Printable View
Why do you keep lying?Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Neonics are not banned in Ontario. They are being more strictly regulated and monitored while the studies that SHOULD have been conducted before they were ever released for use, are conducted 15-20 yrs too late.
If a grower wants to use neonics, they'll have to prove that there's actually a threat to their crops.
I would expect growers to follow the regulations.
http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-ma...9633587#cn_1.7
AB 43%
SK 24%
MB 17%
ON 8%
QC 4%
others 4%
Why can't you accept the truth???Quote:
Originally Posted by Oddmott
so it's only an 80%, right??? The only reason there hasn't been a 100% ban is that would require approval from Health Canada, which apparently is not forthcoming. That should tell you a bit about the Ontario ban right there.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ario-1.2849318
Actually, Environment Canada is one of the principle bodies involved in the in-depth Canadian tests being conducted on neonics right now. And Health Canada accepts their findings as gospel and moves policy based on it.
I'm extremely confident from Environment Canada's initial reports (after 2 years of testing) that they're going to find that neonics are substantially lethal to numerous pollinators (they're testing beyond just commercial honeybees) and a full ban will be issued within a decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
From the CBC article "
The strategy includes
- An 80 per cent reduction in acreage planted with neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seed by 2017.
- Limiting the number of honey bees that die during winter by 15 per cent by 2020.
- Developing a "comprehensive" action plan for pollinator health. "
I wonder how OMAFRA is going to accomplish point #2? That seems like pie in the sky thinking, unless they dictate the actions of honey producers and pollinator companies. I wonder if it is meant to be limiting the deaths to 15 percent, or reducing it by 15 percent? Limiting it by 15 percent does not make any sense.
EDIT - I found the discussion paper. CBC just made an editorial mistake; OMAFRA wants to limit winter-kill to 15 percent.
OMAFRA's plan is HERE
LOL!!! or should I say more accurately say "Gag".
M on one hand I kind of lean towards your points, however from the cbc article Werner just linked.
~The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs laid out a three-point initiative Tuesday that it says will ensure "healthy ecosystems" and a "productive agricultural sector"
And who is the Agriculture and Rural affairs minister? Ah yes Ms Wynne herself.
~An 80 per cent reduction in acreage planted with neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seed by 2017.
That's a "ban" imo.
~The ministry will consult with stakeholders on a proposal to reduce neonicotinoid-treated seed, and if the proposal moves forward, new rules will be in place by July 1
Ah yes, Ms Wynnes favorite ploy. Stakeholder consultations. Aka promises to sit at a table, listen to stakeholders before ramming her ideals down throats. FN Land claims, Wind farms, Sex ed, ad nauseum.
~In October, Ontario's environmental watchdog urged the province to act before the completion of a federal study that could see recommendations to limit the use of the pesticides nationwide.
Hmmm, pot calling kettle black, lets react and jump in with both feet before completion of Federal studies????????????? Be scared imo, very scared.
This new regulation is unfounded, impractical, and unrealistic and the government does not know how to implement it," said Henry Van Ankum in the statement. He added that the announcement is evidence that "popular vote trumps science and practicality."
No alarmism that last, Ms Wynne and this admin have proven many times to be, inept and motivated not by science, or whats best or much of anything except....See the GEA, Wind, smart meters, all day daycare, See so much.
Would you trust Ms Wynne with a lemon-aide stand let alone to be "right" (why not wait for the Feds due in the fall??) on this, or implement it properly?
BanQuote:
Originally Posted by JBen
: to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination>; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>
This is not a ban, it's regulation.
Nope, my faith is in the results gleaned from the continuing EU testing that is now 8 years old and the extensive Canadian tests being performed by both the private sectors and Fed gov't. That is what will drive national policy and lead to the primary outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
In the end, it doesn't matter what or who Wynne is - the neonics are proven harmful, the only question is just how harmful. Tighter regulations are justified as we wait for answers from the testing that should have been performed decades ago.
"Ban"
Semantics M.
And yeah, it does matter. Weren't you yourself in another thread griping about how untrusty, incompetent they are?
time and time again they have proven numerous things. Be it the GEA.....Windfarms, (Windfarms in Lake O, then cancelled because there wasn't enough data/studies), smart meters and so much more.
We're not talking about a solution looking for a problem here. We're talking about an actual problem that has been identified, with lethal effects on several species under certain circumstances. Hating a government is a piss poor excuse to argue for non-action.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Difference between hating a govt and knowing they are
A) Inept....By all means M, name me one inititive you feel they have implemented correctly.
B) Concerned only with popular votes
C) Corrupt
I guess you being a bee keeper has absolutely jack squat to do with it.
Me, I'm impartial, unbiased
You. Biased, with self interest.
See the difference. I really have "no bone" in this other than seeing both sides and despite me actually "siding" with you....This govts track record speaks for itself. No escaping that.
And no splitting hairs over whether regulations reduce it by 80% or 100% is not "accuracy", it's semantics.
Just facts accuracy on all the above.