category descriptionBC Golf NewsCoursesGear Up

« PGA of BC - - New Appointments and Changes | Home | UW Huskies' Canadian Connection & The Pac-10 »

Ontario's Pesticide Ban Being Monitored By BC

Golf course owners and their superintendents throughout British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, together with those employed in landscaping and chemical production, are closely monitoring a new Ontario ruling that now bans the use of pesticides.

From an article in this month's Oilweek Magazine it is reported that Ontario's pesticide ban, which went into effect Wednesday (April 21), is the most stringent in Canada and could possibly "land the province in the legal crosshairs of an international trade dispute."

The Canadian Press
Ontario is joining Quebec in restricting the use of pesticides, but its rules go further by prohibiting the sale and cosmetic use of more than 80 ingredients and 250 products, with few exceptions, experts say.

Other provinces are considering similar restrictions to protect the environment and public health, including British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, said Lisa Gue of the David Suzuki Foundation.

Science hasn't yet proven what effect, if any, pesticides have on our health, but given the risks, governments must err on the side of caution, Gue said from Ottawa.

"The lack of scientific certainty cannot be an excuse to delay action to protect health and the environment," she said.

"And that´s exactly what Quebec, and now Ontario, have done."

Both provinces have even banned weed killer 2,4-D even though it has been deemed safe by Health Canada _ a move that sparked a NAFTA challenge of Quebec´s ban.

Dow AgroSciences LLC, which manufactures 2,4-D, has decided to sue the federal government and seek at least $2 million in damages, arguing that Quebec´s rules violate Canada´s trade obligations because it prohibits a product without any scientific basis.

The company wouldn´t say whether it will go after Ontario´s ban as well.

"Our legal action is focused solely on Quebec at this time, and I won´t speculate on any other action that we might take in Canada," said spokeswoman Brenda Harris.

"What I do think is important is that when provinces or jurisdictions are considering these types of things, that they really look closely at science, and making sure that science is part of the process."

Ontario´s environment minister said he isn´t worried by the potential threat of a lawsuit.

"We think we´re doing absolutely the right thing by banning pesticides from our laws and gardens, and we´ll have to wait and see what the courts say about that," said John Gerretsen.

"But I´m quite confident that they will uphold the right of Ontario to take this kind of an action."

Experts, such as the Ontario College of Family Physicians, have warned that the long-term effects of exposure to pesticides can be devastating, especially to pregnant women and children.

But unlike Quebec, Ontario municipalities are forbidden from enacting tougher anti-pesticide rules.

When Premier Dalton McGuinty announced the ban a year ago, he mistakenly said towns and cities could have stronger bylaws if they wanted to _ a move many applauded.

Two weeks later, he admitted that he "screwed up," but shifted the blame to Gerretsen, who had failed to correct his boss in front of reporters.

The government´s refusal to change the legislation angered some municipalities and health groups, as well as the Ontario New Democrats.

"I still think municipalities should be able to go beyond what the province put in place," said Peter Tabuns, the party´s environment critic.

Toronto had tougher rules, but they won´t be enforced any longer, he added.

Ontario will still allow pesticides to be used in farming, forestry or for health and safety reasons, such as controlling mosquitoes that can carry diseases like the West Nile virus.

Golf courses will also be able to use pesticides, but must meet certain conditions to minimize the effects on the environment.

Lawns and gardens represent only about four per cent of the pesticide business across the country, according to CropLife Canada, a pesticide industry association.

The ban will be devastating to those employed in landscaping and chemical production, putting thousands of jobs at risk in the midst of a economic recession, said CropLife president Lorne Hepworth.

"The biggest issue that we have is the lack and demise of science as the basis for regulating in the areas of health and the environment," he said.

"Clearly, politics has trumped science here. Polling has trumped science."

Quebec, which announced its ban in 2003, prohibits the use and sale of 20 ingredients in lawn pesticides and has additional restrictions for their use outside public daycares and schools.

Experts say it could be years or even decades before there´s any resolution to the NAFTA dispute.

Dow filed a formal notice of arbitration on March 31, nine months after signalling it would pursue the matter under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Chapter 11 allows investors in a NAFTA country to sue the government of another NAFTA country for actions they believe hurt them or their investments. It also circumvents local courts and puts the case in front of an international tribunal.


1 Comment

Re Ontario's Pesticide Ban Being Monitored by BC, published in BC Golf News.

I am honorary Canadian observer on the Pesticide Working Group based in Washington, D.C. A minor correction: Ontario's Pesticide Ban went into effect on Wednesday (April 22).

True, science has not yet proven 100% that pesticides are harmful--such results are in fact unattainable, objectively speaking. Nevertheless, evidence of pesticide harm is sufficiently compelling.

Here are some hard facts about 2,4-D industry data re-evaluation by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Clearly, with only ONE epidemiologist on staff and 350 plus toxicologists, most of whom lack the PhD degree, the PMRA is very poorly equipped for keeping records of and examining epidemiological (human) studies.

Consequently, it proved impossible for the PMRA to competently examine the monumental epidemiological study of the Ontario College of Family Physicians. No independent research is conducted by the PMRA, whose scientists evaluate industry-provided toxicological (rat) data almost exclusively.

Meanwhile, evidence is growing that use of rat data has serious limitations when applied to humans. Thus it is epidemiology that links 2,4-D to cancer, impaired child development, neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's, immunological and reproductive harms, as well as diabetes.

2,4-D may be industry-tested at lower than manufacturing temperatures, thus failing to register the presence of a toxic dioxin. Only so-called 'active' portion of the ready to use product is tested; up to 99% goes untested.

When 2,4-D is used in combinations, such as PAR III, these combinations are never tested as such, even though the components are likely to be 'synergistically' reinforcing each other.

The 2,4-D industry-sponsored research is incomplete and undoubtedly motivated by self-interest in retaining the use of 2,4-D. Thus vital data are withheld from the PMRA, empowering industry spokesmen, such as the lobbyist Lorne Hepworth, to suggest that the misleadingly and incompletely tested product is safe.

Clearly, to suggest, as lobbyists for the chemical industry are doing, that only their self-interested science is true, in contrast to the supposedly politicized data of so-called activists, does transform science into a kind of self-serving religion.

K. Jean Cottam, PhD
Ottawa, ON
613-726-1596



« PGA of BC - - New Appointments and Changes | Home | UW Huskies' Canadian Connection & The Pac-10 »


back to top