Anti-Pesticide Campaigns Sweeping Canada
Click
Here to Add Comment Subject:
Anti-Pesticide Campaigns Sweeping Canada
Date:
Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:17:17 -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
Sept.-Oct./02 - The Activist - "Anti-Pesticide Campaigns Sweeping Canada" By Bruce Cattle.
A groundswell of opposition to the cosmetic use of pesticides is sweeping across Canada, and it's happening at the local grassroots level. So far, more than 50 communities have passed bylaws that restrict or ban the application of pesticides on private and public property. Cosmetic pesticides include herbicides, insecticides and fungicides used to maintain lawns and flower gardens. Such synthetic toxins cannot be considered essential by any stretch of the imagination, yet manicured lawns have become institutional in many places.
To investigate the widespread opposition to pesticide use, my travels took me to Kingston, Ontario for the "People and the Planet" conference organized by the Sierra Club. A workshop about Direct Action, led by Skip Spitzer, the webmaster for the San Francisco-based Pesticide Action Network of North America, fastened one definition in my mind, that "a campaign is a clearly planned strategic program of tactics or actions designed to move targets and other social forces so that a specific set of goals is obtained."
With this in mind, I attended a workshop specifically geared towards pesticide bylaws, which was facilitated by Angela Rickman. Since 1996, she and the Sierra Club have been on the steering committee of the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction (CPR), which includes groups like Toronto Environmental Alliance, Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I was astonished to learn that the CPR includes over 180 member groups across the country, from Cornerbrook and Halifax to Victoria and Yellowknife.
An unprecedented legal decision has been a major factor in this undercurrent of activism. In June, 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of the town of Hudson, Quebec to restrict the use of pesticides within its perimeters. Unlike previous municipal bylaws, this one included privately owned land as well as property owned by the town. A key aspect of the decision was that pesticide use can be restricted without definitive scientific proof of harm. The Court based its decision on the "precautionary principle" of international law. In other words, until pesticides are proven safe, they should be considered dangerous.
In July, 2002, the Quebec government announced another first--a province-wide ban on cosmetic use, to be phased in over the following three years. Other municipalities that have recently passed bylaws include Cobalt, Ontario (the first there); Shediac, New Brunswick; and Port Moody, British Columbia. Ottawa plans to introduce a bylaw in the fall, and Toronto city council is presently considering one.
These local decisions are being strongly influenced by overwhelming evidence that chemical pesticides pose a health hazard. Numerous studies have linked pesticide use with leukemia and immune disorders in children, as well as connections to liver and kidney damage, reproductive defects, neurological disorders, immune suppression, Parkinson's disease and some types of cancer in people of all ages. Researchers have also noted connections to acute effects such as respiratory, digestive and behavioural disorders.
Pesticides also poison the food chain, contaminate water supplies and are implicated in declining populations of certain non-human species. The impacts of toxicity are so well documented that even mainstream health organizations like the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Public Health Association are advocating bans.
At the Kingston workshop, we shared numerous strategies for organizing around these issues in our local communities. Janet McNeill from Port Perry, Ontario pointed out some basic points to stress when speaking with neighbours:
- Like second-hand smoke, pesticide contamination is involuntary for neighbours and anyone else within the general vicinity of the area being sprayed.
- The chemical pesticide industry is allowed to keep numerous trade secrets and is unaccountable to the public.
- Mixing pesticides with other chemicals or after breakdown can present even worse health hazards. Janet recommended some general principles to help present an argument against pesticides:
- Avoid getting trapped in debates about toxicology with the industry. They have lots of money and will match you toe to toe with studies they've paid for.
- Stress the democracy issues involved.
- Appeal to parents about their kids being inadequately protected.
- Stress to neighbours and local politicians that there's enough information to indicate significant danger.
- Point out how important this is for our children, our animals and our environment.
- Don't be taken in by the industry's compromise solution called
Integrated Pest Management. It generally means perpetuating pesticide use.
Other strategies and tactics discussed include:
- "Dear Neighbour" letters distributed door-to-door to allow people to digest information without being harangued;
- Letters to editors and news releases/conferences, to get local media involved and to inform the public;
- Literature, to hand out at local events and venues;
- Posters, advertisements and radio and television public service announcements, to bring attention to issues and events;
- One-on-one contact with municipal councillors and formal deputations at council meetings, to inform bylaw decision-making;
- Public forums and debates, to raise consciousness and achieve solidarity;
- Videos are available from many environmental groups opposing pesticides;
- Block parties and street fairs, to provide educational opportunities and social bonding in neighbourhoods;
- Lawn signs (e.g. This Lawn's Off Drugs), to make strong statements and contribute to peer pressure among neighbours;
- Dandelion Festivals, to highlight the positive culinary and medicinal values of this often maligned "weed";
- Natural garden tours, to demonstrate the results of pesticide-free growing;
- Alliances with health professionals, educators, civic organizations and associations of organic growers.
Another important suggestion from the workshop was to recommend non-toxic sprays and repellants that people can make using safe, natural ingredients found in their kitchens and homes. These can include garlic, vinegar, dishwashing liquid, lemon peels, hot pepper and tomato leaves. Going without chemicals attracts birds and other beneficial wildlife, takes advantage of natural food chains and encourages biodiversity in domestic and public places. Where grass is chosen for groundcover, there are many methods of organic turf care that eliminate chemical pesticides while maintaining healthy lawns.
For the CPR's Angela Rickman, the essence of these campaigns is "the exercise of political will to protect the most vulnerable. Ultimately, if the most vulnerable are adequately protected, we all are." It's inevitably about empowering people and building community. When people cooperate, they learn to organize themselves to take back control of their everyday lives, starting in their own yards.
SMALL PRINT: Bruce Cattle lives in Picton, Ontario and volunteers with The Safe Water Group there. (www.safewatergroup.org)
BOX: Valuable Reference Sites:
www.panna.org Pesticide Action Network of
North America
www.sierraclub.ca/national
Sierra Club of Canada
www.pesticidefree.ca Pesticide
Free Ontario
www.gca.ca Green Communities Association
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, please email us at list@safe2use.com.