October 20, 2010
It saddens me as a pest control operator to see the numerous pest control trucks on the road each morning carrying their load of toxins to distribute inside homes with innocent children and pets. I know that most of those technicians simply have no redeemable grasp of the lethal elixirs in their tanks; apparently, their bosses prefer it that way. From experience, I know that some technicians simply don't care - an attitude I have seen reflected in their company owners. I have heard technicians being warned about the so-called "safe" use of the monstrous chemicals sloshing around in their tanks. It seems as though a frosted glass were placed in front of their eyes because their vision and judgment is surely distorted when the labels read "Danger to Humans and Domestic Animals," yet they keep the trucks moving - droning on guided by GPS - merging with traffic - sipping their coffee. All those technicians march on like soldiers of doom - in a procession prophesizing the funerals to come, slowly but surely bridging the distance to their first victims of the day - unmindful of their own sacrifices - making good on their leaders subconscious promises to poison-for-profit.
Based upon the undisputed scientific and medical facts...
"There is nothing safe about the toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides in the pickup trucks destined for homes, schools, and businesses;there is no safe way to apply those unsafe chemical poisons; children and pets are not safe in the presence of the liquid, gel or powdered toxins or the dried toxic residue that 99.99% of all pest control companies leave behind inside homes, schools, and businesses; dried toxic pesticides are only invisible to the naked eye - they remain just as dangerous, turning into gases that children inhale while they eat, sleep, or watch tv; each home afflicted by these poisons is contaminated and families absorb poisons that invariably surface either in the genes of this generation or maybe the next."
Although I address their egregious lack of accountability to consumers elsewhere on the website, I cringe with cerebral contempt when I hear the National Pest Management Association refer to the pest control industry as "organized pest control". In my professional opinion, I liken the industry more to "organized crime". The EPA has thousands of documents that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pesticides they register for use inside homes and schools, cause cancer and kill insect, animal, and people alike, yet the EPA defiantly refuses to prohibit the manufacture or sale of the lethal toxins that kills far more than bugs. There is no other industry on earth whereby an individual can potentially poison children, pets, water, plants, and air for a living, cause widespread suffering and precipitate cancers, dump toxins inside homes, and contaminate rivers lakes and streams with absolute immunity from consumer redress. I unaffectionately term such individuals as bioterrorists because they in fact douse society with harsh dangerous toxic pesticides that Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring" refers to as biocides. Big corporations that manufacture these pesticide environmental poisons support the efforts of the multitude of pesticide applicators while state and federal authorities ignore the evidence of harm, turn a blind eye, grant immunity, and fail to enforce any legal doctrine that demands disclosure of the toxic ingredients. Pesticide manufacturers buy their way into society by sharing millions of dollars in unlawful profits with the EPA. These companies make billions of dollars in international pesticide sales - spreading their death elixirs worldwide. Manufacturers put cute colorful labels on cans of lethal toxins you find on store shelves, and give commercial pesticide toxins tough names to stoke the fire in the hordes of pesticide applicators that never stop to read the label. Thousands of willing pest control companies serve as minion and douse, spray, pour, and drench society with a billion pounds of cancer causing pesticides every year, helping pesticide manufacturers poison every man, woman, child, animal, plant, and water course in the world.
Over the years, I have traveled across America and personally talked to thousands and thousands of mothers and fathers on their doorsteps. Here are statements that I make with absolute defensible, provable, written certainty…
1. 99% of the people I personally talk to, face-to-face across America have no idea what those technicians are spraying inside their homes and around their families;
2. 99% of homeowners are shocked at the truth about the unbelievable, unimaginable, unforgivable, unmistakable dangers of the toxic pesticides with which their pest control company has generously saturated, poisoned, and contaminated their homes and yards (I frequently have to tell people not to shoot the messenger…);
3. 99% of the same men and women cannot believe that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows those lethal liquids, powders, gels, and poison baits inside peoples homes;
4. 99% of consumers I spoke with find it unconsionable that grocery stores carry the same lethal poisons used by licensed pest control companies, but displayed in brightly colored canisters with attractive labels and great artwork on the jugs, and allows children under 18 to purchase these poisons that are more dangerous than cigarette smoking;
5. 99% of fathers, mothers, and grandparents are angry at their pest control companies for placing their children and pets in danger with either false and misleading claims of safety, the alluding to safety by acts or statements crafted to deceive, actions that indicate the non-existence of danger, words or phrases that lower the guard of occupants, the utter ignorance of the dangers of the poisons they spray inside peoples homes, or their intentional silence about the poisons just to collect a check;
In the professional opinion of the author, pest control companies that spray that toxic garbage around families and in the environment are complicit in the deaths of cancer victims and in part responsible for wide spread ADHD in children. As an Environmental Steward, I will not stand for it nor will I sit idly by while these so-called pest management professionals destroy the only world we have. Our pest control license is more than just a piece of paper; it is an authoritative document that informs consumers that we know, or should know, what we are doing. Along with that authority comes great responsibility. We are responsible for consumer safety and well-being. A licensee that uses dangerous chemicals in and around the homes of consumers, by my standard, is irresponsible, reckless, and negligent. The mere fact that pest control licensure gives one the authority to use deadly toxins is by no means an acceptable excuse to use them on consumers and then fail to disclose the dangers.
Children trust blindly. Our shortcomings mean nothing to them; our lack of wealth or pedigree is inconsequential. By the same measure, we owe them blind loyalty and protection while we care for them and raise them to adulthood. When some pest control technician, regardless of how personable or friendly or the big smile, sprays toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides inside our homes without full legal and medical disclosure, by my standards, he or she has ostensibly breached the trust and loyalty we have to our own children. Just like many of us were fortunate enough to have children and experience the joy, wonders, and occasional headaches of family life in the post DDT America, so to our children should have that joy… or at least the choice. Pest control companies that spray those atrocious odorless, colorless potions mitigate that joy and steal away their choices drop by vile drop from a shiny silver canister.
Plainly, wholesale spraying of toxic synthetic poisonous pesticides is over; it is only a matter of time before thousands of claims against pest control operators flood the courts and cripple the thousands of uninitiated pest control companies that persist in spraying lethal toxins. The courts, environmentalists, and consumers demand and deserve more and their collective voices are growing louder each day.
Pesticide products containing pyrethroids are often described by pest control operators and community mosquito management bureaus as "safe as chrysanthemum flowers." While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from chrysanthemum, they were chemically designed to be more toxic with longer breakdown times, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body's ability to detoxify the pesticide (chemicalWatch, Synthetic Pyrethroids, 1994). Some manufacturers use multiple pyrethroids in their formulations that make their pesticides even more dangerous to humans and domestic animals vis-à-vis the widely used pesticide Talstar®Xtra that contains Zeta-Cypermethrin and Bifenthrin, two mammalian neurotoxins and suspected cancer causing agents or carcinogens.
Pesticide manufacturers make and sell products that promise to kill insects via a number of "modes" of action. Mainly, the mode of action with pyrethroids is that of a neurological antagonist. The pyrethroids alone are not the sole cause of the human dangers. Frequently it is the carriers. The same manufacturers conceal up to 99.75% of the most dangerous ingredients such as arsenic, alkaline, synthetic adhesives, base metals, and cyanide; ingredients harmful to humans and the environment supplanting any benefit derived from killing insects with the product. Overwhelmingly the courts agree with this argument. Additionally, the modes of action are not exclusive in that target organisms and non-target organisms such as mammals, fish, and birds suffer essentially the same fate, but with varying degrees of neuronal dissonance from sodium blocking, chronic respiratory distress or mortality. For example, synthetic pyrethrins (deltamethrin, cypermethrin, bifenthrin, fenvalerate, permethrin, resmethrin, and sumithrin) act as neurotoxins to invertebrate pests, fish, birds, and vertebrates such as children equally. The EPA considers four of the more commonly used pyrethroids suspected carcinogens. The most severe cases involve infants and small children that cannot metabolize and excrete pyrethroids through liver functions leading to paralysis, muscle fibrillation, diarrhea and death due to respiratory failure (Extension Toxicology Network, Pyrethroids 1994). Symptoms of acute exposure in infants last only two days (Gary, infant death, and anaphylactic respiratory distress), giving parents and caregivers little time to respond if they are not trained to detect symptoms of pesticide poisoning. Tests have shown latent traces of pyrethroids in muscle and fatty tissue even after limited exposure, such as putting a toy or food that has fallen in a treated area into a child's mouth, or absorbing the product through the skin from a treatment area. In California, deltamethrin is the leading cause of pesticide poisoning in pest control applicators (Environmental Protection Agency 1997. W.L. Burnmman, HED). Because pyrethroids are endocrine disrupters, they are a major factor and contributor to breast cancer. Rightfully, the EPA has classified some pyrethroids as possible carcinogens, meaning that those pyrethroids have the potential to cause cancer. The are many pesticides that are known carcinogens, our focus here are those suspected carcinogens found in the most commonly used pesticides most likely to end up inside your home and on trees and plants in your environment.
The World Health Organization reports that there may be 1 million serious unintentional poisonings each year. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation in conjunction with CDC recorded 3,721 unintentional pesticide poisonings with 1 reported death.
In 1997, National Cancer Institute researches Sheila Hoar Zahm, Ph.D. and Mary H. Ward, Ph.D. reviewed dozens of reports on cancer cases and found that children appear to be especially vulnerable to pesticides. Some research indicated kids exposed to these substances had a four to nine times greater risk of getting leukemia, and a six to seven times greater risk of getting brain cancer.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that more than 25 million people are poisoned by (synthetic) pesticides worldwide every year and according to the same agency, more than 68,493 people will be poisoned by pesticides today. A recent study by scientists at Rutgers University, in Piscataway, New Jersey, found that lingering (synthetic) pesticide residue on toys and other surfaces in a room that has been treated is likely to cause a child between the ages of three and six to ingest a daily does of synthetic pesticides that is sixty-nine times higher than the dose the EPA considers safe. For younger children who put toys in their mouths, the dose could be as much as 211 times higher, and in a November 1997 report, research showed that children who developed brain tumors were twice as likely to have had prenatal exposure to flea-and-tick foggers and sprays containing pyrethroids.
The Pesticide Action Network estimates that worldwide there are 200,000 deaths from pesticide poisoning each year. 547 men, women and children will die today from pesticide poisoning (statistically known as "acceptable risks" for pesticide poison registration with the EPA) Armed with irrefutable facts about the dangers of toxic synthetic pesticides, AlwaysEco takes it message direct to homeowners in what has been a successful campaign to save the lives of children, pets and protect the environment.
Our philosophy is clearly one that all others should echo, if the label does not read "Safe Around Children And Pets," then under no circumstances should the pesticide be used or even approved for sale.
AlwaysEco encourages all pest control companies to change their antiquated and negligent practices of spraying toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides in favor of safe pesticides and integrated pest management with no additional financial burden on the customer. Currently, the AlwaysEco platform gives consumers a harmless option to controlling harmful, disease causing insects.
There are those companies that alternate between safe products and dangerous toxins. Such practices send the wrong message to consumers. We have found that consumers may believe that safe pesticides are optional when in fact, safe pesticides is the only sensible way to receive service. Pest control companies that spray toxins frequently attempt to devolve the matter of safety to a matter of price. That is the low road to a higher standard. The fact is that safe products require only the ability to read and follow directions. The difference is that safe pesticides are not persistent. Botanical pesticides will return to nature usually within 45 to 60 days while the synthetic toxins can last inside your home for decades. Alternating between a safe product and a harmful toxin that may cause cancer or other illness is a questionable practice that lends no credibility to the pest control company that follows that path. The few dollars that such a company may save on pesticides may very well cost you your long-term health.
The harm done to consumers is of epic magnitude. In one example, the largest pest control company in the U.S. generates $846 million in annual revenue while contaminating the homes of more than 3 million Americans, a heinous deed carried out by over 5,000 uninformed men and women. Such behemoth organizations that poison Americans en masse are literally stuck with their past transgressions after ignoring a mountain of research dating back to 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," and evidence that suggested it was actually harming its 3 million customers. After a generation of more than 48 years of ignoring the dangers to human health and the environment, it would be impossible for these big poison sprayers to convert 1, 2 or 3 million customers to a safe pesticide program without creating a proverbial feeding frenzy of legal claims against themselves. The class action against the companies that make the pesticides and those that spray the toxins inside homes would be bigger than that against Phillip Morris. By comparison, In the case of Phillip Morris, consumers purchased and used the product despite the obvious warnings. With pest control however, consumers had no warning, are often told that synthetic toxins are the only option, and frequently have been warned against safer options because safety costs the pest control company time and money. The pest control companies purchase, mix, and then apply toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides inside and around the homes of consumers. Many companies fail to disclose the dangers of the pesticides they use and thereby precipitate the inevitable harm, which results in consumer backlash as more consumers hear our message. The eventual reckoning is again inescapable.
As consumers become more aware of the dangers of synthetic toxins through our message, they have also become intolerant of pesticide contamination. For the record: "If a pest control company sprays a single drop of toxic synthetic pesticides in or on your property, they have contaminated your property - it is that simple and it is a fact." Consumers no longer listen to the lip service paid to safety concerns by the poison sprayers or their seasonal workers; and for good and just reason.
So-called "green" service is not enough. There is no known reason to use synthetic dangerous toxins to control common household pests. The litany of existing so-called "green" programs currently on the market rely on a mix of botanicals and synthetics; a dubious approach promulgated by some of the largest pesticide manufacturer's in the world. Pest control companies use the terms "eco" or "green" to deceive consumers into believing that services rendered are safe or harmless. Consumers rightfully associate the terms "eco" and "green" with botanical or organic products or services and thereby believe that an "eco" company or a "green" service must be safe. Sadly, pest control companies have defrauded consumers. There is no legal or national standard for use of the words "eco" or "green" to describe pest control services. Thus, it is too easy for pest control companies to poison-by-deceit and maintain unearned consumer confidence by calling their services "green" or naming their companies "eco" something, or calling their hybrid toxic services "eco friendly." Using the words "eco" or "green" to describe a service that includes toxic pesticide components with even the slightest potential for harm is fraud and deceit. As an active Environmental Steward, I wrote the EPA and asked that they establish a federal standard for the word "green" as used in commerce related to pest control services. I have yet to hear from the EPA.
A legitimate "green" program relies on integrated pest management (IPM) as the first line of defense against nuisance pests and safe botanical products as the control measure - period. Synthetic toxins are not part of a "green" program. Mixing synthetic toxic pesticides with safe botanical pesticides is a ruse to disguise trepidations of pending changes in law, litigation, and lost profits on synthetic poisons and enlightened consumers. Pest control companies that blindly follow this type of poisoning-for-profit leadership will and should fail, should be the subject of intense litigation, and ultimately be disbanded to prevent further harm to people, pets, and the environment. The reverberating resistance from the "old guard" of pest control is a clear indication and evidence that change is warranted.
There are many educated pest control operators that, other than the fact that they poison people either directly or indirectly through applications of toxic pesticides and contaminate homes on a massive scale in the process, operate successful enterprises. Many of them are my colleagues - some "frenemies", the vast majority are enemies, most are a danger to the environment and consumer wellness." Several have switched to safer pest control practices because of my repeated hounding or because of fears of future liability, and some due to their good ethics. Some of them have degrees and others have decades of experience. However, in the US, one must be a licensed degreed pharmacist to dispense drugs only slightly more powerful than the common aspirin. Yet, a person with practically no formal education whatsoever, no training or verified understanding of basic chemistry, biology or toxicology, nor any training in CPR, nor specific training on just the ingredients on the label, nor even a high school diploma, can, by law, dispense the most lethal, dangerous, cancer causing toxins on earth into the homes of Americans in most states. These so-called technicians can and do contaminate and recontaminate an estimated 100 million homes each year with no hesitation. They spray, mist, dust and granularize chemicals that are designed to kill insects but indiscriminately kill non-target organisms including mammals, fish and birds. In the State of Texas, an "apprentice" can actually purchase, load, mix, transport, and apply the most lethal toxins in American history, toxins only two generations separated from the pesticide Sarin used in chemical warfare during World War II - all of this without even taking a test or showing up to prove his or her identity, or without direct in-person supervision by anybody with an actual pest control license! The fate of our children, the quality of life inside our homes, and the state of our environment rests in the hands of sometimes teenaged, phantom, untested, unsupervised apprentices of unknown origin and frequently of limited educational background. Why would any state agency or the EPA permit such environmentally defiant qualifications for apprentices that spray monstrous amalgams of known carcinogenic character? In my professional opinion, fewer qualifications means fewer questions for the EPA and fewer questions means carte blanche destructive authority with little concern for the health of the men and women that freely give 100% of their labor to an occupation wrought with secretly known and blatantly hazardous misfortune concealed behind shiny pretty labels and tough sounding brand names.
In light of the facts, it is a thoughtless act motivated by factors other than health and safety that toxic synthetic pesticides with that kind of potential for harm could end up in the hands of persons ignorant of its lethal nature. To paraphrase Rachel Carson, author of "Silent Spring", the most dangerous chemicals known to man end up in the hands of the least qualified people.
In many instances, pesticide apprentices and technicians have no idea that they are in fact the unwitting, yet quintessential harbingers of doom - indirectly dosing thousands of citizens every day with poison as if they were vaccinating the whole of America against a known pandemic. The technician is not entirely to blame... not entirely. Invariably, he or she should seek greater understanding of the toxic chemicals; take it upon his or herself to learn the toxicology of the pesticides they possess, and inform consumers openly of the dangers - in a perfect world it would be so. In many cases, to which I can personally attest, the Pest Control Operator or company owner knows scant more biologically than the technicians they employ and train. The cycle continues as technicians "come of age", start their own companies, hire, and train their own employees.
The sentiments of providing what Rachel Carson terms as "Biocides" to people of limited background and understanding is dismantled with ferve by some state pest control authorities, but it starts at the top.
The EPA is the blame. The Environmental Protection Agency allows makers of toxic pesticides to conceal the mixture of poisons and contaminates and impurities and carcinogens in their toxic synthetic pesticides from consumers, while forcing makers of safe pesticides to disclose everything. Allowing toxin makers to conceal carcinogenic ingredients and to market products without knowing the full costs to human health makes the EPA complicit in the poisoning-for-profit schemes of the pesticide makers. Organizations that support toxic pesticide makers have gone as far as to practically demand that "Safe" pesticides that control public disease vectors such as mosquitoes and bedbugs re-label and perform expensive, unneeded tests on their products to remove the word "Safe" and add un-needed cautions to the product labels. In the words of the Consumer Specialty Products Association that represents more than 230 product and pesticide manufacturers;
"Opposition to the CSPA's Petition surfaced largely
from nonconventional pesticide proponents and manufacturers
who erroneously conflate the requested Agency review
of product efficacy and stability data with the larger
testing burdens of full registration under FIRFA.
Full registration is no at issue here since the
CSPA does not question the Agency's underlying finding
that exempt products pose "little or no risk" from
a toxicological standpoint. Rather, the critical
issue is one of product performance. While taking
steps to require competing pesticides with public
health pest claims to meet a common
performance standard properly levels the commercial
Click on the link to download the full text of the CSPA's letter and the EPA's response.
The CSPA has toxic pesticide makers as its members. The toxin makers are angry that botanical products that naturally control public health vectors such as mosquitoes and bedbugs are gaining too much popularity and widespread acceptance and the CSPA attempts to force the EPA to place unnecessary financial burdens on makers of safe pesticides to slow the botanical market, and then lump synthetic toxins and safe products in an unintelligible, confusing, anti-consumer safety, insecticidal abyss to so-called "level the commercial playing field" as the CSPA wrote. According to the actions of the EPA, the CSPA, and toxic pesticide makers, your life has a fixed price and the EPA barters with your life as if you were a junk bond.
The CSPA attorney is a clever lady indeed. The attorney uses the word "conventional" to describe member toxins as if the poisons their members make and sell are the original pesticide products and the pesticides preferred by consumers. Unfortunately, the attorney is ill informed because botanical pesticides existed before humans and certainly before chemists. She goes on to refer to botanical pesticides as "nonconventional" inferring that safe botanical pesticides depart from the normal abilities of "conventional" poisons her members make and sell. The attorney is correct because safe botanical pesticides depart from the normal disease causing, cancer causing, and birth defect causing synthetic poisons made and sold by her members. This attorney is so good, that her letter deflects the entire topic away from the safety of the poisonous harmful toxins and redirects the entire issue to the effectiveness of the competitor's product. Arsenic and cyanide are very effective poisons that kill insect and people equally efficient. CSPA members make and sell arsenic and cyanide enriched poisonous pesticides. Thus, CSPA member poisons are the most effective at killing any living organism. Again, the CSPA attorney is correct in that member toxins are more effective because botanical pesticides only kill insects.
The lack of disclosure starts at the top with the EPA, and filters down through state officials, pesticide officials, licensing authorities, pest control operators and finally the apprentice that sees no reason to tell you that the toxic synthetic poison in his shiny canister is a danger to you and your family and every other living organism that comes in contact with it. Therefore, if at the top of the pesticide chain the EPA quashes the requirement to disclose all the ingredients of the toxins and the associated dangers, then the requirement for education on the dangers of the synthetic poisons is non-existent at the bottom of the chain.
Frequently, clients ask us why the EPA would even allow these toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides to be used at all; in short, it's money. Pesticide manufacturers pay up to $1 million dollars to the EPA to register just one pesticide. Many of the manufactures have 10, 20, or even 30 pesticides on the market. With that kind of money at stake, the EPA, a sort of "arbitrary monarchy," looks the other way until many deaths occur. Rachel Carson proved that because of the rampant unchecked and uncontrolled use of pesticides, every body of water on the planet is contaminated, and that it would be nearly impossible to find a lactating mother that didn't have pesticides in her breast milk. That was in 1962. In 1962 an estimated 638 million pounds of pesticides were dumped on U.S. soil. Today, more than 1 billion pounds of toxic pesticides reach every corner of the U.S. annually. Just this month, November 2010, new research in California and Texas discovered that the worst pyrethroid insecticide ingredient "Bifenthrin" was found in 100% of the lakes and streams tested. Bifenthrin is the active ingredient and suspected carcinogen found in the common pesticides that most pest control companies generously spray. According to an article from August 2010 in the Sacramento Bee, children ingest up to 14 different pesticides on their food. Hence, our children, as the research has concluded, reach puberty prematurely, and suffer from ADHD. It's worse in the formative years. Infants and toddlers are more susceptible to pesticide-induced disease due to their underdeveloped immune systems, lack of body fat, and the propensity to put potentially contaminated toys in their mouths, thus increasing their potential intake of pesticides by up to 211 times what the EPA considers "safe"; precipitating cancer and other pesticide-induced diseases. That is how serious the problem is in 2010. Clearly the EPA is aware of all this, since 3% of the facts on the dangers of toxic pesticide exposure resides on their webservers. Amusingly, storing this data on EPA webservers is the unlikeliest of confessions of complicity - the electronic version of the "smoking gun."
Lymphoma, ADHD, leukemia, breast cancer, asthma, Parkinson's disease, pancreatic cancer, and other immunological disorders are diseases of national concern caused by biocides referred to as pesticides. These diseases are widespread, some lethal, and affect men, women, and children from chronic exposure. When does the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) evaluate toxic pesticides as the mass-scale contagions they are? According to my interpretation of the CDC Guide C, Part 2: Quarantine Guidelines, Smallpox Response Plan March 20, 2003, in conjunction with the irrefutable data on pesticide-induced diseases, the acts of authorizing the use of, manufacturing, distributing, and spraying toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides (biocides) could be loosely construed as domestic bioterrorism; all to kill common pests or increase crop yields when both structural and agricultural pests could be controlled by natural products or less dangerous mechanical means. Accordingly, the same guidelines would suggest that the CDC investigate and quarantine affected areas. Although this interpretation may seem broad upon first glance, look closer. The CDC's normal response to any mass-scale contaminate (1 billion pounds of toxic pesticides is a mass-scale contaminate) is to calculate the probability of spread, seek containment, and determine the potential for harm outside the containment area. That would be impossible in the case of toxic pesticides because the whole country, every man, woman, and child, and virtually every body of water within our borders represents ground zero (Rachel Carson, "Silent Spring" 1962) and the contamination spreads via air and water to other parts of the world according to the findings thoroughly researched by Rachel Carson and her team of biologists in 1954. When 1 billion pounds of toxic pesticides are sprayed annually, the contamination is impossible to contain; thus even the CDC would be unable to stop the spread of biocides. For reference, visit the CDC and search for "Quarantine Standards."
The EPA may have the key to cancer. There are a billion irrefutable arguments indicating that the EPA has disenfranchised every man, woman, and child in America. It cannot be overstated that toxic synthetic pesticides, according to the empirical research data, are a major contributor to and cause of cancer in most all studies (we provide over 300 medical studies at this website alone). Thus, one could reasonably conclude that if the EPA banned all toxic synthetic pesticides containing suspected carcinogens, secretive poisons, impurities, waste chemicals, arsenic and cyanide, and required proof of non-carcinogenic propensity before registering a pesticide versus after epidemic numbers of sickness and death from cancer purportedly related to synthetic pesticides, that the rate of cancer in the U.S. would presumably drop accordingly. Israel banned Benzene Hexachloride, DDT, and Lindane in 1978. By 1986 Israel noted a thirty-three percent drop in breast cancer for women ages 25-34 (Dr. Sherrill Sellman Breast Cancer Deception). The EPA perpetrates a cruel and unjust joke on the American public by remaining silent about its important role in cancer. The EPA fundamentally could reduce the occurrence of cancer; cancer rates that increased exponentially with the advent of greater numbers of synthetic pesticides; cancer that has increased at a rate coincidentally proportionate to the number of EPA registered toxic synthetic pesticides and the annual tonnage of synthetic pesticide applications. The scientists and chemists at the EPA are a lot smarter than I on the subject of cancer and pesticides. However, the EPA sits idly by while Americans spend over $100 billion dollars on cancer treatment and over $4 billion on cancer research (National Cancer Institute July 13, 2010). Toxic pesticide manufacturers should pick up the tab. Their profitable poisons create the health problems in the first place. Tobacco companies recompensed for their actions - what's the difference? The difference is that tobacco companies did not pay individual states directly. The states merely taxed tobacco products as the states would tax any other item. With the EPA, the story is quite different. The toxic pesticide manufacturers pay money to the EPA to spread their poisons with impunity. Millions and millions of dollars changes hands annually. Thus, by law, the EPA is incapable of representing the interest of the American public. Therein a conflict of interest exists that is undeniably bigger than Mount Everest. We are in so much trouble as a society when the very agency created to protect us from chemical poisons takes billions of dollars from the people that poison us. In legal terms, we call that a conspiracy and bribery.
For as long as the EPA allows toxic synthetic pesticides to rain down on American cities, citizens, soil, and water, the EPA will continue to frustrate the American public that seeks cures for diseases that have a never-ending supply of causes… 1 billion pounds of toxic synthetic pesticides with hundreds of brand names and of known carcinogenic character.
In all fairness to the EPA, the EPA allows a concerned consumer to request the full ingredients from a toxic pesticide label as the result of a lawsuit by a consumer group. In all fairness to consumers, why then are the toxic ingredients still kept secret when anyone, including a competing toxin maker can simply make the request to the EPA and get the list of ingredients for practically nothing? Any disclosure of the toxic amalgamations mutes the argument of concealing trade secrets from competitors, thus freedom of information disclosure is no different than simply putting the ingredient list on the label - in theory. The reason is again disclosure. When the EPA denies New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer access to the inert ingredient list of toxic pesticides, what chance does the average citizen have of getting the ingredients? As the former New York Attorney General stated in May 2000, it could take months or years to get the list of ingredients if at all. Furthermore the Attorney General echoed the sentiment of many environmentalist and non-governmental organizations in that the EPA takes too long to respond to requests which could pose dangers in the form of lack of available information to doctors and poison control centers. A small percentage of toxin makers disclose their ingredients, but it is almost anecdotal. Those that disclose appear to be sacrificial lambs that are supposed to quench the thirst of the public based on the false assumption that all other pesticides must have the same ingredients since all of the pesticides do about the same thing... kill bugs. Nothing could be farther from true. If all toxin makers were to publicly disclose every ingredient and medical doctors and researchers could test the toxins properly as one continuous chain of related toxins that far exceed any established tolerances through compounding effects, the case against Phillip Morris would appear nothing more than an argument over a five-dollar bet by comparison because pesticides affect every man, woman, child, plant, animal and water resource on earth, whereas cigarette smoking affected smokers and those in their immediate surroundings (approximately 50 million people at the time). Even the health care industry would perhaps jump into the fray against the toxin makers.
In North Carolina, the pesticide authorities attack in writing botanical pest control products in favor of toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides. The reason is practically self-evident yet lugubrious. Research Triangle, North Carolina homesteads the largest toxic pesticide makers in the United States, employing approximately 1/3rd the population in the area. Even the building codes lend themselves to termite infestation to keep the poison makers happy selling lethal termiticide, while pest control companies spray the toxins with near total impunity. At no time did the health of the average citizen appear a concern of any demonstrable notability. In fact, from all the tests I have taken in many different states, I can say with absolute certainty that on no occasion did the label for a safe botanical product appear in the testing manuals, only the labels for the more favored toxic synthetic dangerous poisonous pesticides. However, placing the label in the testing manual was not intended to emphasize consumer safety or even to discuss the dangers of the ingredients, but to test the examinee on proper dosing and mixing instructions. For the lack of a less blasphemes phrase… oh my God! The state tests examinees to ensure that they will not ask questions and will mindlessly follow directions on how to contaminate and poison every living thing that comes within spray stream distance of their shining silver canisters. These acts are the epitome of poisoning-for-profit.
The specimen label on every EPA registered pesticide lists a number of warnings and a "signal" word. Depending on the level of toxicity, the signal world could be caution - indicating the least deadly toxin, warning, danger, or danger/poison - the most deadly toxin. Next, the label gives a warning referencing the hazards of the products. Now, a signal word indicating harm and a warning indicating harm appear on the same pesticide label, but the chances that you will get a copy of that label is practically zero. One of my former clients actually refused to give the labels to his customers because he felt it unnecessary to "alarm" the customer. Another of my clients actually told me that I was "scaring" people by giving customers the label and truthfully answering questions about the toxins. Clearly, these men understood, at least in part, that what they sprayed in the homes of their customers and around innocent children and pets was a toxic combination of impurities, suspected or known carcinogens, arsenic, solvents, adhesives, cyanide, un-milled salwater diatomite, and run-of-the-mill dangerous poisons. Ignorance is not bliss. If the label reads "Danger to Humans and Domestic Animals," the consumer has a right to know that information and the pest control company has an obligation to disclose. Disclosure is unprofitable to these outfits and so they fail to disclose and fein ignorance instead. The attempts at "not knowing" is supported by organizations such as the CSPA that try and hedge pending legislation for the disclosure of toxic pesticide ingredients by lumping safe botanical pesticides in with profoundly unsafe toxins made by the enemies of the environment. Should that happen, it kills a viable argument by makers of safe pesticides which is the full disclosure of "inert" ingredients in toxic pesticides because now, botanical pesticides are no longer required to disclose and thereafter required to place an unwarranted "caution" warning on a completely safe pesticide. The leveling of the commercial playing field, or protecting the poison makers profits is more important than your life according to the acts of poison makers and their supporters. Failure to disclose the label and its well-publicized dangers is poisoning-by-deceit and borders on criminal negligence and fraud. In this instance, I suggest criminal negligence because poisoning an individual is a crime always found in the penal code, not a civil tort found in administrative or civil law. By my estimates, if a pest control company sprayed toxins on a property without disclosure and the occupants became ill, then it becomes a matter for criminal prosecution first and civil prosecution later. In my professional opinion, my analogy would stand up to scrutiny because there are so many precedents that it warrants a second look. You may have a license to carry a concealed weapon, but you are responsible for your negligent discharge of the weapon. You may have a license to operate a motor vehicle, but you are responsible for your negligent operation of the motor vehicle. You may also have a license to spray pesticides, but you are responsible for the negligent spraying of your pesticides. The license itself should not bestow immunity upon the licensee for criminal acts. Thus, issuing a license without a test or even in-person identity verification is as reckless as the acts perpetrated by the individual that receives the license. The reckoning comes full circle as consumers realize that their families have been poisoned and their homes and lands contaminated forever by the holders of pest control licenses who are unfit legally to dispense drugs less dangerous than the pesticides themselves.
Where does all this leave the consumer and his or her family? First, consumers and homeowners have rights and those rights have been and will continue to be trampled until consumers take definitive measures to stop the needless poisoning of their homes, schools and land. The first step is fire existing pest control companies that purchase, store, mix, or apply toxic pesticides, then weigh your options for legal recourse. Remember that the effects of your exposure to toxic pesticides may not be known for years and by refusing to do business with enterprises that spray toxins, consumers send a message that poisoning-for-profit is unacceptable.
This article does not constitute legal advice, merely concepts and ideas that are the sole property of the author.
CEO & President
This article is copyright© 2005 Dr. M.F. Mitchell
All Rights Reserved • Unauthorized Duplication Strictly Prohibited
Click here to Schedule Your Service
Call AlwaysEco toll free 1(855)AlwaysEco or 1(855) 259-2973