Terminator Gene

Bill to Ban Terminator Seeds Re-introduced:

Terminator Technology genetically engineers plants to produce sterile seeds at harvest. To ask the Prime Minister to support Bill C-53 "Terminator Seed Ban Act" and to find out more about how you can take action, visit this site:
http://www.cban.ca/terminatoraction.

Sweet Corn & Seed Corn

MINOR USE LABEL EXPANSION

IMPACT HERBICIDE FOR THE CONTROL OF LABELLED WEEDS ON SWEET CORN AND SEED CORN


The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) recently announced the approval of a minor use label expansion for IMPACT Herbicide (topramezone) for the control of labelled weeds on sweet corn and seed corn in Canada.

IMPACT Herbicide is a Group 27 Herbicide, which contains 336 g/L of the active ingredient “topramezone” in a suspension formulation. It is a systemic post-emergence herbicide for selective control of grasses and broadleaf weeds. It was already registered in Canada (Pest Control Product Reg. No. 28141) for the control of common lamb’s quarter, lady’s thumb, common ragweed, eastern black nightshade, wild mustard, redroot pigweed and green pigweed, and suppression of grass weeds such as green foxtail, yellow foxtail, barnyard grass and large crabgrass in field corn (including both conventional and herbicide tolerant varieties).

IMPACT Herbicide must be used as a broadcast ground treatment in tank mix with atrazine (37 mL Impact + 1.04 L Aatrex 480/ha) with Assist (1.25% v/v) +UAN (1.25% v/v). It is recommended to apply IMPACT Herbicide when the corn is at the 1 to 7 leaf stage, broadleaf weeds are at the 1 to 8 leaf stage and grass weeds are at the 1 to 4 leaf stage. Please see the label for details of use pattern.

This label expansion will provide corn growers with a much needed weed management tool to help manage one of their most challenging problems of controlling both broad leaf and certain grass weeds in corn fields for many years in Canada.

This minor use project was initiated by the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Pest Management Centre (AAFC-PMC) Minor Use Pesticide Program in 2007. Original data generation came in part from the Pest Management Centre’s Minor Use Research Program. This label expansion, achieved through the User Requested Minor Use Label Expansion (URMULE) process of PMRA, which was sponsored by AAFC-PMC in response to minor use priorities established by corn producers, processors, extension personnel and researchers in Canada.

The sponsors wish to thank the personnel of Amvac Chemical Corporation (Registrant) and BASF Canada Inc. (Distributor) for their support of this registration.

For copies of the new minor use label contact:
Kalidas Subedi at the Pest Management Centre
Email: kalidas.subedi@agr.gc.ca
Telephone: 613-759-5536

Or the registrant BASF Canada
Telephone: 1-877-371-2273
Website: www.agsolutions.ca

Subscribe/unsubscribe to these e-mail notifications

Pest Management Updates

The Pest Management Centre at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has new information available on its website. Visit the PMC Website or click on the hyperlinks below for the latest pest management information.

The following project pages under Pesticide Risk Reduction Program > Implementation projects have been updated with the final results:

PRR06-360 The development and implementation of a late blight fungicide spray model for Canadian potato growers

MU03-ENT03 Replacement technologies for managing fruit flies, Rhagoletis species, key pests of cherry in Canada

MUR06-100 Reduced risk herbicides for horticultural crops in organic soils: supplemental registration data & herbicide screening

PRR03-230 Pesticide free production systems for flax, wheat and oat

PRR06-370 Improving the scope and delivery of weather-based decision models for plant diseases in wheat

SCR07-005 Field Trials to evaluate fungicides for control of Phytophthora root rot of caneberries (raspberry)

MUR06-110 Evaluation of various reduced-risk products for management of powdery mildew in greenhouse cucumber, tomato and pepper

PRR06-520 Detection and tracking of airborne rust spores as an information tool for pesticide-reduction strategies

PRR06-490 Pesticide risk reduction in soybeans by comparing conventional, organic and Integrated Weed Management systems and soybean cultivar traits

Supreme Court Decision

Supreme Court Decision has Major Implications for Canadian Industry

GLOBE-Net (November 24, 2008) - In a move that could have far reaching implications for Canadian industry, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued a decision that would require companies to compensate nearby neighbours for ’excessive annoyance’ even if they have complied with all applicable rules and regulations.

The unanimous judgment by the Court puts an end to a long-running battle between St. Lawrence Cement Company and people living near its plant in Beauport, Quebec.

A group of over 2,000 nearby residents initiated a class-action suit in 1993, alleging that the St. Lawrence Cement plant was spewing excessive amounts of residue on their homes, and that odours and noise associated with its operation was devaluing their properties. The company shut down the plant in 1997 after spending over $8 million between 1991 and 1995 to install new furnace scrubbers, and had appointed a director of environmental affairs to deal with the many complaints it was receiving.

The Supreme Court recognized that St. Lawrence Cement did not commit any fault in the performance of its activities. But it held that the company is still liable on the grounds that its activities caused ’abnormal or excessive annoyances to the neighbourhood.’

The Court referenced article 976 of the Quebec Civil Code (C.C.Q.), noting that no proof of faulty behaviour is required to establish the liability of an owner who caused excessive neighbourhood annoyances.

The Article sets a limit on property rights by providing that a landowner may not impose abnormal or excessive annoyances on its neighbours, but that limit depends on the results of an act committed by an owner, not on an owner’s conduct.

In effect, although the company followed the rules in place during this period and did all the right things as a good corporate citizen, it was still liable for the consequences of its operations.

As noted by the Quebec Business Council on the Environment, this scheme of no-fault liability regarding neighbourhood disturbances is consistent with the approaches taken in Canadian common law and in French civil law. "What is more, such a scheme is consistent with general policy considerations, such as the objective of environmental protection and the application of the polluter pay principle" noted justices Marie Deschamps and Louis LeBel in the unanimous decision.

As such, the implications of the St. Lawrence Cement decision will have relevance in all other provinces, and could motivate citizen groups to sue companies in their neighbourhoods that are causing ’excessive’ environmental annoyances.

"The result is that future environmental nuisance claims will be more easily proven under a no-fault regime, and polluters will have even more incentive to clean up their act to avoid being sued by their neighbours," said Will Amos, a lawyer for the University of Ottawa Ecojustice Environmental Law Clinic, who was quoted in a November 20, 2008 Canwest News Service.

Paul Cassidy, one of Canada’s leading experts on environmental issues (Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP) noted to GLOBE-Net that "this decision highlights the increased liability risk in Canada posed by environmental class actions and is yet another clear message from the court that companies must employ a high level of environmental due diligence program in their operations."

At common law, nuisance is defined as unreasonable interference with the use of land. Whether the interference results from intentional, negligent or non-faulty conduct is of no consequence provided that the harm can be characterized as a nuisance. The interference must be intolerable to an ordinary person. This is assessed by considering factors such as the nature, severity and duration of the interference, the character of the neighbourhood, the sensitivity of the plaintiff’s use and the utility of the activity.

The Supreme Court decision upheld an earlier ruling of the Quebec Superior Court, which absolved St. Lawrence Cement of wrongdoing, but which nonetheless ordered the company to pay about $15 million in damages to the residents that had suffered excessive annoyance from its operations. A lower court decision had also found the company liable in the absence of fault, but limited the scope of class-action by restricting damages to homeowners, and excluding tenants and family members from claims. The Supreme Court rejected this.

In a November 20^th statement acknowledging the Supreme Court decision, St. Lawrence Cement said it was pleased the Court recognized the company committed no fault in operating the Beauport cement plant prior to its decommissioning in 1997.

However, the company noted "the implications of today’s confirmation by the Supreme Court of Canada that a no-fault liability regime does exist in the Province of Québec may have far reaching implications for Canadian industry. This precedent setting decision will require further review and detailed analysis, not only by SLC, but by all potentially impacted Canadian companies, in order to better understand our obligations consequent to this ruling."

The company notes community advisory boards are in place for its cement plants, and regular community open houses are held to demonstrate how its processes and technologies work. The company employs approximately 3,000 Canadians, generates annual revenues over $1.5 billion, and operates in more than 50 Canadian communities

Pesticide Use and Pest Management Practices of Canadian Apple Growers

A report of “Pesticide Use and Pest Management Practices of Canadian Apple Growers” is now available on-line. This paper is based on data collected in the Canadian Crop Protection Survey, a survey conducted on behalf of the AAFC Pesticide Risk Reduction Program. The survey was designed to collect baseline data on quantities and types of pesticides used and the integrated pest management practices employed. The document describes survey methods used, and reports on pest management practices for all Canadian apple production areas during the 2005 growing season

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1224860975699&lang=e

Mining in NB

Cultivated land protected in NB Mining Act

FREDERICTON, NBBY BARBARA SCOTT Farm Focus

Sharp increases in the price of some minerals, especially uranium, led to a rush of claims staking in New Brunswick in 2007. Approximately 17,000 new claims were filled with the NB Department of Natural Resources (DNR), making a total of 37,000 claims, compared to 20,000 in 2006, considered to be an average year for prospecting. And this led to flurry of questions from anxious landowners. NB Mining Recorder Ron Shaw readily admits the department could not keep up. “We could not answer landowners fast enough.”

On July 4, mineral claims staking in the province was temporarily suspended while DNR develops a new method to replace the current ground-staking practice. The department expects it will take more than a year to create the new electronic online map-based system announced by Minister Donald Arsenault. It hopes to be operational by November 2009. In the meantime, staff anticipates an interim process will be up and running this November.

At that time the exclusive right to explore for Crown owned minerals will resume by whatever method has been devised. This will not be ground-staking or the on-line map-based system but will probably involve entering into an agreement with the minister.

How can you know if a claim has been staked on your land? What are your rights have when it comes to mineral exploration on your farm? In New Brunswick, cultivated lands are considered special lands. Prospectors can cross your farm in the search for minerals but they must take care not to damage your fields or orchards as they stake or explore potential claims. Since 1986, cultivated fields, orchards, managed sugar bushes, Christmas tree plantations and gardens are considered special lands under NB’s mining regulations but a farm’s woodlot is not. Prospectors must not do any work that damages or interferes with the landowner’s use or enjoyment of special lands without the permission of the landowner, Ron Shaw explained. This means the prospector must reach an agreement with the landowner before going ahead with trenching, cutting trees, building roads, drilling, digging a shaft or other work that could cause damage. But on other lands, like a farm’s woodlot, the prospector must try to contact the owner and reach an agreement on compensation for potential damages. This could entail stumpage for damaged trees or a reclamation plan.

If the prospector cannot reach an agreement with the landowner within 60 days of contacting them, they can proceed with the work after making a damage deposit with the Mining Recorder. Regardless of the time elapsed the prospector cannot go ahead with work that would damage cultivated land unless the owner agrees. As well, mineral exploration and extraction is prohibited within 300 meters of a house and buildings.

However, work that is non-damaging in nature does not require landowner permission. This could include geophysical and geochemical survey work such as using Geiger counters or taking soil samples. Under current regulations, prospectors have 21 days to apply to record a claim. Until now, an actual stake with a silver tag would alert property owners that a prospector or mining company was claiming mineral rights on that parcel of land. (Mineral rights are separate from surface rights that include soil and timber. In most provinces, the Crown holds the rights to minerals that include the right to prospect, explore and mine on a given piece of land.)

In the future, property owners will have to check maps. You can already do so by going to the mining and petroleum section of DNR’s website and selecting mineral claims map information. Shaw said the maps are regularly updated the first of each week. Claims holders must submit reports to the province annually but the contents are keep confidential for two years, then the information is available to the public.

A property owner can stake his own land if it is not already claimed but in doing so, they must follow the same requirements of any prospector: obtain a prospector’s license and claims tags. A claim covers a square (400 meters to the side) of 16 hectares or 40 acres. Shaw pointed out it might take several claims to completely stake a farm and it might involve staking onto neighbouring properties. A claim must be renewed annually. A property owner is required to submit yearly reports to the province and, like other prospectors, carry out work to prove the claim. There are annual costs (renewing licenses and claims) and the work requirements gradually increase. Over 10 years, the claims holder could pay $2500. Annual reports must meet DNR’s standard requirements. The Mining Commissioner resolves unresolved disputes between prospectors and landowners. While staking your own property will prevent anyone else claiming the mineral rights to your farm, it does not prevent underground mines extending underneath the fields. If a farmer is worried about the potential environmental impacts from a mine in the area, he can make them known during the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, carried out by the Department of Environment. However, EIAs are not required for all mining activities. For instance, gravel pits and quarries do not require a full EIA. Information on the Mining Act, landowners rights, and mining activity is available on DNR’s website.

Shaw emphasized that the Mining Act is the document that must be consulted in regard to any legal matters. That Mining Act is presently being reviewed.

Changing pigs' feed may reduce phosphorous in the soil

Special Feed for Swine May Help Farmers’ Crops, the Environment
Research shows changing pigs' food may reduce phosphorus in the soil.


Hogs at an Ohio farmResearch shows that waste from pigs that are fed a special kind of corn may help a farmer's crops. And it also may help the environment. Any farmer who raises swine knows that pigs produce a lot of waste. This has both good and bad effects. Swine waste has nutrients like nitrogen that can help fertilize crops when it is placed on the fields. But the manure contents may not be what a crop needs. And removing too much manure can be a big job.Soil scientist Brian Wienhold said most of the phosphorus in traditional corn fed to pigs is in the substance phytate. Pigs lack a chemical in their bodies to break down phytate. Most of the phosphorus in traditional corn feed passes through the animal without processing. It is expelled in the manure.Placing the usual swine manure in the fields can increase the phosphorus content of the ground. And when rains cause the phosphorus to wash away, it can harm the environment.But science may be able to solve the problem. A report on the subject recently appeared in the publication Soil Science Society of America Journal. The researchers are from the Agricultural Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. They tested fields not far from the Nebraska cities of Lincoln and Hastings. They put three different substances on the fields: chemical fertilizer, manure from swine fed traditional corn diets and manure from swine fed low-phytate corn diets.The scientists then compared how much nitrogen and phosphorus were available in the soil. They found that using slurry from swine fed low-phytate corn diets resulted in slower build-up of phosphorus in the soil. At the same time, it did not reduce the availability of the phosphorus to the crops.Other scientists also have worked with low-phytate feed in recent years. For example, in research reported in two thousand four, University of Kentucky researchers gave pigs and chicks low-phytate feed. The substance phytase was added to the feed. The researchers said it helped break down the phytates.