B.C. MLAs’ recommendations disappoint supporters of cosmetic pesticide ban
The Canadian Cancer Society is disappointed after a special legislative committee of B.C. MLAs failed to recommend a provincial ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides for lawns and gardens.
“The Canadian Cancer Society is very concerned about the use of cosmetic or unnecessary pesticides on lawns and gardens,” society spokesperson Kathryn Seely told the Straight by phone today (May 17). “We base this statement on the growing body of evidence that suggests there are links between substances used in pesticides and cancer.”
“We know that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides because their organs and bodies are growing and developing and they play close to the ground,” Seely said. “The Canadian Cancer Society believes we don’t have to wait for scientific certainty before we prohibit the use of these unnecessary chemicals on lawns and gardens and places our children play.”
After a ten-month-long review, the legislative committee determined there is not enough scientific evidence to justify a ban on cosmetic pesticide use in B.C.
“The majority of the committee does not think the scientific evidence, at this time, warrants an outright ban,” Liberal MLA Bill Bennett, the committee chair, said in a statement. “We are not prepared to say to homeowners that purchasing 2,4-D is prohibited, under all circumstances, or that they cannot hire a qualified person to apply it to their lawns.”
The all-party legislative committee—with a majority of Liberal MLAs—was formed in June 2011 to look into the use of pesticides and the possibility of a ban.
In a report tabled today in the legislature, the committee made a series of recommendations on the sale and use of pesticides. These included calls for a ban on commercial-class pesticides for uncertified users, tougher rules around the sale of pesticides, and efforts to educate the public and encourage use of alternatives to pesticides.
Seely, with the Canadian Cancer Society—B.C. and Yukon, encouraged British Columbians to continue pushing for a legislated ban.
“The [committee’s] report was slow in coming, it’s weak in content and it is disappointing overall, especially when you consider the number of British Columbians that already support cosmetic pesticide legislation and that actually responded to not one but two B.C. government consultations,” she said.
Opposition New Democrat environment critic Rob Fleming, the committee’s deputy chair, also said the outcome of pesticide review is disappointing. The NDP is among those supporting a ban on cosmetic pesticides.
“Instead of making good on the premier’s repeated promise to ban cosmetic pesticides, the Liberals have brought in minimal regulatory changes,” Fleming said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, despite the fact that it's the right thing to do and has overwhelming support from British Columbians, the government majority on the committee has chosen to bring in status quo recommendations instead of advancing protections that 22 million Canadians in six provinces currently enjoy,” he said.
Cosmetic pesticide bans are already in place in Ontario and Quebec, and dozens of B.C. municipalities have introduced restrictions.
During the committee’s review, more than 8,600 groups and individuals took part in an e-consultation. Most respondents to a questionnaire supported a cosmetic pesticide ban.
“We had an unprecedented level of public interest and participation for a legislative committee, reflecting a widespread consensus among the public and scientific community that the cosmetic use of pesticides pose an unnecessary health risk to children, pets and our water supply," Fleming said.
“There are viable non-synthetic alternatives that are already available and the associated health risks of cosmetic pesticides warrants government action to reduce everyday exposure to toxins that are potentially harmful and easily misused.”
Comments
14 Comments
Mark Fornataro
May 17, 2012 at 2:15pm
This is the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson's seminal book Silent Spring which warned of the dangers of pesticides.And the Liberals still don't get it.
Can't wait til they're voted out.
Dan Phils
May 17, 2012 at 3:15pm
I've been a pesticide applicator for almost 25 years. How come I don't have cancer? I ve sprayed thousands of lawns over the years sprayed 20 today. I see no harm being done to anyone just weed free lawns. The BC Cancer society should stick to finding a cure for cancer with the money they get and not wasting it on a crusade against something that does'nt cause cancer and is proven by science not too. I am living proof and so are the thousands of people who use 2-4d.
Mark Fornataro
May 17, 2012 at 4:21pm
Dan Phils- My brother died young from Multiple Myeloma, a cancer linked to pesticides. And he spent some of his working life applying pesticides.
Loretta
May 17, 2012 at 5:36pm
Most Cancers take YEARS to accumulate before they overwhelm your body. And they don't just come from one source. Guess it's easier, and helps you feel better to stick your head in the sand. LA-la, .... La-la, ...La-la,!...
Look at me! I can't hear any warning bells with my hands over my ears. La-la, la-la,...
K. Jean Cottam, PhD
May 17, 2012 at 5:48pm
Unfortunately B.C. MLA's failed to rise to the occasion. It is dowright shameful and misguided on their part to allow the continued use of 2,4-D, for example, which was the other ingredient of Agent Orange and was invented for use on the battlefield. 2,4-D is contaminated by a dioxin, somewhat less toxic than the dioxin attributed to 2,4,5-T, the other ingredient of Agent Orange which was banned in the U.S. in 1984. It is pesticide manufacturers and applicators who insist there is insufficient evidence of harm caused by cosmetic use of pesticides. Shamefully, B.C. MLA's appear to have been influenced by these self-interested elements, rejecting the wise and caring advice of the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, the pesticide applicator who commented here is extremely lucky not to have been harmed by exposure to 2,4-D. I very much doubt that among the thousands who use 2,4-D there isn't a growing number of those who succumb to cancer and other diseases linked to pesticide exposures.
bdubblut
May 17, 2012 at 8:22pm
This is akin to years ago when governments looked the other way with cigarettes. How many people died because of that “The majority of the committee does not think the scientific evidence, at this time, warrants an outright ban,” attitude?
Henry V
May 17, 2012 at 8:58pm
Rachel Carson has been debunked, DDT is being produced again, and lives are being saved from the ravages of malaria in Africa.
I would love to see the data which supports the link of Multiple Myeloma to cancer.
I have been an applicator for over 35 years and to date have no effects from my job, that doesn't mean that there is no danger to the chemicals I use, just that there is no more danger than eating sodium chloride.
Toxicity is dose related, and I'm sure my exposure is far greater than any average citizen.
bdubblut
May 17, 2012 at 9:02pm
This is akin to years ago when governments looked the other way with cigarettes. How many people died because of that “The majority of the committee does not think the scientific evidence, at this time, warrants an outright ban,” attitude?
News Update*
*Oh that's right, cigarettes were cosmetic too.
paul ravenshead
May 18, 2012 at 4:52am
The Cancer Society and the NDP have thier head up where the sun don't shine. How can they make statements like this when the worlds leading experts in pesticide safety testified at the committee hearings as to the safety of pesticides. All of the ills and diseases promised by the CCS and the NDP have not and will likely never materialize with pesticides. The CCS should accept they are wrong and move on to doing what they do best, milk the public for more money so they can keep thier fat salaries and consistently underfund cancer research.
Martin Dunphy
May 18, 2012 at 12:32pm
Henry V:
Rachel Carson has not been "debunked" as you claim. And as a result of her book, <em>Silent Spring</em>, DDT was never prohibited for use against malaria-transmitting mosquitoes by the U.S. or the World Health Organization, despite the false claims by paid chemical-industry hacks.
And yourself, it would seem.
Many cancers take decades to develop. I am truly glad that you haven't yet shown signs of illness after decades of cosmetic pesticide applications, applications for something as needless as weed control. Everyone could do their waistlines a favour and bend over to pull out a weed now and then.
Or just let them live, alongside the "favoured" plants.