The Great Pesticide Debate

[Guest guest]

Published on Friday, June 20, 2008 by The Calgary Herald (Canada)

The Great Pesticide Debate

Calgary committee to vote on the phasing out of cosmetic pesticides on

Wednesday

 

by Emma Gilchrist

It’s a battle that’s been raging in this country for more than 15

years, with skirmishes fought in town council rooms, the House of

Commons, the Supreme Court of Canada and on the letters pages of this

newspaper.

 

But the use of pesticides for purely esthetic purposes — such as

killing dandelions — has likely never been a hotter topic than it is

today.

 

The push for a cosmetic pesticide ban in Calgary comes at a time when

citizens have started questioning the safety of the food they eat, the

toys they buy and the chemicals they’re exposed to.

 

That public awareness has seen the movement for a pesticide ban pick

up speed in Calgary, says Robin McLeod, spokeswoman for the Coalition

for a Healthy Calgary.

 

A Canadian Cancer Society survey released in May found 87 per cent of

Albertans support community bylaws banning the cosmetic use of

pesticides.

 

“Environmental concerns are becoming a bigger issue for Canadians as a

whole,†McLeod says.

 

If passed, Calgary would be the first major municipality west of

Ontario to implement a pesticide ban. In February, three aldermen

brought forward a proposal for Calgary to phase out the use of

pesticides — including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides — for

cosmetic purposes by the end of 2010. The proposal called for city

crews to stop using the chemicals by December 2009, with the ban to

include private property by December 2010.

 

After two hours of debate, the issue was referred to an environmental

advisory board to study and come back with recommendations.

 

That brings us to this Wednesday, when an implementation plan goes

before a standing committee of seven aldermen. If they approve the

plan, it will then be voted on by city council on July 14th.

 

More than 135 communities across Canada, including Halifax and

Toronto, have already enacted pesticide-free bylaws. Ontario recently

introduced legislation to ban the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides

and Quebec has already enacted similar laws.

 

In 2007, Calgary city crews used 3,880 kilograms of pesticides, an

amount that has been steadily increasing in recent years, according to

Ward 11 Ald. Brian Pincott — one of the aldermen who proposed a

pesticide ban.

 

The Canadian Cancer Society has called on Calgary to move ahead with a

ban, arguing that exposure to chemicals in the products are linked

with leukemia and several other cancers. Children may be at the

greatest risk because they often crawl and play on grass.

 

Even Home Depot announced in April that it will voluntarily stop

selling traditional pesticides in Canada by the end of 2008 and will

increase its selection of environmentally friendly alternatives.

 

However, on May 16, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency

released a reevaluation of 2,4-D, the leading pesticide in use in

Canada, saying it is safe when used as directed.

 

“There is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health, future

generations or the environment will result from use or exposure to

this product,†the agency reports.

 

What are we to make of all of this?

 

Advocates for a pesticide ban raise concerns with the methodology of

the Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s report and point to countless

other studies that link pesticide exposure with health concerns, while

opponents — many from the lawn care and chemical industries — say

environmentalists are fear-mongering.

 

Pincott, one of three aldermen who brought forward the proposal for a

ban, questions the credibility of the Pest Management Regulatory

Agency.

 

“They didn’t retest the chemicals; they just did a literature review,â€

Pincott says, pointing to a 2003 federal auditor general’s report that

raised concerns about the regulatory agency. Among the concerns: the

agency relies on industry to supply data on its own products and only

evaluates chemicals on a one by one basis — the cumulative effects of

chemicals aren’t taken into account.

 

The agency confirms that it does not test the products itself, but

says test guidelines set by the Organization for Economic Co-operation

and Development are in place to prevent data from being manipulated.

 

As for cumulative effects, however, the agency says there are only a

few chemical groups that are well enough understood to allow

estimation of cumulative risk. But the agency does take into

consideration the effects of life-time exposure to any single

pesticide.

 

The combined effect of chemicals in the environment is a growing

environmental theme, often called the “chemical soup†concept. It

maintains that we simply don’t know the effect all of these combined

substances on our health — and that if we don’t know, we should err on

the side of caution.

 

“They are not needed. They are not protecting our health and they are

not protecting the environment. It’s a no-brainer,†McLeod says. “If

we can achieve the same things by natural means, then why aren’t we

doing it?â€

 

She says that by planting more appropriate species and using eco-

friendly techniques on lawns, such as top-dressing and aerating, the

need for pesticides to kill dandelions can be greatly reduced.

 

Pincott says municipal governments need to take the lead on this

issue.

 

“Any province that has implemented a ban, or is looking at it, has

followed the lead of its cities,†Pincott says. “We have to show that

leadership.â€

 

He says a pesticide ban is about public health and safety.

 

“It’s really simple: to remove needless exposure to poisons. It’s

something people are asking me to do.â€

 

Lawn care companies, however, take issue with a ban, arguing they must

still be allowed to spot spray areas where there are weeds and pests.

 

Nutri-Lawn, which advertises “ecology friendly lawn care,†is in

favour of stronger restrictions on pesticides, but not a full-out ban.

 

Marketing manager Ryan Nix says Nutri-Lawn would like to see

pesticides available, but only to people who are licensed to apply

them.

 

“They are safe if applied by the label instructions . . . but there is

no control as to whether they are followed.â€

 

About 25 per cent of Nutri-Lawn customers pay roughly 20 per cent more

for an organic lawn care program.

 

“That is the side of the business that is growing most quickly,†Nix

says. “They (organic products) work a lot better over the long term.â€

 

Nevertheless, a pesticide ban doesn’t sit well with Nix, who says

certain situations require them, such as infestations of sports fields

or trees.

 

Pincott says companies have a misplaced fear about a pesticide ban

hurting their businesses.

 

“If we take a look at what has happened in other jurisdictions, the

landscaping industry has boomed,†Pincott says, pointing to Halifax.

 

McLeod says a ban gives companies the opportunity to capitalize on

organic lawn care.

 

But Pincott concedes the public will have to adjust.

 

“There will be some dandelions on sports fields,†he says. “But that

has never hurt anybody.â€

 

Ultimately, where you stand on the great pesticide debate depends on

how much you trust the Pest Management Regulatory Agency review and

how you feel about erring on the side of caution — oh, and how high

your tolerance is for dandelions.

 

–Emma Gilchrist

 

© The Calgary Herald 2008

 

 

 

“We now know that a neo-conservative is an arsonist who sets the house on fire

and six years later boasts that no one can put it out.†- Bill Moyers