Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
SynopsisE

OCFP pesticide study triggered by complaint

Pauline Comeau
CMAJ August 03, 2004 171 (3) 225; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1041034
Pauline Comeau
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2004 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

The Ontario College of Family Physicians' conclusion that there are no safe pesticide exposure levels, which garnered unprecedented national coverage, was sparked by a pesticide industry lobby group's insistence that there is not enough evidence to support such warnings.

Figure1

Figure. A pesticide-free Ontario garden. Photo by: Barbara Sibbald

The OCFP launched an extensive review of pesticide literature more than 18 months ago after Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data, a US-based group, complained that warnings of harmful effects of pesticides included in an OCFP information pamphlet were inaccurate. (2,4-D is the most common active ingredient in lawn care herbicides.)

The complaint was a repeat of the usual arguments in the ongoing debate on pesticides, which the head of the OCFP describes as “an exercise in finger pointing,” where one group cites a report warning of health effects and the other side cites another report indicating the results are inconclusive. The OCFP study was aimed at ending such discourse.

The study (www.ocfp.on.ca), funded by the non-profit Laidlaw Foundation, was not peer-reviewed or published. This is the first time a Canadian medical association has attempted to review the literature. Researchers examined 12 000 studies on the health effects of pesticides and drew conclusions from the 250 studies deemed to have the most solid methodology.

The review found “consistent evidence” of serious health risks, including brain, kidney, and prostate cancer, and reproductive and nervous system effects. For example, 3%–7.7% of cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are attributable to exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and chlorophenols.

In addition, there was no evidence that some pesticides are less damaging than others. Rather, what differed were the effects and the time it took for them to appear.

“Our study showed that family doctors are right in advising patients to avoid exposures,” says Jan Kasperski, CEO of the OCFP.

But Donald Page, Executive Director of the Industry Task Force II, attacked the findings in the media and online, charging that the conclusions are based on a “biased review” with unclear criteria for study selection. — Pauline Comeau, Ottawa

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 171 (3)
CMAJ
Vol. 171, Issue 3
3 Aug 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
OCFP pesticide study triggered by complaint
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
OCFP pesticide study triggered by complaint
Pauline Comeau
CMAJ Aug 2004, 171 (3) 225; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1041034

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
OCFP pesticide study triggered by complaint
Pauline Comeau
CMAJ Aug 2004, 171 (3) 225; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1041034
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The changing ecology of avian flu
  • Applying the 2005 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations: 4. Managing uncomplicated hypertension
  • A newborn requiring selective bronchial intubation
Show more Synopsis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Public health
    • Journalology & publication ethics

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire