,4-D does not pose an unreasonable risk to human health when used according to label instructions.

“The decisions of several regulatory agencies and expert panel
reviews simply do not support the allegations that 2,4-D causes cancer or poses a risk to human health”, stated Donald Page, Executive Director of the Task Force. “As recently as last December, the New Zealand Environmental Risk Management Authority published their finding that determined that 2,4-D is not a carcinogen.”

To illustrate just one glaring mistake, on page 2 the report claims that 2,4-D was developed “to eradicate the Japanese rice crop” during World War II. The fact is, around the world 2,4-D is widely used to protect rice from yield destroying invasive weeds. To this day, Japanese rice growers use the product extensively.

“What is most interesting about this latest report by the Ontario College of Family Physicians is that it completely ignores the decisions of authorities like the World Health Organization and recent studies by the U.S. National Cancer Institute”, added Page. “Where we do find common ground is the need to improve our understanding of the actual exposure of children and other bystanders to domestic use pesticides.”

Research undertaken in 1991 for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment by the Canadian Centre for Toxicology at the University of Guelph found that there is no exposure to bystanders. The researchers concluded: “Most risks associated with occupational or bystander exposure to 2,4-D are low, especially when compared to other risks taken in life.”

• The PMRA approach
  The Pest Management Regulatory Agency answers questions on how it approaches pesticide use and approvals.
• The OCFP position
  Click here for a copy of the position paper on pesticides released by the Ontario College of Family Physicians.
• Review of the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) Report
  The Task Force reviews the OCFP report.