Tighter limits sought for pesticide use
May 22, 2008
Weed killers like Roundup may be headed for the corral now that Lower Mainland cities want the power to ban their use on all private lands.
Mayors and councillors narrowly voted at the Lower Mainland Local Government Association convention last week to ask the province for the ability to ban “non-essential cosmetic pesticides” that are used only for aesthetic purposes.
Burnaby reps, who spearheaded the resolution, argue the pesticides pose a potential risk to the environment and human health.
“What we’re putting on our lawns all ends up in our creeks, streams and lakes,” Burnaby Coun. Dan Johnston said. “Some of these chemicals have potential genetic damage that’s been linked to them. We think it’s a real potential danger both to our wildlife and to young children.”
Cities already have an ability to ban pesticide use in the yards of private homes, but the proposal to the province would extend that to all private lands, including commercial, industrial or agricultural property.
The resolution also calls on the province to ban all use of cosmetic pesticides.
Burnaby is already moving to ban pesticide use on residential land and public property.
Other cities are taking similar steps to keep pesticides out of parks and private yards and the Surrey School District has now ended pesticide use on its school fields.
Surrey Coun. Marvin Hunt was among those who voted against the resolution, arguing B.C. already has tight enough restrictions on pesticide use.
He said St. John’s, Newfoundland has ended up yellow with dandelions after bringing in a full ban.
“It’s just an absolute disaster,” Hunt said. “I have a real concern that in the end we’ll end up choked with weeds.”
The Canadian Cancer Society also wants a ban on their use in lawns and gardens, citing growing evidence of their link to cancer in adults and children.
Home Depot last month announced it will stop selling traditional pesticides and herbicides by the end of this year and will offer only environmentally friendly alternatives.
It will eliminate at least 60 products, including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, slug baits, moss control products and lawn fertilizers with weed control.
Cities want power to completely ban cosmetic (pesticide) use.
Find this article at:
http://www.bclocalnews.com/greater_vancouver/northshoreoutlook/lifestyles/19155579.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNV’s Pesticide Bylaw is coming to Council on June16th, with plans to ban all pesticide use for cosmetic purposes on private land, not including commercial property. They plan to use IPM’s (Integrated Pest Management) on their District-owned land.
What is your position on the “cosmetic use” chemical pesticide ban? Would you like to see it go further? Go provincial-wide, etc.?
33 opinions/comments:
Nanny state garbage, keep your laws off my property!
This quote says it all, "“Some of these chemicals have potential genetic damage that’s been linked to them"
Some ... potential ...
No actual proof of anything.
More bored politicians looking for a make-work project.
Pesticide use has decreased significantly over the last few years as education on their use, advantages and disadvantages has been increased. There's no need to take this next step - none.
I find it interesting that the DNV discussion excludes commercial properties from this bylaw. I'd be willing to bet that most of these properties are maintained by landscape companies and that on a per square foot basis, more chemical is used by these folks than by Homeowner Joe. What's the point on applying a ban to residential properties if the real offenders are still encouraged to use the product?
I'll tell you the difference - Commercial operators will complain and fight back as their livelihood is at stake. Residential property owners don't have a financial argument in support of the continued use of these chemicals and as such can be held under the thumb of a successful litigation professional (read; a mouthy politician).
This is proof positive that council is making rules for the sake of show, not for the sake of performance in that they're going after the low-hanging fruit through the path of least resistance (property owners).
And that is proof positive that once again we have bored politicians looking for a make-work project.
For the last several years, I have used non-chemical methods to remove weeds from the lawn. The dandelion fork works just great on most of the weeds and the advantage is that there are no "corpses" to watch die. Heck, these days in the damp mornings, I even go on "slug patrol" wrapping the offenders in TP and flushing them away.
I don't do weed patrol, and I don't worry about moss. I don't use a thimble full of pesticide/herbicide on the lawn or garden and don't water the lawn at all (I use rain barrel rain for the garden when it gets hot out). I compost the grass clippings and weeds, and I prune regularly to assure the shrubs stay healthy.
I say this as my previous post may come across that I'm pro-pesticide/herbicide. I'm not, not one bit and have chosen not to use those products at all. But my decision was based on education - not on Government intervention, and it was a decision I came to, not one I was raised with.
My post is against Government Intervention - it's not needed, its not wanted and we can't afford this type of continued practice of more rules, more rules, more rules when the only purpose for these rules is to allow the politicians to lay claims in their "see how good of a job I've done" publications - publications that we pay for. Then we get to pay for the upkeep and enforcement of the rules, and the whole cycle revolves around itself.
We need to stop this way of measuring a politician's success. We need to realize that rules for the sake of rules are expensive and wasteful and each one sets precedents for the removal of yet more freedoms - some of which will actually matter one day.
Politicians - don't make rules like this. Instead, take your guided drive to make change and focus it on education. Don't get on the bandwagon - create a new one. Spend the time you'd normally spend on drafting motions and doing the research on the framework for a continued public education system. Challenge the local papers to donate space to "the cause" - teach the masses and enroll them rather than rule them.
If you do that - you'll get my vote again and again and again. If you hold yet another club over my head, you'll never get my backing.
Signed
The Silent Majority
Get off my lawn!
I see Wendy is writing balanced, thoughtful, insightful and penetrating letters to the editor again.
Wendy, we need your balanced, thoughtful, insightful and penetrating thoughts HERE!
It's not the same without you. So many of us miss you....
HI WENDY!!!!
Ask the Canadian Cancer Society if an average resident using a bottle of roundup a few times a year will devlope cancer.
Their answer will be 'We don't know, but because farming communities use a higher amount of pesticides and have a higher rate of non-hodgkins lymphoma it is possible that there is a connection.'
Ask the Canadian Cancer Society if an average resident using a bottle of roundup a few times a year will devlope cancer.
Aww jees - here we go. Look, NO one is disputing that pesticides/herbicides are bad for you. But intelligent people figure that out on their own and don't use them!
We don't need the Government working harder to legislate common sense!
If you don't like pesticides/herbicides, don't use them, simple!
I've seen the sun rise every morning and someone dies of cancer each day so let's ban the sun.
"NO one is disputing that pesticides/herbicides are bad for you."
I am disputing the claim that 2,4-D (used in Roundup & common weed 'n feed mixes) is Cancer causing. The EPA tested it in a 17-year study and concluded that there was no testable link between the product and cancer.
Even if it was proven to have Carcinogenic properties then we would be having a discussion of degrees of exposure (PPM and Time). There are many carcinogenic materials that we use cosmetically (read Unnecessary, but enjoyed).
A professional house painter is exposed to more carcinogens during their career than a professional pesticide applicator... and the painters exposure is from proven Group1 carcinogens. So unless you plan to have an entire career putting down pesticides you are more likely to get cancer from painting a couple of rooms in your house each year.
Maybe if the politicians are bored they can ban painting in your house as well.
You can't seriously believe that 2,4-D is benign to humans?
Government agencies are Ministries of Disinformation. The pesticide and pharmaceutical companies sit in their pockets.
Hi Sue!
On April 23, 2004, the Ontario College of Family Physicians released a report looking at the impact that exposure to pesticides has on health.
The report reviewed the scientific evidence linking pesticide exposure to cancer and found a positive association between pesticide exposure and certain cancers including: leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, brain cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer and pancreatic cancer.
The review was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Canadian Family Physician (Oct. 2007)-
http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/reprint/53/10/1704
Interesting - everyone posting here is either anonymous or using a pseudonym.
While I agree with Nikko that it's VERY interesting that commercial properties are excluded, I disagree with pretty much everything else he says.
I've had my property sprayed by a well known commercial pesticide sprayer whose truck apparently got someone else's address confused with mine. After I screamed blue murder they first insisted they had done me a service (Me: "Uh no - it's MY right to decide if I want pesticides on my lawn and YOU don't have the right to decide that for me") and when compensation was demanded, all that was offered was coupons for more spraying!
This is why I have been lobbying Council demanding the cancellation of business licence of any company with more than one such complaint in a three year period.
I point out that the need for this is independent of the merits of the present bylaw proposal. If it were to happen again, I would have no hesitation going to the police as no one has the right to spray my land without my permission.
Everyone posting here is either anonymous or using a pseudonym - thank goodness!
Who cares who posts here unless he/she is an elected person that can impact our legislation or finances?
No one else's opinion is of any greater or lesser importance named, pseudonym or anon.
Sorry Lyle but your line of "I would have no hesitation going to the police as no one has the right to spray my land without my permission." has provided us the proof that we have desired for a long time.
You have acquired, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, a touch of short term memory loss when your private property was sprayed intentionally because of the asian gypsy moth scare.
It was Agriculture Canada, 1992, from the air, 300,000 litres of the bacterial, chemical pesticide Foray 48B was cast over much of the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, at an estimated cost to the taxpayers of 7 million dollars.
"Foray 48B contains 2.1% Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) and 97.9% "inerts" ingredients. We are not allowed to know what chemicals the inert may contain as they are protected under the Trade Secrets Act. In fact, this vital information is even denied to a physician who may need it to safely treat a victim of pesticide poisoning........................ "
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/stop/preface.html
Further information provided by South Fraser Health in regards to Foray 48B and its use in Delta with background noting Burnaby and Victoria did it too without any serious consequences except to children's playground equipment.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/gypsymoth/South%20Fraser%20Health_QA.pdf
There is no 2,4-D in Round-up.
Round-up is composed of isopropylamine salt of glyphosate (41%), surfactant (8%), and water (51%).
If there is to be a reasoned discussion of a possible ban of pesticides (including herbicides), there needs to be some care in representing the facts.
There also needs to be some transparency in representing the true impacts of effects of this ban on our landscape. Ornamental lawns need help from 1.) lots of water and fertilizer or 2.) some of these chemicals. Otherwise, weeds take over.
So consider the ban if you will, but recognize that it will result in changes in how residents, companies, and organizations landscape their properties. Within a couple of years existing lawn areas will be overtaken by weed species, and while manual removal of weeds may workable on a small lawn, it is not going to be feasible for larger areas.
No - I am not developing short term memory loss at all.
The incident you refer to was the act of a government operating within the law. I remember that summer quite well and while I did not like it much it was undeniably legal.
As opposed to the acts of a private company who by their own negligence committed an act of criminal trespass by spraying poisonous chemicals on my property without authorization. Had they knocked on the door to verify before spraying they would have quickly found out they were in the wrong place - that they could not be bothered to take 5 seconds to check is proof of wanton negligence pure and simple.
Yes it WAS their error. No that's not my problem - the Weed company sprayed without checking to ensure they were in fact at the right house and in my books, should have lost their business licence in DNV for it. Had I known then what I now know about how DNV works I would have fought much harder for it.
That's a fundamental flaw in the proposed bylaw and needs to be added.
Google Ad on Barry's blog has this one:
Pesticides
All New Bayer Calypso Insecticide Learn More At Bayer Crop Science
www.BayerCropScience.ca
Pharmaceutical companies first poison you with their pesticides, then try to cure you with their drugs. The drugs can end up poisoning you too.
Pharma-pesticides, anyone?
So how does this bylaw even work? I see my neighbor with the beautiful lawn and he's out squirting something near his plants so I call the cops?
We're in the midst of a mini-heat wave where there are water restrictions in place regarding blanket use thereof of Adam's ale.
What you see your neighour doing is being conservative, not liberal, by plying his plants selectively with the H2O that we all need to survive on this planet.
Chill out!
Who's got the stats for Northlands golf course because the "Average amount of pesticides used per acre, per year, on golf courses 18.0 pounds
Average amount of pesticides used, per acre, per year, in agriculture 2.7 pounds" - Matters of Scale - Planet Golf
Anon 7:36
Thank you for your kind words. The response to your comment is precisely why I do not participate in this blog anymore.
Too bad.
Wendy Q
Ironic Quote of the Day
"I do not participate in this blog anymore."
-Wendy Q.
Ironic Quote of the Day
"I do not participate in this blog anymore."
-Wendy Q.
And that's a very good thing, not least of which is of great benefit to WQ's mental wealth being.
health being
MLA Katherine Whittred won't run again
James Weldon
North Shore News
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
MLA Katherine Whittred hopes to stay active in Seniors' issues.
LONSDALE residents will be facing a brand-new Liberal candidate next May with the announcement this week by North Vancouver-Lonsdale MLA Katherine Whittred that she will be retiring.
Whittred, who has represented the riding for the past 12 years, said Tuesday she would not be running in the May 12, 2009 election. She made her plans public in a call to the North Shore News.
"It's just time to get on with a new chapter in life," she said. "I felt this was the time to do it, while I'm still young enough to do something else... There's no one reason."
Premier Gordon Campbell recently instructed members of caucus to confirm their plans for the next election by the end of this legislative session. Whittred has been weighing the possibility of retirement for some time, but with the deadline approaching, she had to make her choice.
"I've always had a great deal to do with seniors' issues. I think that is an area I will continue to work in," said Whittred. "I certainly don't see myself sitting and doing nothing."
The decision has left her with mixed emotions.
"Politics is kind of a seductive business," she said. "You're never quite finished."
As to who will be filling her shoes, Whittred could not even offer a guess.
"If you read the blogs, there are always a few rumours, (but) not one person has approached me," she said. "I anticipate it will be a lively nomination."
The MLA has no specific plans for her retirement, but she intends to remain actively involved in the community.
For her successor, Whittred has some simple advice.
"Be your own person," she said. "Don't listen to the gossip; just be confident in yourself that you're doing the best you can."
I'm happy to hear about the cosmetic use ban on pesticides. And I do think it should be Province wide.
Lynn Valley Day Festival - this Saturday, May 31st at Lynn Valley Park.
If you are planning to attend Lynn Valley Day please make sure you stop by the District of North Vancouver booth to see the Lynn Valley Town Centre Project display and talk with District staff. If you can't make it this Saturday don’t worry the display will be moved to the new Lynn Valley Library afterwards.
I hope to see all of you this weekend
If there was no correlation at all between pesticide use and the Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma my 23 year old sister is currently battling, I would offer my sincerest apologies to homeowners who may have to change their gardening methods. Fact is, virtually none of the other known risk factors for NHL apply to her. Until anyone can offer proof that there is no link at all, anyone with half a brain in their head should support a ban on these products. Personally, if I see anyone using a pesticide on their lawn on a bright Sunday afternoon, I'll snatch it away myself.
Post a Comment