force of nature -- quebec prohibition -- 2009 06 02 -- nafta -- amos -- suzuki -- cela -- 2,4-d --...

8/6/2019 Force of Nature -- Quebec Prohibition -- 2009 06 02 -- NAFTA -- Amos -- Suzuki -- CELA -- 2,4-D -- Julian -- Gue -- Se

1/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..


2/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99

William H. Gathercole & Norah G. [email protected] Force of Nature Media Report.

2

EEnn vv ii rr oo nn mm ee nn t t aa ll ii ss t t ss ii nn bb aa t t t t ll ee t t oo bb ee hh ee aa rr dd ii nn pp ee ss t t ii cc ii dd ee cc aa ss ee

AA pp r r ii ll 22 77 tt hh ,, 22 00 00 99

Luke Eric Peterson

Look out, Ontario.

Dow Chemicals has filed a claim under the North American Free TradeAgreement seeking compensation for a Quebec ban on lawn pesticides. Dow says that the ban amounts to an unfair "expropriation" of the company'sQuebec pesticide business.

Although the NAFTA claim is focusedon the Quebec ban, don't be surprised

if Ontario comes into the sightlines now that a similar provincewide ban cameinto effect last week.


3/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


3

The ramifications of this NAFTAdispute have spurred environmental groupsto mobilize for battle. A hint of the coming fireworks could be glimpsed on Par-

liament Hill late last month.In hearings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, environmentalgroups signalled their plans to intervene in any forthcoming NAFTAarbitra-tion proceeding.

These groups insist that governments should be permitted to act on a precau-tionary basis to shield vulnerable groups such as children even when thescientific evidence is uncertain as to the longterm health impacts of certainsubstances.

They plan to present their own views to the arbitration panel that will hear Dow's case.

However, the groups complain that the NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration proc-ess is less than welcoming when it comes to hearing from concerned citizensand other interests.

In testimony to Parliament last month, environmental advocates lamented that NAFTA unlike more recent trade pacts permits foreign companies tosue a NAFTAgovernment behind closed doors.

Will Amos, an Ottawabased lawyer representing theDavid Suzuki Foundation and the Quebec groupquiterre , says that his clients can submit written ar-guments to a NAFTAarbitration panel, but they may

be blocked from showing up and watching, or partici-pating in these highstakes arbitration proceedings.

DD aa vv ii dd TT aa kk aa yy oo ss hh ii SS uu zz uu kk ii . Scientist and Broadcaster. CoFounder. David SuzukiFoundation. Vancouver, British [email protected]@davidsuzuki.org


4/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


4

"There is no guarantee that the investor won'trequest confidential proceedings, which would

further limit our ability to understand what case

they're bringing, and there will be no opportu-nity for us to make oral representations beforethe tribunal," Amos says.

"This is totally unlike the Supreme Court of Can-ada," he adds.

Indeed, it's unfortunate that NAFTAdisputes can be arbitrated in private unlike domestic court hearings

Otherwise, members of Canada's Supreme Court might benefit from sitting inon these arbitration hearings, and gaining a better appreciation of this NAFTA process.

If permitted into the hearing room, the justices might be taken aback by the ex-tent to which NAFTAtribunals can now review the actions of governments.

In fact, one of the things that has incensed many members of the environ-mental community [ ... ] Environmentalists in battle to be heard in pesticidecase, and which might bemuse members of the Supreme Court is that pesticide bans in other parts of Canada have already been upheld by the Su-

preme Court of Canada.

In 22 00 00 55 , the court dismissed an effort by a pesticide industry association tochallenge a ban introduced by the municipality of Toronto.

Environmentalists assumed that this ruling affirmed the right of governmentsto act proactively so as to minimize potential health risks.

WW ii ll ll AA mm oo ss . Staff Lawyer. University of Ottawas Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic. Ot-tawa Board Member. Secretary. Sierra Club of Canada. Ottawa, [email protected]


5/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


5

However, it now appears that the Supreme Court was merely engaged in a dress rehearsal.

Sure, pesticide bans in different parts of Canada have been declared constitu-tional by the highest court in the land, but in the 21st century, constitutionsare not the only law of the land.

Rather, it will fall to three arbitrators one appointed by Dow, one by Can-ada, and the third by mutual assent to determine whether our North

American constitution, the NAFTA, sanctions the actions of the Quebec gov-ernment.

The Dow arbitration promises to be of seminal importance.

Dow protests that Quebec lawmakers failed to take heed of several risk as-sessments, including one by Canada's federal government, which showed that the pesticide ingredient 2,4D "does not entail an unacceptable risk of harm to human health or the environme nt."

Of course, others including some governments have questioned whether risk assessments should be the final word on such matters.

Environmental and medical groups like the Canadian Can-cer Societ y have long argued that no amount of risk is worth taking when it comes to "unnecessary" chemicals,such as lawn pesticides, which are used for purely cosmeticpurposes.

However, where governments wish to drive certain risks closer to zero, it willfall to a panel of NAFTAarbitrators to decide who shall pay the price for doingso: the chemicals industry or the Canadian taxpayer.

Luke Eric Peterson is editor of Investment Arbitration Reporter, an online newsservice reporting on NAFTAstyle investorstate arbitrations(www.iareporter.com ).


6/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


6

WW aa r r r r ee nn BB ee ll ll . Board Leader. Medicine/Environment. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Member. Prevent Cancer Now(the public affairs shield for Canadian Cancer Society). CoFounder. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment(C.A.P.E.). President of Medical Staff. Shuswap Lake General Hospital. Resides in Salmon Arm, British Columbia.cppbe l [email protected] r r ii tt aa CC oo ll ee r r oo . Community Action Coordinator. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Del ta, British [email protected] r r ee nn ee GG aa ll ll aa gg hh ee r r . Public Issues Manager. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Ontario Division. Toronto.iga l l agher@onta r io .cancer. ca

PP

ee

tt

ee

r r

GG

oo

oo

dd

hh

aa

nn

dd . National President & Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.). Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Toronto.

pgoodhand@onta r io .cancer. caBB aa r r bb aa r r aa KK aa mm ii nn ss kk yy . Chief Executive Officer. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). British Columbia & Yukon [email protected]. caJJ ee r r ii ll yy nn nn KK ii ee ll yy . Community Action Coordinator. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). British Columbia & Yukon Divi-sion.jk ie ly@bc .cancer. caCC hh r r ii ss tt ii nn ee KK oo ss ee r r ss kk ii . Senior Coordinator. Media Relations. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Ontario Division. [email protected]@ontario.cancer.caLL ii ss aa LL ee vv ee ll ll ,, MM AA . Health Promotion Coordinator. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Interior Region. British Colum-bia & Yukon Division.l l eve l l@bc .cancer. caPP aa tt tt ii MM oo oo r r ee . Community Action Coordinator. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Kootenay Region. British Columbia &

Yukon Division.pmoore@bc .cancer. caLL ee ss ll ee yy MM uu ll cc aa hh yy . Communications Coordinator. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Nova Scotia Division.l e s ley.mulcahy@ns .cancer. caKK aa tt hh ll ee ee nn PP ee r r cc hh aa ll uu kk . Senior Coordinator. Public Issues. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Ontario Division. To-ronto.KPercha luk@onta r io .cancer. caHH ee aa tt hh ee r r SS cc aa ll ee ss . Communications and Public Issues Coordinator. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). P.E.I. [email protected] aa tt hh r r yy nn SS ee ee ll yy . Manager of Public Issues. Department of Strategic Initiatives. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Brit-ish Columbia & Yukon Division. Former oncology nurse and civil litigation lawyer.ksee ly@bc .cancer. caMM aa r r ii oo nn SS tt oo tt tt ss . Advocacy Leader. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). Columbia Valley Unit. British Columbia & YukonDivision.

msto t t s@bc .cancer. caBB r r ii aa nn SS yy kk ee ss . Board Member. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). New Brunswick [email protected]. caLL ii ss aa WW ee bb ee r r . Health Promotion Coordinator. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). British Columbia & Yukon Division.lweber@bc .cancer. caPP aa uu ll aa WW hh ii tt ee . Manager. Communications. Canadian Cancer Society (C.C.S.). New Brunswick Division.pwhi [email protected]. ca


7/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


7

hile the federal government would defend Quebec, it is in an awkward

position because the federal HealthCanada pest management regulatory agency de-clared 2,4D safe, if used as directed. > >

ow says Quebec's ban is not driven by science but by " political, social or cultural considerations " and the

province has broken a promise to review the" precautionary " ban after the federal pestagency review was complete. > >

o the issue is not about compensation.The issue is not about commercial in-terests. The issue is about due

process. > >

< < W

< < D

< <

S


8/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


8

NN A A FF TT A A t t hh rr ee aa t t ww oo nn t t ss t t oo pp QQ uu ee bb ee cc bb aa nn oo nn ll aa ww nn pp ee ss t t ii cc ii dd ee ss

MM aa r r cc hh 22 99 tt hh ,, 22 00 00 99

Juliet ONeill, Canwest News Service

OTTAWA Trade Minister Stockwell Day vows a " vigorous defence " of Quebec 's ban on lawnpesticides containing 2,4D from a challenge by a U.S. chemical company through the North Ameri-can Free Trade Agreement .

[email protected]

Dow AgroSciences is to decide within a few weeks whether to go ahead with a threatened claim throughNAFTAfor $2 million, just as Ontario is introduc-ing similar pesticide controls that put 2,4D on a

ban list.

In written comments to Canwest News Service, Mr. Day said the government,in consultation with Quebec , is assessing Dow's claim after a JJ aa nn .. 11 33 meet-

ing of lawyers for all three parties.

"Should this claim proceed, the government of Canada will continueto work with the government of Quebec to vigorously defend our in-terests," Mr. Day said.


9/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


9

"The NAFTA preserves the state's ability to regulate in the public in-terest including issues concerning public health and environmental

issues related to pesticides."

While the federal government would defend Quebec, it is in an awkwardposition because the federal Health Canada pest management regulatoryagency declared 2,4D safe, if used as directed.

That finding is at the heart of Do w's case. Dow says Quebec's ban is notdriven by science but by " political, social or cultural considerations "and the province has broken a promise to review the " precautionary "

ban after the federal pest agency review was complete.

"Basically we filed this notice to protectour rights under those provisions of NAFTAbut we continue to hope that the Quebecgovernment will review the decision," Claude Andre Lachance, director of public policy for parent company Dow Chemical Canada,said in an interview.

" That's basically what we want. So the issue is not about compensa-tion. The issue is not about commercial interests. The issue isabout due process. "

A spokesman for Quebec 's Environment Ministry said there is no comment onDow's call for a review of the ban or on the NAFTAcase.

The case has attracted attention of MPs of all parties at the House of Commonstrade committee, sparking a hearing last week into Chapter 11 investment provisions of the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States andMexico.

New Democratic Party MP Peter Julian , who instigated the hearing, said hesuspects the government will settle out of court and/or ask Quebec to reverseits ban, despite Mr. Day's comments. Mr. Julian said the case would likely expose the outdated nature and general weakness of Chapter 11 .


10/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


10 o

"The question is whether a company can useChapter 11 to override a decision made by ademocratic government in the best interestsof the citizens," Mr. Julian said in an interview."This is really the principle that 's at stake."

"If a company can say our profits have beeninfringed so we're going to force you off thisban of our product, regardless of the conse-quences, then this opens up a whole avenue(to challenge) pesticide bans and a wholerange of toxic products."

Mr. Lachance said meetings among lawyers for all three parties were "abso-lutely not" for outofcourt settlement negotiations but for discussions onprocedures and issues so the NAFTAarbitrators will be well informed.

Will Amos, staff lawyer for the University of Ottawa'sEcojustice EnvironmentalLaw Clinic, said he ispleased by Mr. Day's pledge.

"I'm hopeful they'll advance the strongestarguments possible," he said, adding he will ap-ply to make a submission to the threemember NAFTAarbitration panel.

PP ee tt ee r r JJ uu ll ii aa nn . National Democratic Party of Canada (N.D.P.). Member of Parliament. Gov-ernment of Canada. Riding of BurnabyNew Westminster. British [email protected]


11/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


11 o

The Environmental Law Association has cited the Dow case in calling for amendment, if not repeal, of Chapter 11 . It cites more modern trade agreements between the United Statesand other countries that provide explicit protection of environ-mental, health or safety regulations from being subject of in-

vestor compensation claims.

TT hh ee r r ee ss aa MM cc CC ll ee nn aa gg hh aa nn . Executive Director and Counsel. Canadian Environ-mental Law Association (C.E.L.A.). Toronto. Member of the Bars of Ontario and [email protected]

KK aa pp ii ll KK hh aa tt tt ee r r . Physician. Board Member. Canadian Environmental Law Associa-tion (C.E.L.A.). Board Member. Ontario College of Family Physicians (O.C.F.P.). BoardMember. Laidlaw Foundation (a major source of funding for the environmental move-ment). President. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (C.A.P.E.).Former Pollution Policy Advisor. Environmental Defence. Project Manager. CanadianPartnership for Children's Health and the Environment (C.P.C.H.E.). [email protected]

KK aa tt hh ll ee ee nn CC oo oo pp ee r r . Senior Researcher. Canadian Environmental Law Association(C.E.L.A.). Web Site Editor. Chair of the Steering Committee. Secretariat. Canadian Part-nership for Children's Health and Environment (C.P.C.H.E.). Author. Child Health and theEnvironment : A Primer. Personally allied with David Suzuki [email protected]


12/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


12 o

On April 22 nd, 2009, Ontario becomes the second province in the country (after Quebec) toprohibit the sale and use of most offtheshelf cosmetic pesticides.


13/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


13 o

WW ii ll ll NN A A FF TT A A

ee xx t t ee rr mm ii nn aa t t ee CCaa nn aa dd ii aa nn pp ee ss t t ii cc ii dd ee bb aa nn ss ??

MM aa r r cc hh 22 99 tt hh ,, 22 00 00 99

Parminder Parmar,

CTV.ca News

A battle brewing over cosmetic pesticides between one of North America's big-gest chemical companies and Canadian lawmakers may end up reshaping thefuture of Canada's environmental policies in the years ahead.

Next month, Ontario is set to become the second province in the country (after Quebec ) to ban the sale and use of most offtheshelf cosmetic pesticides.

"The ban would eliminate the use of conventional pesticides for cos-metic purposes on lawns, gardens, school yards and parks," says anOntario government press release. That means 250 products containing one or more chemicals on a list of prohibited materials will be pulled out of stores by Earth Day on AA pp r r ii ll 22 22 .

Environmental and health advocates hail the provincial bans as big steps inprotecting public safety and children. But the pesticide prohibitions are not sitting well with the Dow Chemical Company.

When Quebec enacted similar regulations, the Dow AgroSciences unit of the company filed a notice of action against Ottawa claiming the Quebec legis-lation violates NAFTA.

Dow's fight is centred on one chemical in particular : 2,4D, which is used asone of the world's most common herbicides. Dow says it's safe if used accord-ing to instructions.


14/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


14 o

But proponents of the pesticide ban say studies have shown that 2,4D islinked with cancer, neurological impairment and other health problems. They say putting the chemical into herbicides, which are then thrown onto fields andlawns, doesn't make sense.

"This is a nobrainer," Lisa Gue of the David SuzukiFoundation told CTV.ca.

"This is a completely unnecessary source of chemicalexposure. It just makes sense that in a world where weare surrounded by so many chemicals to ban unneces-sary ones."

Gue and her colleagues have been working with Equiterre , a Quebec basedenvironmental group that's pushing Ottawa to fight back hard if Dow contin-ues its plans against the Quebec ban. They say their fight is larger than a single chemical or company, arguing that Canadians should be allowed to de-cide for themselves what is in the best interest of public safety especially

when it comes to kids.

DD aa vv ii dd TT aa kk aa yy oo ss hh ii SS uu zz uu kk ii .. Scientist and Broadcaster. CoFounder. David SuzukiFoundation. Vancouver, British [email protected]@davidsuzuki.org

LL ii ss aa GG uu ee . Environmental Health Policy Analyst. Researcher and Writer. David Suzuki Foun-dation. Ottawa, [email protected]


15/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


15 o

"Children are more affected because of their physiology and behav-iour," said Hugo Seguin , a coordinator at Equiterre .

"Children are children they play in the grass and mud and they put their hands on their mouths .. . Canadians are concerned about public health and health of their children. This is what it 's allabout."

Conflicting science ?

ClaudeAndr Lachance, the director of public policy for Dow Canada, toldCTV.ca that Canada's pesticides management agency and other researchershave concluded that 2, 4D is safe if used appropriately.

"What is relevant is that those agencies, after conduct-ing thorough reviews, have concluded this product issafe if used according to label. Our contention is thatthe Quebec government did not use a thorough and ro-bust process to determine the safety of 2,4D ... It isbasically an arbitrary decision," he said.

That's why the company filed a notice of intent to take action under chapter11 of NAFTA, Lachance adds, noting the Quebec ban sends a bad message tothe business community.

"(It) does not meet due process that is conducive to investment and innovation and accountable government," he said.

HH uu gg oo SS ee gg uu ii nn . Public Affairs Coordinator. Coordinator of Collective Choices. quiterre.Montreal. Closely associated with David Suzuki [email protected]


16/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


16 o

Gue said the fact that all the scientific reports are not conclusive or completeddoes not mean that the chemical is safe.

"It 's true there is uncertainty around the science. Butthis is in effect an unnecessary risk. When it comes tolawn pesticides it is an unacceptable risk. It 's just notworth the risk to children's health when all we want to dois kill dandelions," she said.

Lachance noted that the company is now in discussions with Ottawa to resolvethe issue. However, he added that if an acceptable resolution isn't worked out,the company will move ahead "in the next few weeks" in an effort to settlethe matter through the NAFTAprocess.

"It is certainly Dow AgroSciences' intention to follow with a notice for arbitration if the matter cannot be resolved through those dis-cussions. That's where it stands basically," he said.

That has mobilized Canadian groups who have banded together to fight thecorporation. In Quebec , they've started a letterwriting campaign to Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day. [email protected] On MM aa r r cc hh 22 44 ,Equiterre and other groups also appeared before a federal committee lookinginto the pesticide bans and their implications for NAFTA.

Environmentalists fear that if the pesticide bans in Quebec and Ontario areoverturned there will be implications for governments across Canada. PrinceEdward Island is considering putting its own pesticide ban on the books, as isNew Brunswick. There are also municipalities across the country that have

banned the use of cosmetic pesticides.

"We think the governments have a right to regulate to protect publichealth and the environment. This restriction is not specific to Dow Chemicals," Gue said. "If it is the case that NAFTA prevents govern-ments from protecting public health from unnecessary chemical expo-sures, then I have to conclude there is a problem with the way that

agreement is written or being interpreted."

In Canada, pest control products, or pesticides, are regulated by Health Canada under the Pest Control Products Act , and are among the most stringently regulated substances in Canada. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (P.M.R.A.) is the branch of Health Canada that adminis-ters the Act on behalf of the Minister Of Health . The primary objective of the P.M.R.A. is toprevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products.


17/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


17 o

QQuu ee ss t t iioo nn ss aa nn dd A Ann ss ww ee rr ss FFiinn aa ll DDee cc iiss iioo nn oo nn t t hh ee RRee ee vv aa lluu aa t t iioo nn oo f f 22 ,,44 DD 22 00 00 88 00 55 11 66

Health Considerations

Can Approved Uses of 2,4D Affect Human Health ?

2,4D is unlikely to affect your health when used according to the revisedlabel directions. Additional riskreduction measures are required on 2,4 D labels.

People can be exposed to 2,4D when consuming food or water, when workingas a mixer/loader/applicator or when entering treated sites. When assessinghealth risks, two key factors are considered: the levels at which no health ef-fects occur and the levels to which people may be exposed. The dose levelsused to assess risks are established to protect the most sensitive human popu-lation (e.g. children and nursing mothers). Only those uses for which the ex-posure is well below levels that cause no effects in animal testing are consid-ered acceptable for registration.

Residues in Water and Food

Dietary risks from food and water are not of concern.

Human exposure to 2,4D was estimated from residues in treated crops anddrinking water, including the most highly exposed subpopulation (e.g. children1 to 6 years old). This aggregate exposure (i.e. to 2,4D from food and drinking

water) represents less than 16.3% of the acute reference dose for the most ex-posed population group (females of childbearing age) and less than 9.9% of the


18/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


18 o

acute reference dose for all other population groups. For chronic risk, the ag-gregated exposure represents less than 24% of the chronic reference dose for

all population subgroups.

Risks in Residential and Other NonOccupational Environments

Nonoccupational risks are not of concern

Risks to homeowners and their children from contact with treated lawns andturf are not of concern.

Biomonitoring studies

Biomonitoring studies have measured exposure levels in the children and wivesof farmers that used 2,4D. Some of the participants sampled in these studieshad helped to apply the pesticide. In over 80% of the urine samples, 2,4D wasnot detected. More than 80% of the sampled children and women had samplesthat were negative for 2,4D in their urine. Those participants that did havedetectable levels of 2,4D had very low levels in their urine (mean of approxi-mately 3 g/L), indicating that exposures were generally lower than what wasestimated in the PMRA risk assessment that concluded acceptable risk at higher exposure levels.

As presented in PACR200501, the turf risk assessment evaluated exposure inchildren playing on treated turf immediately after application. This was con-sidered to be a highend exposure scenario because it was assumed children

would be exposed dermally through contact with treated turf as well as orally through ingestion of soil, turf mounting and handtomouth contact. Theunique physiology, behaviours and play habits, such as their lower body

weights and handtomouth contact while playing, were also taken into con-sideration in the exposure assessment.

In addition, extra safety factors were applied to the no effect level identified inanimal toxicity studies to protect population groups, such as children andpregnant women, that may be more susceptible to the potential effects of pesti-cides. This resulted in reference doses that were 300 to 1000fold lower for these sensitive groups, which are more protective than the minimum 100foldsafety factor. Thus, products will not be considered acceptable for continuedregistration unless the estimated human exposure is at least 300 times to 1000times less than the level at which there were no observed effects in the studiesexamined. These levels ensure the most sensitive population groups chil-dren and pregnant women are protected.


19/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99


19 o


20/20

PP aa rr t t 88 ..

00 22 // 00 66 // 22 00 00 99

20 o

FFoorrccee oof f NNaattuurree was launched for continuous transmission on the Internet on January 1 st, 2009. It is aseries of enewsletters destined for the GGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy, the eennvviirroonnmmeennttaa ll mmoovveemmeenntt, politi-cians, municipalities, and the media, nationwide across Canada, and parts of the United States. FFoorrccee oof f NNaattuurree is produced in two parts. First. The MM eeddiiaa RReeppoorrtt itself that reports on the current events af-fecting the future of the GGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy.. Second. IInnddeeppeennddeenntt PPeerrssppeeccttiivvee.., which is a runningcommentary, sometimes also of a more technical in nature.

FF oo rr cc ee oo f f NN aa tt uu rr ee is the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his entourage. The opinions ex-pressed in these enewsletters, even though from an independent perspective, may not reflect thoseof everyone in the GG rr ee ee nn SS pp aa cc ee II nn dd uu ss tt rr yy, or Mr. Gathercoles many associates. Be warned ! Mr.Gathercole and his team may sometimes be very irreverent and fearless with these enewsletters.

William H. Gathercole holds a degree in Horticulture from the UUnniivveerrssiittyy oof f GGuueellpphh, and another pureand applied science degree from MMccGGiillll UUnniivveerrssiittyy. He has worked in virtually all aspects of the GGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy, including public affairs, personal safety, and environmental issues. Mr. Gathercole hasbeen a consultant and instructor for decades. Mr. Gathercole has been following the evolution of eennvvii--rroonnmmeennttaall tteerrrroorr iissmm for over a quartercentury. His involvement in environmental issues reached a fe-vered pitch in the 1990s, when he orchestrated, with others, legal action against unethical and excessivemunicipal regulations restricting the use of pest control products. ( i.e. the Town of Hudson. ) Althoughhe can be accused of being aannttiieennvviirroonnmmeennttmmoovveemmeenntt, he is, in fact, simply a strong advocate for theGGrreeeenn SSppaaccee IInndduussttrryy. However, this position has not precluded him from criticizing the industry itself.Nonetheless, his vast knowledge of our long journey with environmental issues is uu nn dd ee nn ii aa bb ll ee. ( Hope-fully ! ) For many years, Mr. Gathercole has been a contributing columnist for TT UURR FF && RR eeccrreeaa --tt iioonn Magazine, Canadas Turf and Grounds Maintenance Authority.

All pictures contained in FF oo rr cc ee oo f f NN aa tt uu rr ee were found somewhere on the Internet. We believe thatthey are in the public domain, as either educational tools, industry archives, promotional stills, publicityphotos, or press media stock.

Information presented in FF oorr ccee oof f NN aa ttuurr ee has been developed for the education and entertain-ment of the reader. The events, characters, companies, and organizations, depicted in thisdocument are not always fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, may not becoincidental.

The following titles are currently available. (Or, will be available in the near future.) AlbertaProhibition. British Columbia Prohibition. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Envi-ronment. Consequences David Suzuki Foundation. Death and the Environmental Move-ment. Golf and Landscape Trade Industries. Kazimiera Jean Cottam. Kelowna B.C. Prohi-bition. New Brunswick Prohibition. Nova Scotia Prohibition Ontario Prohibition. Or-ganic Fertilizers. Pets and Lawn Care Chemicals. Prince Edward Island Prohibition. Que-bec Prohibition. Randy Hillier, The Next Premier of Ontario Saint Catharines Ontario. Salmon Arm B.C. Prohibition. The 9/11 Era of the Green Space Industry. The Failure of Inte-grated Pest Management. The Wisdom of the Solomons. Wisconsin Fertilizer Prohibition.

A A SS KK FF OO RR A A CC OO PP Y Y OOFF A A NN Y Y BB A A CC KK II SS SS UUEE T T OO DD A A Y Y ..

force of nature -- quebec prohibition -- 2009 06 02 -- nafta -- amos -- suzuki -- cela -- 2,4-d --...

Documents