Quebec studies pesticide ban
Subject: Quebec studies pesticide ban...................
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 08:50:10 -0400
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of
California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read an article entitled: Quebec studies pesticide ban by MICHELLE LALONDE, The Montreal Gazette, Thursday 5 July 2001.
Quebec's environment minister is "seriously considering" a province-wide ban on pesticide use for strictly aesthetic purposes in the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that municipalities can legally restrict the use of pesticides.
"There are people who are demanding that we eliminate pesticides for cosmetic purposes, and it's a question I am looking at very attentively," Andre Boisclair told The Gazette in an interview yesterday.
"I certainly would not reject it out of hand.
"When public health is at stake, I don't negotiate," he added.
Boisclair said a provincial code on pesticide use will move ahead quickly now that the country's top court has confirmed the right of municipalities to pass bylaws restricting their use.
The court ruled last week that the town of Hudson had every right to pass a bylaw in 1991 that allowed pesticide use only under certain circumstances, such as when a pest infestation was uncontrollable by other methods and when public health was threatened.
"The introduction of pesticides into the environment can contaminate the water, the air and the soil, " Boisclair said, adding that he welcomed the court ruling.
The minister said the most recent statistics show pesticide use for all purposes across the province amounts to 3.2 million kilograms of active ingredients annually.
He said that represents only 4 per cent of pesticide used across the country, but he added the use of pesticides in urban areas is growing steadily in Quebec and should be reduced.
"In many cases, these pesticides are being used by people who are not aware of the potential danger," Boisclair said. "These products, according to all the research that has been brought to my attention ... are dangerous for those who handle it and for those around them.
"There is a health risk and a risk for the environment in the use of pesticides, and we have to be very careful. We have to set a framework for pesticide use."
The pesticide code, which Boisclair said should be ready in the next few months, will:
n Set safety rules for storage and preparation of pesticides, setting minimum distances from wells, sewers and underground water sources.
n Require signage warning the public when pesticides have been applied on public and private property.
n Oblige businesses that store pesticides to have insurance to cover environmental damage in case of spills.
n Set out rules for when the public and the ministry must be notified prior to pesticide application.
n Establish emergency procedures in case of accidental pesticide spills.
Jack Layton, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, confirmed yesterday that hundreds of municipalities across the country are moving ahead with anti-pesticide bylaws. Some cities, like Toronto and Montreal, have been holding off on residents' demands for anti-pesticide bylaws for a decade for fear of being taken to court by lawn-care companies, as Hudson was.
Coincidentally, Layton, a Toronto city councillor and a professor of environmental studies at the University of Toronto, grew up in Hudson. As a teenager, he worked cutting lawns and spreading pesticides in the town, just west of Montreal Island.
Many anti-pesticide activists have called on the federal government to follow recommendations from a House of Commons committee report in May 2000 that favoured a ban on the use of pesticides for purely aesthetic purposes, such as achieving a weed-free lawn.
That committee concluded that the "public was not ready" for a country-wide ban but did recommend a phasing out, over five years, of pesticides for purely cosmetic purposes.
Layton said his federation supports the committee's recommendations and provincial restrictions such as those which Quebec is considering.
But he added that the situation as it now stands, allowing municipalities to "fine-tune" and further restrict pesticide use to reflect community demands and evolving technologies, is ideal. The federal government should decide what products are licensed, the provinces should spell out rules for use, and municipalities should be able to pass further restrictions as they see fit, Layton said.
"Local or community councils are sometimes more quick to act and not as subject to the political pressures of the industry," he said.
But the lawn-care industry, represented in Quebec by the Association des Services en Horticulture Ornementale du Quebec, is against "piecemeal" bylaws by municipalities.
Association president Rene Simoneau says lawn-care companies want a province-wide code, and have been calling for one for years.
Simoneau said the current situation will lead to "discrimination" against lawn-care companies operating in municipalities with restrictions.
"Without a pesticide code based on scientific understanding in this matter, Quebec's territory risks being cut up into legal enclaves, opening the door to arbitrary bylaws, discrimination and chaos," Simoneau said in a statement issued after the ruling.
But Layton said city councils can be trusted to adopt reasonable pesticide plans, and that the key is public education, not expensive enforcement programs.
"Councils will take a reasonable approach," he insisted. "They are not going to wait for proof of health and environmental damage because by that time it's usually too late. ...
"It's mostly about public education; we are not talking about swarms of pesticide police hunting down people trying to savage a dandelion" with pesticide, he said.
- Michelle Lalonde's E-mail address is: mlalonde@thegazette.southam.ca
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/pages/010705/610173.html
Well Mr. Helliker, It appears that more and more people are getting ready to ban your "registered" POISONS. Will you take a reasonable approach or will you continue to wait for more and more "scientific" proof of health and environmental damage before you act?
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.