Recent Developments

A report “Attributable causes of cancer in France in the year 2000” has been published by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

At the beginning of 2005, the IARC created a “think-tank” on this topic, with the aim of developing methods for estimates of cancers attributable to known causes and estimating the number of cancers that could be avoidable.

On the section pertaining to pesticides (page 139), the report concludes:

“Given the lack of evidence linking pesticide exposure to human cancer risk, no cases of cancer can be attributed to either occupational or non-occupational exposure to this group of agents.”

This report is co-authored by:

- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),

- Académie National de Médecine

- Académie des Sciences

- Fédération National des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer (FNCLCC)

and in partnership with:

- Institut National du Cancer (INCa)

and in consultation with:

-Institut de Veille Sanitaire (InVS)

The full report may be downloaded at:

http://www.iarc.fr/IARCPress/pdfs/francecancer2000/CausesofCancerFrance2000.pdf

The first estimate of the relative importance of genetic and other factors in the global burden of cancer was made by Richard Doll and Richard Peto (1981), based on US cancer mortality data. A chart summarizing the findings of five studies on this topic may be found on page 170.

On August 8, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Decision Not to Initiate Special Review for 2,4-D. The EPA notice stated “Because the Agency has determined that the existing data do not support a conclusion that links human cancer to 2,4-D exposure, it has decided not to initiate a Special Review of 2,4-D, 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP.” The herbicides 2,4-DB and 2,4-DP were considered for Special Review based solely on their similarity for 2,4-D.

EPA first considered Special Review for 2,4-D in 1986, and after more than 21 years of research and agency review, EPA was able to determine that no correlation exists between 2,4-D and human cancer.

Task Force news release:

EPA-No-Review-Newsrelease-Web 9 August 2007.pdf

EPA's notice may be downloaded from this link:

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2007/August/Day-08/p15109.htm

On June 19, 2007, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada issued its re-evaluation of the Agriculture, Forestry, Aquatic and Industrial Site uses of 2,4-D. In doing so, the PMRA is proposing that the continued use of 2,4-D for the aforementioned terrestrial sites is acceptable.

PMRA Re-evaluation decision:

http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/pacr/pacr2007-06-e.pdf

Comments on the proposed registration decision will be received by the PMRA until August 18, 2007 at: pmra_publications@hc-sc.gc.ca

This scientific assessment builds on comments that were received from the public for the Lawn and Turf Uses of 2,4-D, released in February, 2005. The PMRA will make a final decision on lawn and turf uses after comments regarding non-turf uses have been considered.

Phenoxy Value-Benefits Study Released

In 2006 the research task forces representing the registrants of 2,4-D, MCPA and mecoprop-p (MCPP-p) commissioned the preparation of a phenoxy herbicide value-benefits study. The report identifies and quantifies, where possible, the economic, environmental, health and other benefits that accrue to Canadians from the use of the three phenoxy herbicides.

Undertaken by RIAS Inc. – regulatory impacts, alternatives and strategies, the study estimates the benefits of usage of the phenoxy herbicides as the increased costs producers and consumers would incur if phenoxy herbicides were withdrawn from the market. The report focuses on:

§ wheat and barley markets in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario;

§ non-crop industrial sector that uses phenoxy herbicides to manage harmful vegetation; and,

§ lawn and turf sector as examples of the uses made of phenoxy herbicides by individual Canadians and businesses for private investment, aesthetic and recreational purposes.

These sectors represent a large percentage of all usages of phenoxy herbicides in Canada.

Executive Summary

Value-Benefits Presentation

Complete Value-Benefits Study

On August 16, 2006, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) issued a Re-evaluation note (REV 2006-11) in response to comments received on the Proposed Acceptability for Continued Registration (PACR 2005-01) the lawn and turf uses of 2,4-D.

About 600 comments were received in response to the PACR 2005-01. These came from registrants of products, people who care for their lawns, commercial lawn applicators and their clients, municipal and provincial governments, non-government organizations with interests in human health or environmental protection, medical professionals and the general public.

The Re-evaluation Note summarizes all of these comments, provides the PMRA’s response to them. In releasing this regulatory update, the Agency has again determined that 2,4-D can be used safely on lawn and turf when label directions are followed.

On August 8, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its comprehensive assessment of 2,4-D under the Agency's reregistration program. EPA's decision document concluded that 2,4-D does not present risks of concern to human health when users follow 2,4-D product instructions as outlined in EPA's 2,4-D Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document.

On February 21,2005, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) issued its reevaluation of the lawn and turf uses of 2,4-D. In doing so, the PMRA determined that "the use of 2,4-D and its end-use products to treat lawns and turf does not entail an unacceptable risk of harm to human health or the environment," after examining the combined risk from exposure through food and residential uses, the PMRA also determined the potential exposure for children and adults contacting treated residential lawns and golf courses was within acceptable standards.

INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON

2,4-D RESEARCH DATA