This is a movement in need and in waiting.
This was not possible a year or two ago, cause we did not have enough labs, but is possible today.Here is something this movement is NOT about:
Its NOT about debating if glyphosate is safe or unsafe to be in our food.
Its NOT about what the “science” might say about it.
Its NOT about passing new laws by federal or provincial Government about labelling.
Its NOT about if our farmers can or cannot do without Glyphosate.
So, what is it about ?
Its about people’s right to know if Glyphosate in in their food and how much.
Its about recognizing that labelling GMO does to give the full picture since non GMO crops are now desiccated with glyphosate and people can be more poisoned by some of these non-GMO crops than even GMO crops.
Its not about labelling – its about measuring and disclosing the contamination.
In order to kick start the movement, which should have a corresponding petition on change.org, it would be necessary to influence people that this is supposed to be a people’s movement that needs more than arm-chair activists.
Signing petition and sharing them on Facebook is not the goal. The goal is to appeal, for each of us, to our respective municipalities, to set aside a budget and start testing food, both locally grown and/or sold in stores, for glyphosate content, using Canadian labs, and to make the results public.
Irrespective of the debate, the science and the politics around Glyphosate/ RoundUP, the people will decide if they like some of the food brands that have more glyphosate or they like other brands that have less. Its about people’s right to choose without ever having to explain to any politician or scientists why they prefer to have one kind and not the other. That is their right.
Municipalities do not have the authority to get involved in scientific debate. Their job is to fulfil people’s wish. People wish to know which brands of their bread or other food items have how much glyphosate – and the MUnicipality’s job is to provide the answer. Thats it.
In order to kick start this effort, we wish to have a short 10-15 minute video where committed grassroots activists are ready to discuss this under a camera. Once it is done, we shall make more from others around our country that have found novel ways to approach their municipalities. How some of our compatriots manage to get our largely do-nothing municipalities to get off their hind quarter and start testing food.
Anyhow, for the first brainstorming, idea-exchanging video, I am inviting like minded and committed food security activists from nearby to respond, so we can arrange a date, time and venue, to get this off the ground.
Mind – we are not looking for arm-chair activists, but real people committed to approach municipalities and stubborn enough to be at it.
Interested parties please contact. My email – tony.mitra@gmail.com. my phone 604-649 7535.
Thank you
Hudson is a township sandwiched between the city of Montreal, to the east and the farms and forests to the west, in the province of Quebec, Canada.
And through the last decade of the last millennia on to the first years of this one, she created history of a kind – she withstood several levels of high profile legal challenges, all the way till the supreme court of Canada, on its Municipal level ban of cosmetic and other lawn pesticides.
This became a precedence making event, and the cascading effect was various other provinces ended up enacting bans on cosmetic lawn pesticides at the municipal level as well as initiatives taken at provincial levels to ban harmful pesticides.
A Chemical Reaction, is a 70 minute feature documentary movie that tells the story of one of the most powerful and effective community initiatives in the history of North America. It started with one lone voice in 1984. Dr. June Irwin, a dermatologist, noticed a connection between her patients’ health conditions and their exposure to chemical pesticides and herbicides. With relentless persistence she brought her concerns to town meetings to warn her fellow citizens that the chemicals they were putting on their lawns posed severe health risks and had unknown side effects on the environment.”
Jennifer Dumoulin
To learn more about the case, and to understand how Canadian law works with regard to Municipalities jurisdiction in banning what it might consider to be harmful to its residents and environment, I tried to call the persons involved. The key person was Ms June Irwin, who as a doctor first noticed the link between ill health and exposure to pesticides in her own patients, and single handedly pushed the issue through the Municipality of Hudson, which eventually, through initiatives and efforts of the then mayor, environmental agent and councillors, ended up in an enforced by-law that banned application of all pesticides in the town without specific permit, and where violators were subject to heavy fines.
June Irwin was not available, as she was on a holiday. So I got the next best person – the current Environmental agent in the town of Hudson – Ms Jennifer Dumoulin, to speak with me on record, for the purpose of creating this audio podcast, as an educational tool for the public and to raise awareness. There appears to be significant level of interest outside of Hudson and Quebec, and even outside of Canada, to learn how Municipalities might address such concerns from its residents, through actions taken initially at the level of Municipal Councils.
The audio podcast is just over 17 minutes long. It can be listened by clicking the player button at the bottom of this blog. Alternately it can also be downloaded and stored for listening at leisure, through iPhone or iPod and similar devices through iTunes store, free of charge. To find this Podcast and other episodes from me, search for Tony Mitra in the search field in iTunes Store and you should find it. The name of this specific Podcast is – Jennifer Dumoulin of Hudson Quebec on pesticide ban.
I hope this Podcast and information will be of value to the discerning listeners. My thanks go to Jennifer Dumoulin for agreeing to speak with me on record, for taking time out to do so, and for being patient with my questions.
Above is a recorded talk with Ms. Jennifer Dumoulin of the Municipality of Hudson in 2013.
Below is a link to part of the movie made on June Irwin.
Update on July 2, 2018
This is the story of June Irwin, the lone Canadian pesticide warrior that changed the face of Canadian law regarding rights of Municipalities with regard to controlling pesticides in residential areas.
June Irwin was a dermatologist that single handedly changed Canada, and strengthened the hand or ordinary citizens in protecting their neighbourhood from toxic chemical attack by pesticide peddling corporations.
Born in 1935, June was a doctor, a dermatologist, living in the town of Hudson, Quebec, Canada, back in the 1980s and 1990s. She noticed children coming to see her with rashes on their skin, that apparently developed after they played in the grass lawns outside their homes and in public spaces such as in schools and playgrounds.
After checking on the causes and noting the timing of herbicide spray (cosmetic pesticides application in residential areas) and almost synchronous ailments in children’s and pets skin problems, she came to the conclusion that lawn and other cosmetic pesticides were bad for human and animal health.
She contacted the town Municipality, and appealed that these pesticides be banned from residential and public areas. The Municipality declined to act, on the grounds that the pesticides and their application were federally approved and the issue is outside the jurisdiction of town Municipalities.
June disagreed. Undeterred, she appealed first to her clients, the parents of children and owners of pets that were getting sick while playing on the grass. Then she went door to door to meet everybody else.
June had a pleasant and helpful demeanour and was very well regarded in her town. She slowly started gathering the townspeople behind her on this issue.
In two years, the call to ban lawn and other cosmetic pesticides from the town became a political force that the Municipal councillors could no longer ignore. They were literally going to be kicked out of their office and replaced by a new breed, unless they worked to ban these pesticides and make the town safe for children to play in the grass.
The town of Hudson passed a law, banning use of cosmetic pesticides.
Hudson got promptly sued by the spraying companies, supported by the pesticide promoters, in the provincial Court, on the grounds that the Municipality had neither the scientific proof of harm nor the legal jurisdiction, to ban these chemicals.
The town fought the case and won the battle on two provisions of the law:
1) Even if a product or practice is approved federally, it may be restricted locally if it is deemed unsafe for the people.
2) A town did not need to provide absolute and irrefutable proof that a chemical is directly responsible for diseases. A town may have a reasonable suspicion of harm, for passing laws to protect its citizens from the suspected harm.
The chemical lobby did not give up, and sued the town in the Canadian Supreme Court. By then, the province of Quebec had risen to support its small but valiant little town of Hudson, championed by this courageous little lady. So the province of Quebec passed a province wide law banning the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides, and promptly inserted itself into the Supreme Court case, as co-defendant alongside the little town of Hudson.
A few years down the line, the town of Hudson and the province of Quebec won the Supreme Court case. Neither the town, nor the province, needed to produce irrefutable proof of harm. All they needed was a reasonable suspicion of harm, in order to ban these pesticides.
This provided the legal basis, the jurisprudence, for the rest of Canada to follow. Town after town passed these laws, and were never to be legally challenged again.
Today, in my own hometown of Delta, BC, Canada, lawn and residential area weeds may not be killed by any pesticides. The town corporation uses mechanical means and labour to control roadside weeds. Pesticides and herbicides are not only banned in residential and public spaces, but they cannot even be sold in local stores.
The only area the towns are yet unable or unwilling to push back at herbicides, is its use in agriculture, prairie, forests and marshes.
June Irwin showed the path and proved that just a single frail lady is all it takes to change your neighbourhood and the world.
I spoke with June Irwin time to time from some ten years ago, to learn more of her work in Hudson and to catch up on the story. About three years ago I learned she was unwell and might be battling cancer.
She passed away last year at age 83.
Margaret Meade was spot on when she said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
