I am writing in response to the recent editorial comments by Terence Corcoran (Thursday, June 22, 2000, National Post). I am as usual amused by both the preumption of this man in declaring what might and might not be good science, and by his complete lack of good sense in ridiculing world renowed scientists

He is rather like the writers for the Tobacco Lobby, who continue to claim that there is no benefit to be had in stopping smoking, and that the science linking smoking to lung cancer is all "junk science" , a phrase Mr. Corcoran borrows from industry lobbyists and throws about freely.

No, Mr. Corcoran, the abnormalities in the thyroid glands of the salmon in Lake Erie are not a fabrication of the World Wildlife Fund, any more than the Walkerton tragedy is a figment of environmentally concerned citizens fighting to protect their communities against the effects of increasing contamination of the air , food , and water.

The Jacobson's study done right here in the Great Lakes Basin has shown that the level of environmental contamination that has resulted from both industrial and agricultural discharges into Lake Erie has resulted in severe and measurable deficits in the intellectual ability of children born to women who consume fish from the Great Lakes during their pregnancy. Is this comprehensive and long running study "junk science," Mr. Corcoran?

Or the recent Australian study that documents contamination in the very first bowel movements of newborn babies fresh from their mother's wombs with up to three and four pesticides and industrial chemicals, with the low birth weight infants having the greatest number of contaminants and the most significant amounts of each one.

What about the Swedish study recently published in the prestigious Journal of the American Cancer Society, showing the association between the use of Roundup pesticide and the increase in non - Hodgkin's lymphoma, a relatively uncommon cancer that occurs more frequently in people who use and work around pesticides, like golf course superintendents, farmers , and the children in homes where garden and lawn pesticides are used.

Mr. Corcoran even has the audacity to be critical of an emergency room physician , Dr. Kelly Martin, who took her own time to testify before the House committee looking at pesticide risks, because she had seen a number of children who had been injured by pesticide exposures and was having trouble even reporting the documented exposures , not to mention getting reliable information about the content s of these commonly used products and documentation of their health effects. Despite industry lobbying to the contrary, there is not , in the voluminous industrially sponsored literature , any claim that exposure to 2,4 D Mr. Corcoran's favorite weed killer, is beneficial for human health.

The problem is , that the studies done in laboratory settings on animals in short term exposures, are nothing like the real world observations of incidence data. You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows, Mr. Corcoran! When we look around, is our environment safe, and healthy, or do we worry about the air and water, about our daughters getting breast cancer, or our sons having learning difficulties, or our parents having Parkinson's? Is the air in Windsor clean and fresh, can we be comfortable buying ground meat from the store without first checking the headlines looking for recall notices?

The fact is, we are having many challenges to the health of our communities. One of those may very well be that pesticide chemicals are too common in our food, our air, our water. We need to study this issue, and based on the very good, very sound, suggestions of the studies available to date, we would be prudent to reduce our use and subsequent exposures of the biocidal chemicals to an absolute minimum. That's what the precautionary principle is all about, trying to avoid harm before more occurs, while we are sorting out the details.

As a physician, that makes good sense to me. As a scientist, I welcome our better understanding of these issues, but I can not condone ignoring the evidence to date in the interest some notion of absolute proof. In human and planetary health issues, that would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Submitted with respect,

Thomas J. Barnard, M.D., CCFP(EM), FAAFP - CAQ(GERIATRICS)
Adjunct Professor of Human Biology and Nutritional Sciences, Univ. of Guelph


Printed with the permission of Dr. Thomas Barnard.
Letter appeared in the Windsor Star on July 13, 2000