Social Links

Follow on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on G+

Xpert Access

×

Login To Get Involved!


Forgot your username?


Forgot your password?

×

Join Us At EiR Now!

YogaDownload Top

 

Pesticides Are Not Pestisafes®

 

 

 

 

Excerpt from Chapter 13 of "The Best Control II" by acclaimed pest control expert, Stephen L. Tvedten.

www.stephentvedten.com

 

Everything that ends in “cide” means death (“-cide” is Latin for “to murder kill”.). It is obvious that if we continually apply death to our living soils and water and air and yards and food and pets and children, death will start coming back to haunt us.

 

Choose Life and not Death! Stop spraying Death!

Your potential contamination/health danger or risk is increased the more you use “registered” poisons. There is a corresponding decrease in risk or potential danger as you switch to using Pestisafes® or alternative non-toxic (Intelligent Pest Management®) pest control choices. Never use any volatile, synthetic pesticide poison twice (especially even more) to treat any infestation, when it has already failed to control the pests when you used it the first time, clearly indicating the pests are already immune/resistant to that poison - use a Pestisafe®.

What you should know before even considering using any registered pesticide/poison. None of these poisons are truly EPA registered or approved; only their active ingredient has been registered and virtually none of the currently registered labels are in agreement with the MSDS restrictions for their inert ingredients. Neither the government or poison “industry” have seen the necessity to discover whether these “registered” poisons and “inerts”, contaminants, metabolites and synergistic health effects are harming innocent children.

“During the initial development of the chemical industry or at the time the use of pesticides (like DDT) was just beginning, little or no hazard existed for society...and no threat was posed to major natural ecosystems. But, as those technologies became more widely used and moved in new directions, the environmental and health problems became quite apparent.” - Cornell University’s Martin Alexander.

Since 1972, when the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was amended by the Congress, the EPA has been required to look at the potential risks of all pesticide poisons. No pesticide poison can be registered, the law mandates, until the agency determines that its use would not cause “unreasonable effects on the environment.” (Yet they only “register” the active ingredient.)

The approximately 50,000 “registered” pesticide poisons on the market at the time were “grandfathered in” and were allowed to remain in use until the agency was able to eventually re-register them. Later amendments to the law required the agency only to review the results of tests performed by the poison producer only on the pesticide’s active ingredient--the chemical that kills or controls the pest--before a product could be registered or re-registered or extended. There were 600 such active ingredients in various pesticide poisons in 1988.

But this process, the critics claim and the agency acknowledges, has been painfully slow. By 1988 only 4 of the 600 had been fully reassessed, and many had not received even a preliminary evaluation. Even the most optimistic observers believe that the task will not be completed before the middle of the 21st century.

“When we register a product, we’re not saying that it is safe,” said Edward Tinsworth, director of the registration division of the EPA’s office of pesticide programs at a 1988 forum held by the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides. “We’re saying that there is no unreasonable risk, which means there may be a risk.”

Rachel’s Environment & Health Weekly #588, 3/5/98, “Children’s Cancer and Pesticides” noted: Americans put an estimated 62.7 million pounds (28.5 million kilograms) of pesticides and 278.5 million pounds (126.6 million kilograms) of antimicrobials (disinfectants) into their homes each year. Recent studies estimate that between 78% and 97% of families in the midwestern U. S. use pesticides in and around the home. A study of indoor air in homes in Jacksonville, Florida detected pesticides in the air in 100% of the homes.

Advocates of the environment and agency officials are quick to list the pesticide law’s deficiencies, such as the requirement that the EPA buy up the entire stock of any chemical it wants to ban. Such a budget-busting provision, both sides agree, makes the agency think twice before it takes that final regulatory step. But environmentalists maintain that the law is also fundamentally flawed because it: requires that only the chemical’s (poison’s active ingredient) be evaluated only through a cost-benefit analysis, instead of on any health-based standard; allows the manufacturer to perform the “tests”; does not require testing on the health effects of a pesticide’s full formulation, which includes both the active ingredient and its secondary ingredients, known as “inert” ingredients. So it is impossible for the agency to honestly evaluate or determine that any total poison formulation’s use would not and will not cause “unreasonable effects on the environment”!

“When most people hear about the inadequacies of the law for the first time,” said Ms. O’Brien of the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides in 1988, “we say they go into FIFRA-shock.”

Read the rest of this chapter and the entire book free at www.stephentvedten.com

 

 

 

Related Articles:

 

  • No comments found

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

0 Character restriction
Your text should be more than 25 characters
Your comments are subjected to administrator's moderation.
terms and condition.