How do people across Ontario feel about pesticide bylaws?

No matter the community, people are tired of being poisoned in their own front yards!

Surveys across Ontario show that the majority of people want stronger restrictions on urban pesticide use but most municipalities have not responded to public opinion.

Year Location Supporting a by-law
2006 Ontario 59%
2005 Markham 63%
2005 Waterloo Region 81%
2004 Peterborough 63.80%
2002 Toronto 70%

We’re all busy running our little Johnnys and Sallys off to dance, soccer, hockey, you name it. In between grueling work schedules and activities, we don’t always have the time we need to look after our lawns and gardens. But instead of reaching for a quick fix, (Yellow Pages under Lawn Emergency! Help!), combine your stretch and workout time with quality family time and catching some Vitamin D, by using easy and, ultimately, beneficial lawn and garden care.

Just memorize these two acronyms and you’ve got it made:

RYLWNPSAT and MHLYCTDAOSBATP.

It’s that simple!

A no-brainer. Let the pesticide bylaws come – it won’t matter. You are on the cutting edge!

So relax, pour yourself a cool drink and take a break until June. That’s right – no fertilizing, no herbicides, insecticides, kill-icides, no weed ‘n feed, no nothin’! If you fertilize now, you’re wasting your money and just feed‘n the weeds.

But if you want to fool your neighbours and look as busy as they are this time of year – causing all that racket and pollution with their gas mowers and leaf blowers – head outside and have a stroll around your yard. (Still have that cool drink in your hand? Take a sip!) Look for any places your grass isn’t growing well – under trees, shaded areas or hot, dry areas.

This is where the first acronym comes in: Replace Your Lawn With Native Plants, Shrubs and Trees.

This isn’t England, where the conditions are ideal for growing lush, green lawns. This is Canada, with hard cold winters and hot dry summers. There are a huge variety of native plants, shrubs and trees better suited than grass for most conditions. Your local nursery can help you with this. You don’t even have to dig up the grass. Outline your area with the garden hose, lay down about ten layers of newspaper, dump some soil and homemade compost on top and plant. Make sure you mulch around the plants, while they’re getting established, to keep in moisture and prevent weed growth. Think of all that lawn you won’t have to mow anymore! (Celebrate with another sip of that cool drink!)

But speaking of mowing (remember the other acronym?), take a deep breath and repeat after me:

Mow High Leave Your Clippings Top Dress And Over Seed Bare And Thin Patches

That’s the remedy for every lawn emergency and all you have to do to your lawn – ever! If you’ve been using pesticides, you may want to wait until fall and then aerate before overseeding and topdressing. If you really feel you need to look useful, you may want to remove any plants you don’t want in your lawn. Personally, I only remove thistles before I accidentally find them with my bare feet. But you could pay your kids to use any one of the many, really cool handtools, suitable to any size or shape, sitting or standing, available at your local hardware store or nursery. Or declare your yard to be a wildlife sanctuary and leave your dandelions to feed your local, wild rabbit population – they’ll make short work of them – flowers, stems, leaves and all – and leave some free fertilizer behind. You also may want to add white dutch clover to your grass seed mix for the added benefit of fixing nitrogen and eliminating the need for fertilizers.

And while you’re at it – find a nice sunny spot to grow something you can eat. Check out www.growarow.org and it will tell you how you can share your extra produce with those in need. Nothing better than homegrown, uh, tomatoes – then sharing them! If you’d rather share your yard’s bounty with the birds and the beasties (remember those bunnies?) and meet the criteria, you can even get a nice certificate designating your yard as a Backyard Habitat from the Canadian Wildlife Federation

http://www.wildaboutgardening.org/en/gab/section5_certify/index.htm

Now sit back and enjoy another cool drink. Have a look at the contents of your glass. Aren’t you glad you didn’t use any pesticides and synthetic fertilizers or other nasty chemicals that could end up in it?

Back to the top

2. What grows on concrete?

Ever since humans evolved from foragers to farmers, we have been trying to manipulate our environment to grow plants we want, and not what nature put there. We need to grow food to eat, but our agricultural methods have led to devastating soil erosion and subsequent sedimentation in our water systems; deforestation; water and air pollution from fertilizer, pesticides and machinery; loss of species diversity and habitat; extensive pest resistance to chemical control products; desertification, consumption of fossil fuels; and increased salination and the spread of disease through irrigation.  http://www.eap.mcgill.ca/DIAE_1.htm

Although there are far less destructive methods of food production, at least the land is being used for something that can be eaten. The same cannot be said of most suburban yards.

Grass still seems to be the groundcover of choice, clipped to within a centimeter of its life, and kept alive on a chemotherapeutic life support system of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and treated municipal water.

But think how wonderful it would be to live in a neighbourhood teeming with life – towering trees cooling the streets on a hot summer day, the full-sensory delight of yards filled with the buzzing of pollinating insects, a cacophony of birdsong, and the intoxicating aroma and colour explosion of thousands of blossoms. It’s time to rethink the “perfect golfgreen” lawn and replace some, or all of it, with different groundcovers. We may live in concrete jungles, but our jungles are still part of a larger ecosystem that needs our help. So even if your gardening space is limited to one pot on your balcony, you can still become an advocate for rooftop gardens, community gardens or green roofs that will help reduce air pollution, filter rain water, slow down storm run-off and cool our cities.

If you’re a ground-dweller, you can replace much of your lawn with native plants, trees and shrubs that will provide food for wildlife (insects, birds, etc.) and your family. Native plants have evolved over time to adapt to their environment and require no added inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides or even water once the plant is established, if it’s the right plant in the right place.

One of the challenges, besides the ever-unpredictable weather (don’t get me started on climate change!), is to match the plant to the environment. Is your soil sandy, clay or loam; is the location sunny and dry, wet and shady, dry and shady? What plants grow best in each of these conditions?

There are an enormous number of resources, on-line and in your library or bookstore, and from your local nursery, to help you make the right plant choices. Native plants are usually identified as such in nurseries, which is a great help. If you want to do some research beforehand, Lorraine Johnson’s books, in particular, are geared specifically to Canadian gardeners and provide descriptions of the proper growing conditions, and mature size of native plants to meet your gardening needs – and has great photos!

Sweet Grass Gardens in Hagersville Ontario is also another excellent resource to help you pick the right native plants for the right conditions. http://earthcaretaker.com/nativeplants/soiltypes.html

Be prepared for some disappointments though. Even if you’ve done everything right, gardening is always trial and error. Some plants will just not do well in your garden. If anyone took a good look into my gardening past, I’d be imprisoned for life for all the “bodies” buried in my backyard. But they’d never find them beneath all the survivors – the lush butterfly bushes, wild roses, sweet woodruff, cup and saucers, columbines, lobelias, dogwoods and serviceberries that are feasting on the remains!

Back to the top

3. To amend or not to amend: the Zen of composting and using what you have

If our consumer society had its way, we’d be buying annuals every year, hauling in yards and yards of topsoil, fertilizing four times a year and spraying pesticides to kill every bug and weed that had the misfortune to find its way into our yard. The golf course lawn, the flower border, the strategically placed 1 point 2 trees …

But what price are we paying for this photo-op? The impact of our lawn and gardening choices don’t stop at the edge of our properties and we must consciously decide whether to be beneficial, benign or harmful to our world.

I admit I wrote “Zen and composting” with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the path to gardening (and environmental) enlightenment leads directly from that pile of decomposing garden and kitchen scraps in your yard.

Think about it. By using compost made from your kitchen and garden scraps you are:

Ø      eliminating the need for synthetic fertilizers that are produced by using non-renewable fossil fuels

Ø      preventing water pollution, algae overgrowth and fish kills caused by nitrogen overload from synthetic fertilizers

Ø      reducing the amount of waste going into landfills

Ø      increasing the organic matter and moisture-holding capacity in your soil and creating more topsoil

Ø      improving air quality by keeping and using your autumn leaves instead of having them trucked away by a non-renewable fossil-fuel-using truck

No synthetic chemical from the lab can match compost in its ability to make your plants healthier and less susceptible to disease and pests. Compost has been scientifically proven to reduce damping off and root rot disease, create healthier root systems, conserve moisture, destroy pathogens, and encourage the growth of fungi and other organisms that control harmful parasitic nematodes.

And all you have to do is keep piling on the organic material and let the house millipedes, sow bugs, snails and slugs, fungi, bacteria, and actinomycetes, mites and springtails, earthworms, nematodes, red worms and potworms, flies, earwigs, pseudoscorpions, spiders, ants and beetles do their job to create black gold.

Ye gotta love those bugs!

Although I’m sure all entomophobics and insecticide manufacturers would disagree, the vast majority of bugs and microbes are beneficial. Without ‘em, we’d all be dead. A report out of Cornell University and the Xerces Society http://www.xerces.org/pubs_merch/Econ_Value_of_Insects.htm, actually put a dollar figure to the services insects provide – $57 billion worth of pollinating, pest control, clean up and food source. Think about how much garbage and organic waste we’d be sitting under if we didn’t have microbes and insects to break down autumn leaves, fallen branches, grass clippings and kitchen scraps. Think about how hungry you would be without insects to pollinate our crops and flowers and produce honey.

We’re faced with that right now. Cockroaches may survive nuclear fallout, but bee populations are being decimated around the world by human activities. Some scientists are referring to the disappearance of bees as today’s “canaries in the coalmine”. They hypothesize that Colony Collapse Disorder, as it’s called, is due to the loss of wildflowers, climate change and extreme weather, Bt corn, viral mites and pesticides. In the U.S., some areas are reporting a 90% drop in bee populations. If we lose the bees, it’s the end of agriculture and the end of us. There is no need to wait, and indeed there is an urgency, to designate our yards as pesticide-free zones, full of wildflowers, to increase the hospitable habitat for these vitally important critters.

I offer this mantra, which may be new to some of you, “I am part of an ecosystem. What I do on my property has an impact on my larger neighbourhood ecosystem. I will strive to work with Mother Nature, instead of fighting with her and trying to control her.”

But this is just the beginning of your path to enlightenment. The next steps are to walk or bike more, grow your own food organically or buy local and organic, refuse excess packaging, use energy efficient appliances… Check out the Suzuki Foundation for tips on everyday environmentalism at www.davidsuzuki.org and make your commitment to our planet.

Back to the top

4. The Water Cycle and some things you should know, but might not want to think about, when you turn on the tap

During my misspent youth, I first heard the joke that you don’t buy beer; you just rent it. That’s pretty well what happens with all the water on the planet too. Like energy, water is neither created nor destroyed; it just keeps changing form.

Despite the fact that seventy percent of Earth’s surface is covered with water, it is unbelievable that only .3 percent is usable by humans. The remaining 99.7 percent of the water is either in the oceans and seas (too salty), ice (too cold) or the atmosphere (too hard to catch). Water, water everywhere, and barely a drop on the planet to drink.

But if you are one of the 40 million people living in the Great Lakes Watershed, consider yourself lucky. The Great Lakes hold one-fifth of the world’s fresh water supply.

Fresh. That’s funny.

Years ago, reports started coming in that the Great Lakes were exhaling pollutants. Exhaling pollutants. Don’t they want them either? We used to think the lakes were so big they had a limitless capacity to absorb our waste products. You know the old maxim – dilution is the solution to pollution. Turns out bio-magnification (toxins accumulating up the food chain) and synergy (chemicals combining in new ways resulting in greater effect) would be more accurate. What are the Great Lakes telling us?

One theory is that, depending on which has the greatest concentrations of contaminants, the air or the water, the other will spew. With all the bad air we’ve had for decades around the Great Lakes, the water pollution must be extraordinary!

Nowadays, we are getting smarter and know that when we throw away garbage and flush you-know-what down the toilet, it doesn’t just go away. Some of it breaks down; some of it mixes with other stuff and creates some new stuff that’s often worse than the first stuff. It’s like the undead in all those old horror movies. The thing that wouldn’t die or the blob from the black lagoon – you get the picture.

Our municipal water treatment plants use filtration, screening, coagulation, sedimentation, flocculation, disinfection with chlorine and/or chloramines and even ultraviolet light and ozone to clean it up. Still unsure of the safety, many people add their own reverse osmosis or filter treatments at the end of the pipe in their homes.

Without a doubt, water sanitation has contributed immeasurably to our health and longevity. But as we’re all too well aware, accidents happen. Unexpected and/or invisible pathogens and chemicals find their way into our water.

If it’s not PCB’s, dioxins, furans, mercury, endocrine disruptors, cleaning products, prescription drugs, personal care products and human and animal waste, it’s pesticides and synthetic fertilizer run-off from agriculture and lawns.

John Struger, an Environment Canada scientist, has shown repeatedly that the pesticides and synthetic fertilizers we use on our lawns are making their way into our water system through our stormwater systems, holding ponds, streams and eventually lakes, some at levels lethal to some aquatic life.

The National Centre for Atmospheric Research www.ucar.edu/org/ has some interesting things to say about nitrogen (the N in the NPK on a synthetic fertilizer bag). Human interference in the nitrogen cycle, through the use of fertilizers for example, can change the soil to favour weeds over native plants. Nitrogen run-off into water bodies causes algae overgrowth that depletes oxygen that kills fish and ruins water quality (called eutrophication).

Many of the contaminants in our water are out of our personal control, but we DO have control and, therefore, the responsibility to properly dispose of toxic substances such as paints and solvents and to not use or hire companies that use harmful fertilizers and pesticides on our properties.

It’s just a lawn. Why take the risk?

Back to the top

5. What doctors say about pesticides and why you should be concerned about using them

A pesticide is a substance released into our environment to selectively kill organisms we consider undesirable. Herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and combination products such as “weed ‘n feed” are all pesticides. About seventy percent of pesticides are used in agriculture, with the remaining thirty percent used for forest management, lawns and gardens, golf course maintenance, pet care, industrial site care, as repellents, and for indoor pest management such as in washrooms, closets and building structures.

While an argument could be made for the selective use of pesticides to deal with outbreaks, agricultural use or spot application for infestations, this is distinct from the undifferentiated, widespread use we are witnessing today. The benefits of cosmetic pesticide use are not justified because of the risk to public health.

In 2004, The College of Family Physicians of Ontario released a comprehensive report on pesticide exposure and health risk, concluding that all commonly used pesticides show a positive association with adverse health effects.

The study found:

Ø      an increased risk of lung cancer from exposure to phenoxy herbicides (e.g. 2,4-D) and carbamates;

Ø      an increased risk of kidney cancer in offspring of occupationally exposed men;

Ø      2,4-D and Dicamba were associated with increased time to pregnancy;

Ø      pyrethrins were associated with delayed, chronic neurological effects (Parkinson’s disease), chromosome aberrations, rashes in licensed pet pesticide applicators, and fetal intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR);

Ø      fungicide exposure had a positive association with dermatitis;

Ø      glyphosate and glufosinate were associated with congenital malformations;

Ø      Parkinson ’s disease and possibly amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Alzheimer ’s disease in men were linked to long-term pesticide exposure;

Ø      an increased risk of childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia if pesticides were used in the home and garden during pregnancy;

Ø      adverse neurological effects in children;

Ø      a decline in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in countries where the herbicide 2,4-D had been banned for over ten years. The authors concluded that 5% of NHL is attributable to pesticide exposure.

Manifestations of acute exposure to insecticides may include neurological, gastrointestinal, dermatological and respiratory symptoms, and even heart block and death, due to acetylcholine blockade. Herbicides generally have little acute toxicity, except for paraquat – a severe respiratory toxin. Although chronic effects are more difficult to demonstrate, increased use of pesticides appears to put farmers and their families, gardeners and golf course superintendents at higher health risk.

Some sub-groups, such as children (along with fetuses, the elderly and pets), may have a biological vulnerability and be at higher risk. Relative to their weight, children eat more, drink more, breathe more, and have a greater surface area and a more permeable blood brain barrier than adults do. In addition, they may have greater exposure due to diets more concentrated in specific foods and more hand to mouth behaviour, including eating soil. They spend hours in areas of highest concentrations of pesticides – on the ground (floor, grass), often with little clothing. Finally, children (and pets) cannot read warning labels or instructions.

Despite this evidence, the pesticide industry continues to claim that pesticides are “safe” when used as directed, because they are studied and approved by governmental agencies. The controversy has precipitated a re-evaluation of the federal Pest Control Products Act. As of this writing, not all the changes have been implemented, but many products used on lawns and gardens have now been removed or had new restrictions applied to them.

Public pressure from individuals and groups belonging to organizations such as Pesticide Free Ontario, with strong support from health organizations such as The Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, has also resulted in almost 130 municipalities across Canada, including Toronto, Montreal and Halifax, and the entire province of Quebec enacting bans.

Regardless of whether your community has restricted pesticides, you can make the choice to protect your health and environment by eliminating the use of pesticides around your home and garden.

Adapted from:

Arya N. Pesticides and human health: Why Public Health officials should support a ban on non-essential residential use (Commentary). Can J Public Health 2005;96(2):89-92.

Dr. Arya is a family physician; Adjunct Professor, University of Waterloo; member of the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) Environmental Health Committee and of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). He was also a peer reviewer for the study of the Ontario College of Family Physicians and is now on Health Canada’s Pest Management Advisory Council.

Markham Residents Support Pesticide Bylaw
Croplife Appeal Dismissed AGAIN
Pesticides affecting male population
Canadian Cancer Society Speaks Out

Doctors Confirm Pesticide Danger OCFP
2,4 D poses an unacceptable risk
Critique of PMRA Re-evaluation

Position Papers
Ontario Public Health Association

OPHA Resolution on the Non-Essential Use of Chemical Pesticides on Public and Private Lands

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the protection of human and environmental health should be the absolute priority in pest management, especially the protection of children and other vulnerable populations;

WHEREAS reports published in the scientific and medical journals point to associations between pesticides and numerous human health effects;

WHEREAS research regarding the impact of pesticide exposure on human health effects is complex, raises methodological difficulties and ethical concerns, making it unlikely that the health effects on humans will ever be clear;

WHEREAS in the absence of conclusive evidence to prove a causal relationship between certain

pesticides and human health, appropriate measures should be taken where there is reason to believe that a pesticide is likely to cause harm (“Precautionary Principle” and where applicable the Health  Protection and Promotion Act s.13 “reasonable and probable grounds that a health hazard exists”);

WHEREAS Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has recognized the need to take action on the use of pesticides in the urban setting by initiating a Healthy Lawn Strategy to help reduce Canadians’ reliance on pesticide use;

WHEREAS of the 7000 pesticides approved for use in Canada many have not been evaluated to account for the vulnerability of children and current standards for risk assessment;

WHEREAS certain pesticides persist in the environment, migrate beyond the application area and have been detected in Ontario’s drinking water supplies, resulting in the general public being inadvertently exposed;

WHEREAS alternative, non-toxic methods of pest prevention (e.g. Integrated Pest Management) exist;

AND WHEREAS the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the power of

municipal governments to restrict the use of non-essential pesticides within their communities and some communities, including Toronto, Waterloo, and Caledon are engaged in this process.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the OPHA urge Ontario municipalities to restrict the nonessential use of chemical pesticides on public and private lands.

THAT the OPHA urge the three levels of government to work together to strengthen legislation governing pesticide use, reduce the non-essential use of pesticides, educate the public about the health effects and alternatives to chemical pesticides, and promote Integrated Pest Management Strategies.

THAT the OPHA advocate to the MOHLTC for adequate resources for Ontario public health units so that they may act as a resource to municipalities on pesticide reduction initiatives, to educate the public about the health effects of pesticides as outlined in the Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines, Health Hazard Investigation Program.

THAT this resolution be forwarded to the Ontario and Federal Ministers of Health, the Ontario Minister of the Environment, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and Ontario public health departments and Boards of Health.

THAT the OPHA collaborate and network with other health and environmental organizations that support restricting the non-essential use of pesticides, including the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction Ontario.

THAT the OPHA request to meet with the appropriate government bodies at the federal, provincial and local level to express our membership’s concern on this matter, and to request their support to take action to restrict the non-essential use of pesticides.

Ontario College of Family Physicians

Summary of Remarks by Pesticide Research Team Queen’s Park News Conference-April 23, 2004

1. Our review has found evidence of serious harmful effects in several areas including cancer, reproductive effects and impacts on the nervous system. These effects are found in both occupational and home and garden exposures.

2. We intend to use the results of the review to update patient education materials and develop tools for family doctors that will help them to reduce the pesticide exposures of their patients.

We believe family physicians need to use a precautionary approach in informing patients about pesticide-related risks to health. This approach calls for precautionary measures to be taken where there is evidence of harm, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully understood. It also places responsibility on producers and marketers of pesticides to prove their safety, not on the consumer to prove harm. Post-marketing surveillance for health effects is a routine and expected part of drug marketing, and we would like to see pesticide producers taking a leading role in similar studies of pesticides.

3. Last November, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma researchers Hardell and Eriksson published a study to analyze whether the banning of 2,4-D in Sweden 27 years ago had reduced the rate of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma there. Their analysis concluded that 3 to 7.7% of cases of that cancer are attributable to exposure to phenoxyacetic acids (such as 2,4-D) and chlorophenols. This raises the hope that legislation such as the province-wide ban on cosmetic use of pesticides in Quebec could have a positive impact on our patients’ health. We support efforts to reduce exposure to pesticides, such as the Toronto pesticide bylaw, and also support a comprehensive province-wide approach that could include education and legislation.

4. Our review suggests the need for 2 large longitudinal studies:

a) We need to study the pesticide exposures of a group of women intending to become pregnant, follow them through pregnancies,

b) and continue with health studies of their children to learn more about critical times and levels of exposure;

c)  We need to study a large cohort of children to determine their vulnerability to environmental problems including pesticide exposure, similar to the study already underway in the United States.

5. Finally, the leukemia study from Montreal showed that over 40% of children in the Montreal area had a specific genetic vulnerability to the effects of pesticides due to having a genetic makeup that caused them to metabolize pesticides slowly. Given that such a large proportion of society is vulnerable to harmful effects, action to reduce public exposure is justified, and needed.

Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment

Pesticides are among the most widely used chemicals in the world, and also among the most dangerous to human health. They are a leading cause of poisonings here in Canada and have been estimated to account for thousands deaths each year globally.

Pesticides can also have chronic health effects both as sequelae of acute poisonings and from chronic exposure. Many studies have documented adverse health effects on humans. There are several areas of concern.

Many of the commonly used household insecticides are organophosphates. These have been linked in many studies to neurological damage in humans. In fact, chlorpyrifos, a pesticide from this class, was recently banned by the EPA in the US a recent review of the science demonstrated that children have been routinely exposed to unsafe levels.

There is also convincing evidence that pesticides play a role in human cancers. For example, epidemiologic studies have linked exposure to insecticides in the home to development of brain cancer and leukemia in children.

Studies have also documented reproductive abnormalities such as an increased rate of miscarriage in people with chronic exposure to pesticides.

Of particular concern is the effect of pesticides on the health of children: there are several reasons why children are more vulnerable and more widely exposed to pesticides. A report from the National Academy of Sciences in the US (Pesticides in the diets of infants and children, 1993) examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that children have not been adequately protected from pesticides, and recommended changes to regulations and new research and testing to remedy this. The result was the Food Quality Protection Act, passed by US congress in 1996.

In Canada, little has been done to update the regulation of pesticides, despite evidence that it is sorely out of date. A study done by the Ontario College of Family Physicians and the Canadian Environmental Law Association reviewed the evidence and made recommendations about standard setting. The study also provides an excellent summary of the scientific and medical evidence about pesticides and their human health effects.

CAPE has been active in informing the public about the health effects of pesticides, and has worked with other groups to push for legislation that reduces the use of pesticides. CAPE’s position paper on pesticides is available on this web site.
More Information on Pesticides and Health

The Ontario College of Family Physicians Environmental Health Committee has a brochure for family physicians on the topic. The OCFP also has a set of modules based on clinical cases that can be used for self-learning or for teaching other physicians. These are available online for free, including a module on pesticides.

The NPTN has fact sheets on specific pesticides.

Extoxnet is a service provided by several US university toxicology departments with lots of information on pesticides. The US EPA has information on pesticides, and has a whole pesticides program.

Several environmental organizations have excellent Web sites devoted to news, research and advocacy issues about pesticides. PANNA is the American branch and PAN-UK is the UK branch of the Pesticide Action Network

Registered Nurses Association of Ontario

Resolution on Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Passed at April 2000 Annual General Meeting of RNAO:

RESOLUTION # 2

Submitted by Brant-Haldimand Norfolk Chapter of  RNAO

WHEREAS, nurses are concerned about broad determinants of health, including environmental factors, and;

WHEREAS, the cosmetic use of pesticides has been linked on a co-relational basis to increased levels of specific cancers, asthma, learning difficulties and birth defects yet yields no societal benefit, and;

WHEREAS,  the precautionary principle would urge us to insist on proof of safety rather than waiting for proof of harm,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the RNAO support local chapter initiatives to lobby for municipal by-laws banning the cosmetic use of pesticides through the development of a resource package, and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that RNAO lobby the provincial government for provincial legislation

banning the cosmetic use of pesticides.

438 University Avenue, Suite 1600,

Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K8

phone: 416-599-1925

toll free: 1-800-268-7199 fax: 416-599-1926

www.rnao.org

Canadian Cancer Society

27-Oct-04

Ornamental use of pesticides on lawns and gardens
Our position

The Canadian Cancer Society is very concerned about the use of potentially carcinogenic (cancer-causing) substances for the purpose of enhancing the appearance of, for example, private gardens and lawns as well as parks, recreational facilities and golf courses (ornamental use). We base this concern on the conclusions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that state that some substances used in pesticides are classified as known, probable or possible carcinogens. In some cases, evidence linking pesticides and cancer will not be scientifically definitive, but it may be suggestive and growing.

Since ornamental use of pesticides has no countervailing health benefit and has the potential to cause harm, we call for a ban on the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens.

Re-evaluating lawn and turf pesticides

Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gélinas, issued a report about managing the safety and accessibility of pesticides. She has some important things to say about delays in re-evaluating lawn and turf pesticides.
CAW

Statement of Principles: Environment ONLY ONE EARTH

Our planet faces an environmental crisis of major proportions, one which could challenge our very survival. Unions around the world are striving to address this crisis, while protecting the welfare of working men and women. The CAW is also committed to this task.

In 1987, a highly-publicized United Nations environmental report painted a picture of worldwide degradation. The ‘Brundtland Report’ sent out an alarm for aggressive, coordinated action to begin a recovery, and introduced the idea of ‘sustainable development’. The report challenges working people to reject the corporate choice between jobs and the environment. Workers must have the right to choose both economic security and a healthy environment for ourselves, our families and future generations. To do this, we demand input into setting priorities, determining the degree of regulation over private industry, and deciding who pays for clean up and lifestyle changes.

This is our world – our only home. From space we have seen how fragile our existence really is. Our earth is like a living organism with a failing respiratory system, poisoned bodily fluids and cancerous skin. For greed and profits our world has been sickened and hurt like the bodies of so many workers. We extend the struggle for health and safety outside our workplace – we fight as CAW members for the health and safety of our world.

OUR UNION’S SPECIAL ROLE

Corporate priorities are responsible for the degradation of our environment. The CAW, as a major industrial and transportation union, needs to be heard on the environment. As a social union, we are committed to finding just solutions. Emissions of noxious pollutants from cars and trucks – hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide – have helped to create unhealthy cities, acid rain, the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer. The CAW is committed to helping develop transportation policies that are environmentally sound, yet will not lead to the destruction of the transportation industry. We support high emission control standards to limit pollutants emitted by automobiles. By taking a stand for a cleaner environment through tougher controls on our employers, we reject the blackmail of choosing job security over the environment.

THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TO POLLUTE

Workers’ health is not for sale nor is the health of our world and our children’s world. Our fight for a healthy and safe environment is an extension of our long-standing struggle for a safe and healthy workplace. CAW health and safety and environmental committees know that hazards are not confined to the workplace. The chemicals in our water supply and high rates of cancer and birth defects near some industrial sites, are examples of the clear links between the environment in the workplace and the outside community. CAW health and safety and environmental committees will mount a ‘greenwatch’ to ensure that the environment outside their workplace is not damaged. As workers we need to have the right to refuse to pollute! The CAW will fight for ‘whistle blower’ legislation to protect employees who report the crimes of their employers.

WORKING WITH ALLIES

We will continue and extend our work with local environmental activists and organizations. Most green activists understand that workers cannot be expected to pay the penalty, through the loss of their jobs, for decades of corporate environmental neglect.

Local union environmental committees and health and safety representatives are the CAW emissaries to the green community, province and country. Our union will continue to provide our voice for change within the house of labour provincially and federally.

EDUCATION

The corporate community and their government friends have been fast to capitalize on sincere public concern over the environment. The focus of blame quickly shifted to the responsibility of the individual citizen. While ‘blue box’ solutions can play a role, the real issue is to get to the source of the problem and work towards a global approach to environmental cleanup. Formation of committees at the local level, the development of CAW environmental materials, and the utilization of our CAW Education programs and conferences will all promote worker awareness. Just as health and safety activists have gained the necessary skills and expertise to combat hazards in the workplace, so too worker environmental activists can become leaders in salvaging and restoring our community and world environments.

For CAW members, the battle for a healthier environment is being fought on many fronts; in the workplace, at the bargaining table, in the community and through political activism. The interests of the union and the environmental movements largely coincide and we must work together at each stage on the four R’s of the future: Reduce, Reuse, Recover, Recycle

Although municipalities can restrict the use of pesticides within their boundaries, they do not have jurisdiction over the sale of pesticides.  This is a provincial responsibility.  Pesticide by-laws, therefore, can prohibit the application of pesticides by lawn care companies and individuals but cannot prevent retail outlets from selling pesticides.

Residents of municipalities that have not adopted by-laws to restrict pesticide use are at risk from pesticide exposure.

The cosmetic use of pesticides in Ontario is a public health issue

Exposure to lawn and garden pesticides is associated with a host of adverse health effects.   Pesticides Literature Review, a report released by the Ontario College of Family Physicians, showed “consistent links to serious illnesses, such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological diseases.” ¹

These concerns are shared by other health professionals, including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Ontario Public Health Association.

Pesticide poisoning incidents reported by Poison Control Centres

In 1996, the Quebec Poison Control Centre and the Quebec Ministry of Environment and Wildlife released statistics on pesticide poisonings.   In total, there were 1,650 poisoning cases. Of these, 79.4% of the incidence was in private homes and 46.1% of the victims were children under age five. 31% of these cases were due to oral ingestion, and 34.9% followed a pesticide application.²

The Province of Quebec enacted restrictive legislation on the retail sales and use of landscape pesticides in 2003. 

In March, 2003, the Province of Quebec introduced new regulations to the Pesticide Management Code.  The regulations included an immediate ban on pesticide use around daycare centres and schools and on pesticide use on all public land.  By 2005 pesticide use will be prohibited on all private land.  The regulations apply to 23 pesticide active ingredients that are considered to be known or possible carcinogens or endocrine disruptors by the World Health Organization or the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.   For the full text of the regulations see:

http://www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/pesticides/permis-en/code-gestion-en/index.htm

There are effective alternatives to lawn and garden pesticides

Pesticides are not necessary for healthy lawns and gardens.  In response to public interest in pesticide free landscaping information, larger Ontario municipalities and regions have produced booklets, pamphlets and fact sheets.   The chemical lawn care industry is reluctant to adopt and use alternative practices and products.   At present, the chemical lawn care industry consists of pesticide application experts not lawn care experts.

There is a lack of provincial standards for landscaping services

As more and more Ontario municipalities enact pesticide by-laws, the response from the chemical lawn care industry has been to create different systems of landscape maintenance.  These include integrated pest management, natural programs, environmentally considerate programs, etc.  The result is confusion.  Standards and definitions are needed that apply to landscaping practices and programs for consumer clarification.

Recommendations

Pesticide reform is overdue in Ontario.

Pesticide Reform Ontario recommends the following changes to the Pesticides Act to protect the health of Ontario residents and to protect the environment.

Stop the sale and display of pesticides and fertilizer-pesticide mixtures.

By 2007, eliminate all non-essential, cosmetic, use of pesticides on private properties in the Province of Ontario.

Eliminate the use of lawn and garden pesticides on all properties owned by the Province of Ontario and on all properties in which provincial and municipal offices, agencies, boards and commissions are located.

* None of these changes will limit the power of municipalities to enact pesticide by-laws to protect the health safety and well-being of residents in a municipality pursuant to section 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

1286 municipalities of all sizes have passed or are under the protection of various forms of pesticide by-laws passed by their regions or provinces. The largest is the City of Toronto with a population of 2.5 million while some are as small as Lac- Saint-Joseph, Québec with a population of 229.

There are over 14 million Canadians, or approximately 44.3% of Canada’s total population (based on the 2006 Census), benefiting from enhanced protection from unwanted exposure to synthetic lawn and garden pesticides. This figure includes the enhanced province-wide protection provided under Québec’s Pesticide Management Code. There are 1141 municipalities (cities, villages and townships) within Québec.

**Waterloo, Kitchener, Wilmot, Cambridge, Woolwich, North Dumfries, Wellesley

Largest Cities Status – Total 5 427 089 Adopted

By Province

a. British Columbia – Total 950 259 Adopted and Drafted

b. Ontario – Total 3 991 883  Adopted

*Waterloo, Kitchener, Wilmot, Cambridge, Woolwich, North Dumfries, Wellesley

c. Quebec – Total 7 356 128 -  Province-wide ban in force 2006

d. New Brunswick – Total 16 561 Adopted

e. Nova Scotia – Total 359 111

f. Manitoba – Total 39 716

Percentage by Province

Related By-laws (Topsoil)