Lower Health and Safety Standards? No Thanks!
For crying out loud! What's the matter with these people we vote into office to look after the state of our nation? In them we trust. Do we? Should we? Isn't nice to think that trust is misplaced. What does a country need? Responsible governance in reflection of the needs of the population. Safeguarding of natural resources. Encouragement of economic growth. Security of persons under the law; access to clean water, clean air, a good food supply. Education, health care, national security, a reliable system of justice, a good, solid respect for human rights.
Ain't we got it all! This is Canada, after all. The land of the brave and the free. Oops, that's not our slogan, is it? Sorry about that, these lapses will happen. Ours must be land of the cautious and uncomplaining. Well, here it is coming on loud and strong, a big fat complaint. CANADA DOES NOT NEED TO LOWER ITS STANDARDS ON PESTICIDE USE on fruits and vegetables to match U.S. limits. Bureaucrats love to 'harmonize' rules; makes their jobs so much easier. Especially when Canadians are dealing with Americans.
And here I've been labouring under the obviously false illusion that U.S. consumer-protection laws were more usefully, carefully and responsibly stringent than our own. Wrong, wrong. Canada, it would appear, is getting set to raise its allowable limits on pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables - for hundreds of products. WHO NEEDS IT! Canada has to lower its standards to accommodate the U.S.'s lower standards of consumer protection against the arguably potentially-harmful-to-humans effects of accumulated pesticides?
How about using our good sense and good offices to entice the United States to favour their own population, along with ours by raising their standards to match ours? Oh, I forgot; no outside source tells Americans how to run their country. Right. Who bloody well cares that our higher standards in consumer protection poses a 'trade irritant' anyway? The fact appears to be that the U.S. often allows more pesticide residues because its warmer climate means it is plagued by more pests.
Well, to my inexpert line of thought, bugs don't kill people, but chemicals, pesticides, can and do. Bloody hell! But here's Tony Clement, our Minister of Health assuring us through a letter in today's paper that "Canada's new government takes its responsibilities to protect the health safety of Canadians very seriously. This regulatory harmonization with our NAFTA partners, of which the Citizen article is critical, began in 1996 under the previous Liberal administration."
Is this guy kidding? The new Conservative government hastens to assure us that everything is in control. This new government goes to extraordinary lengths to draw away from anything Liberal-inspired. If the Liberal government was sufficiently disinterested in the health and safety of its citizens to bargain away our higher standards, why would the Conservatives be interested in signing on? JUST SAY NO!
Don't tell us "I want to be clear and assure everyone that this new government will keep a watchful eye on pesticide regulation to protect the health of Canadians." It doesn't make me feel good or reassured to be informed that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency "closely monitors the levels of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables" when we can all clearly recall fairly recent incidents of food contamination - in imported fresh fruits and vegetables.
A study reported on in 2006 in the Annals of Neurology found even low exposure to pesticides increased the risk of contracting Parkinson's disease by 70%. The 'low levels' of pesticide residues found on food inspection of produce may not seem to be dreadfully worrisome on the face of it, but that doesn't take into account the fact that people eat fruits and vegetables in some abundance daily. There's a cumulative effect over the space of a year.
We need fresh and healthy foods, we definitely do not need, nor do we crave, foods that have been pickled in chemicals so they look nice and physically defect-free. Give us natural, please. The ongoing, cumulative effect to human health of exposure to chemicals through their use in all manner of products, known to be inimical to a comfortably long life makes us nervous, and with good reason.
People do not exist for the purpose of conveniencing industry. Industry exists for the purpose of serving peoples' needs.
Ain't we got it all! This is Canada, after all. The land of the brave and the free. Oops, that's not our slogan, is it? Sorry about that, these lapses will happen. Ours must be land of the cautious and uncomplaining. Well, here it is coming on loud and strong, a big fat complaint. CANADA DOES NOT NEED TO LOWER ITS STANDARDS ON PESTICIDE USE on fruits and vegetables to match U.S. limits. Bureaucrats love to 'harmonize' rules; makes their jobs so much easier. Especially when Canadians are dealing with Americans.
And here I've been labouring under the obviously false illusion that U.S. consumer-protection laws were more usefully, carefully and responsibly stringent than our own. Wrong, wrong. Canada, it would appear, is getting set to raise its allowable limits on pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables - for hundreds of products. WHO NEEDS IT! Canada has to lower its standards to accommodate the U.S.'s lower standards of consumer protection against the arguably potentially-harmful-to-humans effects of accumulated pesticides?
How about using our good sense and good offices to entice the United States to favour their own population, along with ours by raising their standards to match ours? Oh, I forgot; no outside source tells Americans how to run their country. Right. Who bloody well cares that our higher standards in consumer protection poses a 'trade irritant' anyway? The fact appears to be that the U.S. often allows more pesticide residues because its warmer climate means it is plagued by more pests.
Well, to my inexpert line of thought, bugs don't kill people, but chemicals, pesticides, can and do. Bloody hell! But here's Tony Clement, our Minister of Health assuring us through a letter in today's paper that "Canada's new government takes its responsibilities to protect the health safety of Canadians very seriously. This regulatory harmonization with our NAFTA partners, of which the Citizen article is critical, began in 1996 under the previous Liberal administration."
Is this guy kidding? The new Conservative government hastens to assure us that everything is in control. This new government goes to extraordinary lengths to draw away from anything Liberal-inspired. If the Liberal government was sufficiently disinterested in the health and safety of its citizens to bargain away our higher standards, why would the Conservatives be interested in signing on? JUST SAY NO!
Don't tell us "I want to be clear and assure everyone that this new government will keep a watchful eye on pesticide regulation to protect the health of Canadians." It doesn't make me feel good or reassured to be informed that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency "closely monitors the levels of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables" when we can all clearly recall fairly recent incidents of food contamination - in imported fresh fruits and vegetables.
A study reported on in 2006 in the Annals of Neurology found even low exposure to pesticides increased the risk of contracting Parkinson's disease by 70%. The 'low levels' of pesticide residues found on food inspection of produce may not seem to be dreadfully worrisome on the face of it, but that doesn't take into account the fact that people eat fruits and vegetables in some abundance daily. There's a cumulative effect over the space of a year.
We need fresh and healthy foods, we definitely do not need, nor do we crave, foods that have been pickled in chemicals so they look nice and physically defect-free. Give us natural, please. The ongoing, cumulative effect to human health of exposure to chemicals through their use in all manner of products, known to be inimical to a comfortably long life makes us nervous, and with good reason.
People do not exist for the purpose of conveniencing industry. Industry exists for the purpose of serving peoples' needs.
posted by Pieface | 6:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home