The Rural Voice, 1988-03, Page 8SPECIALS
(While supplies last)
1 1/ 2x1 1/ 2x.100 sq. tubing 65c per ft.
1 1/ 2x1 1/ 2x.125 sq. tubing 790 per ft.
Over 100 tons of clean random
plate & sheet metal priced on
quantity ordered.
See Us Today For A
FREE ESTIMATE On Your
Sheer, Breaking, or
Punching requirements
BRANDER STEEL
INDUSTRIES LTD.
STRATHROY EXETER
519-245-4790 519-235-1462
1-800-265-7000
ADVERTISING SALES
REPRESENTATIVE
Small but dynamic publish-
ing company seeks know-
ledgeable individual to sell
advertising space in a
monthly agricultural maga-
zine. Responsibilities in-
clude enhancing national
and agency accounts,
mounting advertising cam-
paigns, and maintaining
and building an established
sales territory and client list.
Base salary plus commis-
sion and travel allowance.
Car required. Send resume
and salary expectations to
The Rural Voice, Box 37,
Goderich, Ontario, N7A 3Y5.
6 THE RURAL VOICE
FEEDBACK
PESTICIDE CONTAINERS: A PROBLEM
What do you do with a used pesticide
container? After you have rinsed it out (or
do you?), do you burn it? Do you take it to
the municipal dump hidden in a black gar-
bage bag? Pile it in the shed or out behind
the barn? Cut the top off and use the pail
to feed the calves? Or do you leave the
container beside the stream where you
filled the spayer?
Fellow farmers, it is time for a change:
returnable pesticide containers, in all sizes.
This is an excellent opportunity for Huron
County farmers, in co-operation with the
Soil and Crop Improvement Association
and pesticide suppliers, to eliminate used
pesticide containers in the countryside.
Before the Ministry of the Environ-
ment enacts strong legislation, let us start
our own program.
Basically, we would pay a deposit on
each container purchased. The deposit,
collected by the dealer, should be $10 or
more per container. The dealer would
affix a numbered sticker to each container.
Proper documentation would be
provided by the dealer and would include
names, number of containers, deposit paid,
name of pesticide and sticker numbers, the
location of return depots, and an affidavit
to be signed by the purchaser or user say-
ing that the container was triple -rinsed.
Upon returning the empties, the recycling
operator would ensure the rinse was done
and sign the documents to allow the pur-
chaser to get his deposit back.
The dealer, along with the supply
companies and landfill operators, would
work together to dispose of returned
containers. There is no doubt in my mind
that municipal landfill operators would
accept properly prepared containers.
For those of you who think this idea is
a pipe dream, note that the State of Maine
Returnable Pesticide Container Law was
enacted in April of 1985 with the co-
operation of farmers, dealers, and landfill
operators. Now other states are enacting
similar laws. If the U.S. can do it, we can
do it better!0
John Hazlitt, R. R. 4, Goderich
LOSS OF ALACHLOR A POLITICAL CHOICE
Federal agriculture minister John Wise
has rejected the Alachlor Review Board's
recommendation and announced that the
government will continue the ban on al-
achlor begun in 1986. It seems quite likely
that he is uncomfortable with this decision
because it affects a large number of his
own constituency. It may also make him
cringe a little when he realizes a competi-
tive product metolachlor (Dual) with sim-
ilar risks now has the market all to itself.
One may never find out how the deci-
sion was made but one is left to suspect
that both Environment Canada and Health
and Welfare Canada objected and Mr.
Wise lost the cabinet battle. It is logical to
surmise that neither objecting department
is prepared to suffer the censure of a very
active environmental group. It is tempting
to speculate about this being an election
year and how the decision would have gone
had it mainly affected Western Canada.
The real issue for Canadians (including
farmers) is that the government rejected
both the judgement of highly qualified
scientists and the concept of risk -benefit
analysis in pesticide registration. Politics
replaced science and an expensive review
process was reduced to non -status.
.... In their report, the board disagreed
with the conclusions of Health and Welfare
Canada that there was an unacceptable risk
associated with alachloi s use. From the
results of rat -feeding experiments, the
board concluded that both alachlor and
metolachlor were potential carcinogens.
But, using the worst case scenario, there
was a safety factor of between 1,000 and
10,000 times ...
Mr. Wise rejected the recommendation
and announced that Health and Welfare
would be monitoring imported commodities
for alachlor residues. On the surface this
seems reasonable, but in reality is meaning-
less because residues cannot be detected.
At this stage one must accept the fact
that alachlor is lost to Canadians forever,
unless Monsanto or one of several farm
organizations can get a court order to
change this. It must be a concem to every-
body when you realize that the technical and
economic advantages of this chemistry are
lost to Canadian society forever.
Canada must have a better system for
pesticide registration. Mr. Wise would do
well to look at the experience of other
countries and how their registration systems
have evolved. The United Kingdom uses a
scientific board whereas the U.S. uses a
much more open system, but both work
better than our own.
Although alachlor may be lost, it is
imperative that lessons be learned and
pesticide registration be taken out of the
political arena.0
—Prof G. E. Jones, Prof R. A. Upfold,
Dr. L. W. Kannenberg, Dr. D. E. Falk,
Prof G. W. Anderson, Dr. C. J. Swanton,
Dr. D. J. Hume, Dr. B. D. McKersie, Dr.
E. E. Gamble, Dr. T. J. Vyn
Crop Science Department
Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph