PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF WINNIPEG AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF NON-ESSENTIAL PESTICIDES
Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Anne Lindsey
335 Rosedale Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3L 1L9

452-2352 (h) 
947-6511 (w)
anne@mbeconetwork.org

Good morning, Councillors and other Committee members. Thank you for this opportunity to present views about the cosmetic use of pesticides in the City of Winnipeg.

My name is Anne Lindsey. I am a resident and homeowner in the Lord Roberts area of Winnipeg. I am a mother of three, and an aunt of 6 children. My husband has acute asthma that is triggered by exposure to lawn care chemicals. I have worked in the environmental field for the past twenty years as an advocate and educator for healthy food, water, air and soil, and thus, for healthy children and other people.

Environmental quality has decidedly declined during that 20-year period, but I remain optimistic that we can do much better. I believe that the multitude of citizen groups and individuals working to improve our environment offer a vast range of opportunities to move in a more sustainable direction. We are presented with one of those opportunities in the form of this process today, and I’m grateful for the work of the City Councillors who believed that it is time to examine the cosmetic pesticide issue in a public forum.

Rachel Carson said, “we should no longer accept the counsel of those who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals; we should look about and see what other course is open to us”.

For those who may not recognize her name, Rachel Carson was the brilliant biologist who authored the seminal book, Silent Spring. This book was one of the first wake-up calls widely sounded to alert us to the hazards of the post-war chemical boom to our natural environment. Some aspects of Rachel Carson’s message were heeded: we no longer permit the application of DDT, for example, to foods grown in this and many other countries. However, her efforts and those of the many scientists who documented the collapse of raptor bird populations in North America, did not deter the chemical industry from its mission to develop and promote and profit from new synthetic compounds designed to provide more sterile, more convenient, and more controlled environments in the years to come.


Those synthetic chemicals now occur in just about everything that we are exposed to on a daily basis: from children’s toys to foods, to cosmetics, to clothing. From building materials to pharmaceuticals, to car seats, to lawns and gardens. We live in a literal chemical soup of unnatural substances whose properties and health implications, either alone, or in the multitudes of combinations in which they occur, have only been subject to the most basic of testing and/or review by the regulatory agencies charged with protection of health and ecosystems.i

Many authorities, including a growing number of physicians and health practitioners, believe that we are paying the price for this profligacy in the high rates of cancer, respiratory illness and other chronic disease which afflict our society.

Some others, primarily those who profit from the promotion, sale and use of chemicals, point out that there is no proof of their harm, and therefore no reason to discontinue their use. It can be confusing to the public.

The other day, I received an email from a friend in BC. She had spent the last several days sitting by her sister’s bed in a Calgary hospital. Her sister had suffered a recurrence of breast cancer, which necessitated 13 hour surgery for a double mastectomy and reconstruction. She came through the surgery well, only to suffer a related stroke 3 hours later. This bright, intelligent and active 50-something woman is now alive and aware, but unable to move or speak.

This is a tragic story, and one that is sadly repeated time and again across our country. Who knows what caused the cancer? Could she have been exposed to PCBs? To second-hand smoke? To trihalomethanes in her drinking water? To pesticides in her food, or on a lawn somewhere? Did she have a genetic pre-disposition to cancer? No one will ever know for sure.

The ace in the hole of those who point to “no proof of harm” is the long latency period for the development of many diseases after exposures. Numerous chemicals commonly used as pesticides, and registered for use in Canada, are considered to be possible carcinogens (eg. 2,4-D) or are associated in the medical literature with other kinds of serious illness.ii

Rachel Carson’s words quoted above are an expression of the Precautionary Principle:

“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”iii

In other words, to paraphrase Rachel Carson – if we can do a thing more safely, lets. Or, put another way, if there is a pretty good possibility that exposure to a certain substance – say, second-hand smoke, as a popular example, will make us sick, let us make efforts to avoid it.

This principle is being invoked more and more often by those who believe that we have a responsibility to “do no harm”. This would include the College of Family Physicians of Ontario, who reviewed the vast pesticide literature, and concluded that the public should: “avoid exposure to all pesticides whenever and wherever possible. This includes reducing both occupational exposures, as well as lower level exposures that occur from the use of pesticides in homes, gardens and public green space”iv It is the position of the Canadian Cancer Society v and a working legal principle of the European Union.vi

But here’s an important thing: we can invoke a precautionary approach in our own personal lives. I can make the personal choice not to use chemicals on my lawn. But what if my neighbour is using those chemicals? What if the schoolyard is sprayed? What if the city park where kids play is being sprayed? How can we avoid that?

The short answer is that we can’t. If I want to walk around my neighbourhood on a Spring evening, I can’t avoid breathing in the fumes from that day’s lawn care treatments. Our kids, walking to school, can’t avoid it either. My husband must ensure that he has his asthma medication, and several people I know can’t even be outside. This is why more than 100 municipal governments across the country have decided to adopt the precautionary principle when it comes to cosmetic pesticide use, and to enact by-laws eliminating their use, save in exceptional circumstances. Even the entire province of Quebec has done so. They have taken seriously their duty to protect the health of their citizens, and have not left it up to personal choice.

This is the course that I strongly urge the City of Winnipeg to follow. Research by the Canadian Centre for Pollution Prevention and the recent experience of the City of Toronto, show that enacting a by-law works to significantly reduce cosmetic pesticide use Voluntary measures, even with increased education, do notvii.  Leaving the issue in the hands of the private lawn care companies, with their vested interest in the continued use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, does not.

Will a by-law solve all our health care problems? Of course not. The rest of the chemical soup will continue to be out there, until the responsible jurisdictions also adopt precautionary measures that will limit our exposures to other dangerous substances as well. But cosmetic pesticide use is one area over which the City, as a Municipality, has established jurisdiction.viii A tough pesticide by-law may not have a noticeable effect on the cancer statistics, but if it can help to avert even one more case of breast cancer, or childhood leukemia, and all the needless suffering, heartbreak, and cost accompanying them, it will be worth it.

(And while they are equally worthy of your consideration, I do not have time here to elaborate on the environmental benefits to air, water and other species, that will accompany this move, nor on the wonderful economic potential of creating a whole new class of small business in organic landscaping, as has occurred in Ontario and Quebec).

Back to Rachel for a moment. Are there other courses we can follow? Emphatically, yes. Six years ago, I and my colleagues, responding to a need in the population of Winnipeg, designed a program to teach citizens how to care for a lawn without chemicals. We have been able to draw upon dozens of books, websites, and research papers on the subject. We’ve been able to consult with experts on organic lawn care, and to experiment successfully with it ourselves. In other words, this isn’t rocket science, and we need not re-invent the wheel. As you will hear, we have reached hundreds of Winnipeggers with this information.

The City of Winnipeg, to its credit, has helped with some modest funding for this program. I want to urge the City to take the next, and more important step – perform its due diligence with respect to public health and care for the environment. Enact a strong by-law banning cosmetic pesticide use, with enforcement provisions, fines for non-compliance, and continued and enhanced educational programs to assist in the transition. Bring us into the new millennium on a par with 12.4 million other citizens of Canada.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to present my views.