[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

FW: pesticide info


 

Title: Hot Debate On Pesticide Notification

6/12/2002

Hot debate on pesticide notification

DEREK GEE/Buffalo News
A
News Staff Reporter

For Snyder resident Kathie Augustyn, the issue of pesticide
notification is one of life or death.

She tried for nine years to find out when her neighbors were going to
have their lawn treated with pesticides so she could close her
windows or take her two children away from the area. But in 1995, her
10-year-old son Michael died of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of
cancer that has been linked to pesticide exposure. Augustyn said she
believes her neighbors' pesticide-treated lawn contributed to her
son's death.

"I tried to tell them so many times (not to use pesticides), but they
were concerned about keeping their lawn green," Augustyn said. "When
he died, they finally stopped spraying."

Augustyn was one of more than 50 people who signed up to address Erie
County legislators on the issue at a meeting Tuesday night in County
Hall. Legislators held the meeting to gauge public opinion on a
proposed law that would require lawn care companies to notify people
in advance when pesticides will be sprayed on a neighboring property.

Lawn care professionals such as Michael Maciejewski of Tree Care of
New York said the chemicals are not dangerous. He has worked as a
tree spray technician for 17 years and never experienced any ailment
from pesticides.

"I'm still alive, and I get soaked in the stuff," he said. Chlorine
and other chemicals used in swimming pools are much more dangerous
than pesticides, he said.

Other lawn care professionals worry that the legislation will lead to
more dangerous use of pesticides. Don Burton, president of the state
Lawn Care Association, said lawn care companies in New York counties
with this law are using larger amounts of granular pesticides, which
are not regulated under the law, rather than liquid pesticides, which
are. Granular pesticides require four or five applications a year to
keep a lawn healthy; liquid pesticides need to be applied only twice
annually.

The law also does little to regulate homeowners' use of pesticides,
said John White of WTC, a company that trains professionals in how to
use pesticides. Homeowners can buy the same chemicals as lawn care
companies, but under the proposed law would have to post signs only
when using pesticides on an area larger than 100 square feet. White
said the law would encourage homeowners to use the pesticides
themselves without the proper training.

"Any product misused can be dangerous," he said.

But pet owners and asthmatics argued that the law is necessary to
allow them to take precautions to protect themselves and their pets.
Sandra Carrubba, a Kenmore resident, said her cat suffered a stroke
and her daughter's asthma worsened as a result of her neighbor's lawn
being treated with pesticides.

"My daughter and I both got horrible headaches from the spraying," she said.

The level of commercial pesticide use was between 21,000 and 37,000
gallons in the Hamburg and Williamsville areas in 1999, according to
state pesticide sales and use reports. Use was between 7,500 and
21,000 gallons in the Orchard Park, Lackawanna and North Amherst
areas.

But Maciejewski said changing the law will only harm small
businesses. He said he would have to hire two or three more people to
notify his customer's neighbors, which would put Tree Care of New
York out of business.

The industry also offers a registry that people sensitive to the use
of pesticides can join, Burton said. Lawn care companies phone the
people on the registry when they are doing a job in their
neighborhood, but interest has been limited, he said. As a result, he
said, a more formal system is not necessary.

The notification bill, proposed by County Legislator Crystal Peoples,
is an optional part of a state law passed in 2000. The law mandates
that schools must notify parents if they're having their grounds
sprayed. But the law leaves it up to counties to decide if they want
to mandate notification in other cases.

lison Berkowitz of Amherst listens as Peter Warren of Amherst offers
his support for a "pesticide neighbor notification" law Tuesday.By
JENNI GLENN

e-mail: jglenn@buffnews.com

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020612/1026659.asp
--

Mike Christie
(613) 228-7499 / bus.
(613) 228-7487 / fax.
mikechristie@rogers.com  / e-mail


The Laws of Ecology: "All things are interconnected. Everything goes
somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Nature bats last."

by Ernest Callenbach



Title: Bill C-53 - 3rd Reading (Debate June 12th)

37Th Parliament, 1St Session

Edited Hansard * Number 204

Contents

Wednesday, June 12, 2002


Pest Control Act

     Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-53, An Act to protect human health and safety and the environment
by regulating products used for the control of pests, be read the
third time and passed.

     Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak at third
reading of Bill C-53, the Pest Control Products Act.

     The passing of this bill will enhance the government's protection
of Canadians' health and their environment by minimizing risks posed
by pest control products.

     Enshrined in this legislation is the requirement to incorporate
modern risk assessment concepts into the scientific assessment of
pesticides. This includes additional safety factors to protect
children, thereby helping to ensure that Canada's children are given
special protection from health risks posed by pesticides.

     These additional safety factors recognize that children are
affected by pesticides in a way that is different from adults and are
applied whenever children might be exposed to pesticides through food
or residential uses.

     Health protection will also be strengthened through C-53's
requirement that aggregate exposure to pesticides and the cumulative
effects of pesticides that act in the same way be assessed.

     One of the most important amendments that was made to the bill
was to ensure that these factors are considered when making
registration decisions about all pesticides, not just those used on
food. This bill states unequivocally that no pesticide may be used in
Canada unless any associated risks to the environment have first been
determined to fall within acceptable limits.

     The term "environment", defined broadly to be consistent with the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, includes the components of the
earth, all layers of the atmosphere, animals, plants and other living
organisms. Environmental risks include the potential capacity of
pesticides to do harm to ecosystems, species at risk and biological
diversity.

     Bill C-53 supports minimizing risks, not just keeping them within
acceptable limits. A pesticide will not be registered if its value is
determined to be unacceptable-that is, if it does not contribute to
pest management in a positive way. The assessment of value, which
includes the pesticide's efficacy, enables the lowest effective rate
of the pesticide to the determined and it is only that lowest rate
that is approved for use.

     One of the most important features of this bill is to increase
the Canadian public's access to information generated and held by the
government.

     When enacted, the new Pest Control Products Act will make
Canada's pesticide regulatory system among the most transparent and
open in the world. A public registry will be established that allows
the public to have access to detailed evaluation reports on the risks
and the value of registered pesticides. The public will also be
allowed to view the confidential test data on which pesticide
evaluations are based.

     Bill C-53 will make it easier for Health Canada to share
scientific studies on pesticides with other federal, provincial,
territorial and international regulators and with health
professionals.

     Sharing studies with its international regulatory counterparts
enhances the process for international harmonization, including joint
reviews of pesticides. Joint reviews give Canadian growers equal
access to newer, safer pesticides so they can be competitive in the
marketplace, while helping to ensure that Canadians have a safe and
abundant food supply.

     International harmonization also contributes to risk reduction by
speeding up the withdrawal of older, frequently more hazardous
pesticides and expediting their replacement with pesticides that are
safer and more compatible with the goals of sustainable pest
management.

     Bill C-53 will also strengthen the government's post-registration
control of pesticides. This control is being enhanced, first, by
requiring mandatory reporting of adverse effects.

     A company that is applying to register a pesticide or one that
has a registered pesticide will be obliged to report to the
government any adverse effects produced by its product.

     Failure to report adverse effects will be an offence under the
legislation. When the government receives an adverse effects report,
it will review the information and decide whether it should initiate
a special review in order to determine if registration of the
pesticide needs to be amended or cancelled so that health and
environmental risks remain acceptable. Action can be taken right away
to protect human health or the environment, if necessary.

»  (1700) 

     The government's capacity to re-evaluate pesticides
systematically is being strengthened, notably by requiring
re-evaluations of pesticides to be done 15 years after they are
registered.

     It is also providing the minister with the authority to take
action against registrants who fail to provide the data needed to
conduct re-evaluations. Strengthened capacity to conduct
re-evaluations will translate into better environmental protection.
It will also translate into better health protection, notably for
vulnerable populations such as children and seniors. The
re-evaluation process will be similar to the processes used in the
United States and Europe.

     Finally, Bill C-53 brings federal pesticide legislation into line
with contemporary standards regarding compliance. It provides clear
rules and increased powers for Health Canada's inspectors. The bill
also allows higher maximum penalties to be set when pesticides are
not marketed or used in accordance with the law--up to $1 million or
three years in jail for the most serious offences.

     Having touched on the main thrusts of Bill C-53, I will now
review the changes accepted by the Standing Committee on Health which
have been reported back to the House. Under these amendments, the
major elements of the bill are substantially unchanged. But in order
to improve and refine these elements, significant amendments have
been accepted. They reflect comments made by committee members, the
debates in the House, and take into account comments made by numerous
other Canadians in submissions before the committee.

     To respond to concerns that the term "acceptable risk" was too
vague, an interpretation of this term has been added to the
legislation, "Acceptable risk" means that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm to human health or the environment will result
from exposure to or use of a pesticide.

     This level of precaution is the most stringent way to protect
Canadians and their environment from the potential risks associated
with pesticides.

     By adding a definition of "formulant" and including this term in
the definition of "pest control product", the requirement to ensure
that all ingredients of a pesticide are assessed has been clarified.
As well, as I have already mentioned, consideration of aggregate
exposure and cumulative effects that was already in the section on
maximum residue limits has been added into the registration and
re-evaluation sections of the bill. The committee also accepted the
suggested amendment that information about adverse effects be
included in the material available for Canadians to examine in the
public registry.

     An important objective of the bill is to minimize risks
associated with pesticides, not just ensure that risks are
acceptable. One way of doing this is to facilitate access to
pesticides that pose lower risks that those already registered. To
this end, an important amendment made to the bill was to add a
provision to require the minister to expedite the evaluations of
reduced risk pesticides. The new provision in the bill will ensure
that this is given priority. Another amendment also clarified that
the annual report to Parliament on administration of the act will
include the status of registrations of lower risk pesticides.

     Access to minor use pesticides by farmers and other users was
another key area of discussion during the committee deliberations. A
specific authority to make regulations respecting minor uses has now
been incorporated in the bill.

     Finally, a provision has been added to have the act reviewed by a
parliamentary committee after seven years.

     There are two areas that have received considerable attention:
restricting the so-called "cosmetic use" of pesticides, and extending
the precautionary principle to the registration of new pesticides. I
would like to explain why amendments have not been made in these
areas.

     Some witnesses before the standing committee stated that the
cosmetic use of pesticides should just be banned by the federal
government. The fact is that all pesticides and their uses must be
treated in the same way under federal law. They must all be subjected
to rigorous scientific testing and the results must be critically
evaluated using the latest risk assessment methods. The results of
these risk assessments will be different for each pesticide and use.
An outright ban on "cosmetic uses" of pesticides presupposes that
they all cause unacceptable risks.

     That is not the case. Since the PCPA is based primarily on the
criminal law power, it would not be appropriate to make that use a
crime if the risks posed by that use have been determined to be
acceptable.

»  (1705) 

     The preamble to Bill C-53 recognizes the interdependence of
federal, provincial and territorial pest management regulatory
systems and encourages respect for the responsibilities of each order
of government.

     Should provinces and municipalities, whose legislation is not
based on the criminal power, want to further restrict the use of any
pesticide, they may.

     For example, provinces may have sensitive wetlands that need to
be protected and they would restrict the pesticide from being used in
that area. Or, citizens of a particular municipality may decide that
they do not want to have a pesticide used in their community no
matter how small the risks and they may persuade the municipal
government to enact a by-law to that effect, if their municipality
has been given such authority by the province.

     In any case, access to new, safer pesticides and an active
re-evaluation program for older pesticides will ensure that any
pesticides registered at the federal level do not pose unacceptable
risks, bearing in mind the very stringent interpretation of
"acceptable risk" that has now been added to the bill. Priority has
been given to re-evaluating all lawn pesticides.

     Suggestions have been made to have broader incorporation of the
precautionary principle in Bill C-53. It is already included in the
section of the Bill that pertains to pesticides that are already
registered and in use. The principle is stated there so that if
threats of serious or irreversible harm are detected for a pesticide
that is already registered, the government will not have to wait for
full scientific certainty before taking cost-effective measures to
prevent adverse health impact or environmental degradation.

     Use of the precautionary principle under these circumstances will
enhance the government's capacity to act quickly when threats are
detected.

     The situation regarding the approval of new pesticides, that is
those that are not already in use, is different. The Pest Control
Products Act has as its fundamental approach the extremely rigorous
assessments of pesticides before they are registered for sale or use
in Canada.

     As explained earlier, "acceptable risk" means that there is
reasonable certainty that no harm to human health or the environment
will result from use of the pesticide. Applying the precautionary
principle based on a threat of serious or irreversible harm to the
registration of new pesticides would actually weaken the standard set
for safety, not strengthen it.

     Registration decisions are based on whether or not exposure would
be 100-1000 times lower than the level at which no adverse effects
are shown. This is a more stringent test of safety than whether or
not there are "threats of serious or irreversible damage", which is
the wording contained in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act's
version of the precautionary principle and the one in this bill.

     Pre-market assessment of pesticides means that Health Canada does
not simply allow a pesticide to be used and then wait for evidence of
harm, it exercises its authority to reduce risks before a pesticide
ever reaches the market.

     I would just like to note that the current Pest Control Products
Act is 33 years old and Canadians are expecting the government to act
to help protect their health and environment and ensure a safe and
abundant food supply.

     I ask everyone in the House who wishes to see an effective,
modern and open pesticide regulatory system in Canada to support Bill
C-53.

     In closing, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on
Health for its careful assessment of this bill and for the amendment
that have been made to further strengthen it. I believe that this
bill represents a critically important step forward in our capacity
to protect Canadians and their environment.

[English]



     Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, as I was mentioning, although
the Canadian Alliance supports the general intent of Bill C-53 the
amendments should have reflected changes within the industry.

     For a short time I have been a member of the Standing Committee
on Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly when it has
reviewed pest control products. The environment committee passed
amendments requiring the act to be reviewed after seven years, but
the government defeated the amendment that would have restricted
review to Commons committees.

     The Canadian Alliance amendment on harmonization passed through
at committee stage. This means that under the bill applicants who
apply to register pest control products or amend pest control product
registrations would be able to submit information from reviews or
evaluations conducted in other OECD countries if the product were to
be used in Canada under conditions similar to those of the foreign
countries where the evaluation was conducted.

     The efficiency of the PMRA's registration operations has a direct
impact on Canada's ability to remain competitive internationally. As
I emphasized in my last speech, this could avoid costly duplication
of pesticides for pesticide makers and hasten the process of getting
newer and safer products onto the market.

     We in the official opposition believe proven and sound science,
domestically and internationally, should continue to be the
cornerstone for debate. We also believe a clear understanding of
environmental regulations and research responsibilities between
federal and provincial governments and the private sector must be
achieved. The precautionary principle is in the right place in the
bill. We appreciate the government for that.

     Bill C-53 would not impose a ban on the use of pesticides for
cosmetic purposes. That is a concern because it would allow
municipalities to maintain control over such decisions.

     While the official opposition is supportive of developing and
using proven alternatives in urban environments, we do not believe a
moratorium on pest control products should be put in place before
there is a substantial body of conclusive scientific evidence that
unequivocally links such products to human disease or ill health. I
have been in the pest control business for many years. My first
degree was in agriculture. I know that without conclusive scientific
research or evidence such a moratorium would not only not be useful.
It would be counterproductive.

     Also, Canada's risk management practices should be aligned with
those of our trading partners and through Canada's membership in
organizations such as the OECD.


     Mr. Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is a privilege to address some of the concerns the Canadian
Alliance has with regard to Bill C-53, the pest control management
legislation.

     This is a very important bill and one which the committee worked
on for a long time. It is important to many Canadians from different
perspectives. The legislation has three main intentions. The Canadian
Alliance generally supports those intentions to strengthen health and
environmental protection; to make the registration system more
transparent, which is very important; and to strengthen the
post-registration control of pesticides. We agree with these.

     The Canadian Alliance agrees that safety and environmental issues
are very important to Canadians. Health and environmental concerns
must be at the forefront of Canada's pesticide registration regime.

     Bill C-53 looks at the ten times safety factor and the thousand
times safety factor. Whatever the factors are and whatever decision
making goes into the bill, we have to ensure they are based on
science and not based on emotion, half truths or misinformation. We
must have the facts before we make a decision. Once we have the facts
it becomes easier to make a proper decision.

     We welcome the formal commitment to protect the health of
infants, children and pregnant women. This is a given in the bill.

     One of the disappointments of Bill C-53 is the way it was brought
into the House and how it went through committee. At the initial
stages of discussion on how it should be brought into parliament it
was felt there should be a joint committee of agriculture, perhaps
international trade and health. We are dealing with an issue that
goes across more boundaries than just health. It has significant
implications for international trade and for the agricultural
community. We had hoped that would have taken place at the beginning
but because it did not, we see some flaws in the bill which need to
be addressed.

     This legislation has not been worked on since 1969, some 33 years
ago. It is high time it was modernized and brought up to speed. It is
very important to incorporate modern risk assessment concepts and
entrench the current practices into law. It is important to account
for the new developments in pesticide regulations around the world
and to reflect the growing concern for the health of children and
others.

     Looking at the legislation from a farming or forestry
perspective, agricultural practices have changed considerably in the
last two decades. Agriculture is an industry that is evolving
probably faster than many others. We are seeing a greater reduction
in the use of pesticides in agriculture and for very good reasons. I
have yet to meet a farmer who likes to use pesticides. Farmers use
them as a tool to solve a problem they may have and they need to be
competitive with our neighbours to the south and others around the
world. It is very important to understand that fact as we look at
Bill C-53.

     We were pleased to get some amendments through at committee. One
was the harmonization of pesticides and the review of pesticides from
the OECD nations and other countries. Harmonization is very important
in order to be competitive with some of our trading partners. This
could avoid many of the costly duplications when pesticides are
registered. Newer and safer products would get into our marketplace
more quickly than in the past. Some products have been held up for as
many as 20 years.

     The inefficiencies in the PMRA absolutely need to be addressed.

     There are many shortcomings in the bill. The preamble completely
ignores the value of pesticides to Canadians

     It is not that we put pesticides out for our health or because we
are trying to do anything other than good for Canada. There is a lot
of good that comes out of the use of pesticides. Unfortunately that
is not recognized in the bill. It helps us to be competitive,
although we do have to recognize that health and safety come first
and on that we agree.

     One issue we want to talk about is the minor use products. The
bill makes no provisions for minor use products. It is something that
we tried to get through. A minor use of a pesticide is defined as "a
necessary use of a pesticide for which the anticipatedsales volume is
not sufficient to persuade a manufacturer to register and sell the
product in Canada".

     It is a product for which very few acres are involved. It is not
really economical to go through the regime that we have right now.
Yet it is very important that we see some of these products on the
market because they are much safer and much better.

     It does not matter what one's perspective is on this legislation,
whether one believes we should ban all pesticides, and there were
people who said that at committee, or not, the idea of timeliness for
approving newer and safer products in Canada is very important. It
does not matter which side one is on. We put forward amendments
suggesting that the minister at least come up with a timeline,
perhaps within a year after the bill is enacted, so that the industry
would know how long it would take to approve some of these products.

»  (1725) 

        We are pleased that cosmetic pesticides are left in the hands
of local municipalities because Canada has many diverse problems in
different areas. The problems in the Northwest Territories are
different than those in southern Ontario. It is important that the
responsibility be left with the municipalities.

     It is important that we have the bill before us now. It is 30
years late, but it is here. It will ensure that farmers have access
to newer and safer products. It will also ensure that Canadians have
access to safe and reliable food at a competitive price.

     The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member. I wish to inform him that he still has nine minutes left in
his speech when Bill C-53 resumes.

»  (1730) 

[Translation]

     It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order
paper.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/204_2002-06-12/HAN204-E.htm#Int-283836

--

Mike Christie
(613) 228-7499 / bus.
(613) 228-7487 / fax.
mikechristie@rogers.com  / e-mail


The Laws of Ecology: "All things are interconnected. Everything goes
somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Nature bats last."

by Ernest Callenbach



Title: New Strategy Addresses Public Health Risks from Pesticides

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Contact: Judy Gelman Cynthia Wright
CJW Associates for NEETF CJW Associates for NEETF
(781) 444-9056, jlgelman@rcn.com (508) 842-1410, cynwright@townisp.com

Education Initiative for Health Professionals Launched

New Strategy Addresses Public Health Risks from Pesticides

(June 12, 2002-Washington, DC) - Responding to a gap in health
professional education and the public health risks posed by the
widespread use of pesticides in the United States, the National
Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF) has launched a
groundbreaking plan to integrate pesticides issues into primary
health care education and practice. Today NEETF publicly released the
National Strategies for Health Care Providers: Pesticides Initiative
Implementation Plan, developed by interdisciplinary teams of primary
health care providers, medical and nursing school faculty, pesticide
safety educators and public health professionals.

NEETF has undertaken the Initiative in partnership with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and in collaboration with the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Labor, and a wide range of
stakeholders. During the past decade, the Institute of Medicine and
the American Medical Association have recommended improvements to
primary health care providers' education and training in the areas of
environmental health and pesticides, respectively.

The Initiative calls for all primary health care providers -
including physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians
assistants, nurse midwives and community health workers - to acquire
a basic knowledge of the health effects of pesticides and the
treatments and preventive public health strategies to address them.
The Initiative will serve as a model for integrating other
environmental health issues into medical and nursing education and
practice. The goal is to change the way primary care providers assess
and respond to potential pesticide exposure cases in their daily
practice.

Priority projects of the Initiative include:

National Forum: invited leaders and experts to convene September
18-20, 2002 in Washington, DC

National Pesticide Competency Guidelines and Practice Skills
Guidelines: companion documents that present specific education
competencies and practice skills for health professionals to be
published in September 2002

Information Gateway: a centralized print, telephone and Web-based
gateway providing primary health care providers with reviewed
pesticides resources

For more information and updates (including new resources) about the
Initiative, contact: The National Environmental Education & Training
Foundation, National Strategies for Health Care Providers: Pesticides
Initiative; 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC, 20006-3915;
202-833-2933, x535; pesticides@neetf.org,
www.neetf.org/health/providers/index.shtm.

Chartered by Congress in 1990, the National Environmental Education
and Training Foundation (NEETF) is a private non-profit organization
dedicated to advancing environmental education in its many forms.
Since it was established, it has become a leader in the development
of new policies, grant-making approaches, and direct programming to
advance environmental literacy in America. We link environmental
education to many of society's core goals such as: better health,
improved education, environmentally sound and profitable business and
volunteerism in local communities.

http://www.neetf.org/Health/June%20News%20Release.htm

--


--

Mike Christie
(613) 228-7499 / bus.
(613) 228-7487 / fax.
mikechristie@rogers.com  / e-mail


The Laws of Ecology: "All things are interconnected. Everything goes
somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Nature bats last."

by Ernest Callenbach



Title: Debate Over Residential Lawn Spray Is Heating Up

May 31, 2002

Saint John Telegraph Journal

Page A6 Opinion

Debate over residential lawn spray is heating up

by Fred Hazel, People And Places

Alarm bells are ringing across Canada over the chemical sprays many
of us have been using to keep our lawns looking good. It's an issue
that's going to have to be faced by individuals, by municipalities
and by senior governments at the provincial and especially, at the
federal level.

Former Maritimer Mike Christie, an Amherst, N.S. native, is in the
forefront of those who believe "we need to get our lawns off drugs."
I met him in Ottawa, where he's one of the driving forces behind the
Ottawa Advisory Committee on the Health Dangers of the Urban Use of
Pesticides.

Not a wild-eyed environmental activist, he comes across as
reasonable, rational and concerned. "We're not just a special
interest group," he says. "A lot of us aren't scientists or
environmentalists, but we're parents, concerned about the future of
our children. This issue is really bigger than smoking."

I came away from his Ottawa home with 323 pages of documentation,
including news clippings, briefs to the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Health, and the May 2000 report of a Commons committee
on Environment and Sustainable Development. (New Brunswick's John
Herron, the PC Member for Fundy Royal, was one of those who sat on
that committee.) Among other things, it called for a closer look,
more co-operation among federal departments, more openness and
greater exploration of pesticide alternatives.

The current political focus is on Bill C-53 a measure to update the
1969 federal Pest Control Products Act. The Commons Health Committee
was to report this week on its review of the proposed new bill, but
there is concern that the measure might not make it through
Parliament before the House adjourns in June.

The move to have cosmetic lawn use of pesticides examined more
closely, restricted, or banned altogether is gaining momentum. Ottawa
now bans pesticide use on all its public lands. Parliament Hill,
Rideau Hall, 24 Sussex Drive and Stornoway are pesticide-free.
Neighbourhood volunteer groups are going around to try and persuade
individual home-owners by word of mouth to seek alternative methods.

The giant food and garden chain of Loblaw Co. Ltd. - represented by
Atlantic Superstores in this region - has announced it will phase out
sales of chemical weed and insect killers in its 440 garden centers
by the spring of 2003. In making the announcement, Geoff Wilson, a
company vice- president said: "For cosmetic use, in lawns and gardens
where you've got dogs and children running around when there is a
growing abundance of alternative products, this initiative makes much
more sense."

Municipalities are still sensitive on the subject. Quispamsis
recently backed away from a proposal to ban residential use of
pesticides, while Halifax has instituted a ban, Shediac hopes to have
a bylaw to reduce use of sprays by the end of this year, and Toronto
and almost 100 other Canadian municipalities are considering some
form of restriction.

Concern over legal costs may have been one of the factors causing
municipalities to hesitate, Mr. Christie says. But he cites a
landmark Supreme Court decision last June which ruled in favour of
the Quebec municipality of Hudson, in its legal battle against two
large spray companies which had challenged the town's spraying ban.

The Supreme Court decided unanimously in favour of the municipality,
confirming that it had the right to enact bylaws "to secure peace,
order, good government, health and general welfare in the territory
of the municipality." New Brunswick's Environment Minister Kim
Jardine is "going to look at it."

Says Mr. Christie: "Education is the main focus right now, but
legislation is also needed. We're trying to tell people about
alternative methods. It's happening one neighbourhood at a time, but
it will take us another 20 years at this rate. Legislation and
education have to go hand in hand."

Mr. Christie got interested in the problems of lawn-spraying when he
attended a 1989 family conference where a speaker outlined some
concerns and urged the audience to commit to do something by telling
100 other people.

"That was the moment the light went on," he says. "The first reaction
was to be angry, 'why are they doing these things which could
endanger children just to make lawns look better?' But then I decided
to take my research skills and apply them to the problem."

This is volunteer work. His actual job is running his own business -
Sports Research International Inc. - in which he draws on his sports
background to provide research for the CBC and other organizations.

He worked in Saint John as a sports director during the Canada Games
and was a ski school instructor at Poley Mountain. He was educated at
St. Thomas University in Fredericton and holds a physical education
degree in sports coaching from UNB.

He's not rabid about spray use on forests and agricultural land.
"When you're looking at N.B. forests or P.E.I, potatoes or
Saskatchewan wheat, that's a food crop or a benefit. But' lawns are
not a food crop. The crop we're raising is our children. Why would we
spray our children?

"A generation is coming up saying 'I don't want to take a chance and
find out 20 years from now that my daughter has Cancer because I was
spraying my lawn.' There's a groundswell all across Canada from the
local level on up and the federal government needs to take a greater
leadership role.

"Our aim is to convert people to natural lawn care, not by hammering
them over the head but in a subtle way. There's a lot we don't know
about those chemicals and in the face of that uncertainty, let's take
a safer route."

Makes so much sense to me I'm going to stop having my lawn sprayed.



Fred Hazel is a retired editor-in-chief of this newspaper. His column
appears on Friday.




--

Mike Christie
(613) 228-7499 / bus.
(613) 228-7487 / fax.
mikechristie@rogers.com  / e-mail


The Laws of Ecology: "All things are interconnected. Everything goes
somewhere. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Nature bats last."

by Ernest Callenbach


Main Menu:

Site Tools:


Here, spammer, have some addresses.