Pesticide prohibition triggers city debate
      Activists, business line up to argue pros and cons

      Tue May 29 2007

      By Bartley Kives

           
      FOUR years after Winnipeg weaned itself off tobacco, city council is thinking about waging a war on drugs of another sort -- the chemicals used to kill weeds and bugs on lawns.

      The city will take its first baby steps toward a possible ban or reduction of the use of cosmetic pesticides tonight with a series of informal public hearings into the pros and cons of applying weed killers to public and private property.

      Environmental activists, academics, lawn-care providers and politicians are among 44 delegations signed up to address city councillors Jenny Gerbasi (Fort Rouge) and Mike Pagtakhan (Point Douglas) over the next two days.

      Along with city environmental co-ordinator Alec Stuart, the councillors will compile what they learn into policy recommendations expected before council in September, when the real debate on a cosmetic pesticide bylaw will begin.

      "This is the same model we used when we brought in the bylaw to ban smoking in enclosed spaces," Gerbasi said on Monday, as she prepared for hearings slated to begin at 6 tonight at City Hall.

      Back in 2003, former North Kildonan councillor Mark Lubosch spearheaded a series of public meetings that led to what was then one of Canada's first comprehensive smoking bans.

      But the situation is different with cosmetic pesticides, as Winnipeg currently lags behind dozens of Canadian jurisdictions -- including Toronto, Halifax, Brandon and the entire province of Quebec -- which have enacted complete or partial bans on weed killers such as dicamba, mecoprop, glyphosate and 2,4-D.

      The public hearings are not binding, which means Gerbasi and Pagtakhan will merely be moderating a discussion at this point.

      They're expecting to hear environmentalists argue for a complete cosmetic-pesticide ban and businesspeople campaign for the status quo.

      "We have to see what both sides have to say," said Pagtakhan, who claims he does not lean in either direction although he does not use pesticides on his own yard, which is covered with perennials.

      Gerbasi openly favours some form of ban.

      Environmentalists say lawn chemicals can be toxic to humans and pets and reduce the number of species of plants and animals in ecosystems after the substances run off lawns and into local streams, rivers and lakes.


      University of Manitoba environmental engineer Shirley Thompson, who has conducted research into cosmetic-pesticide use in Halifax, said the chemicals have been linked to attacks of epilepsy and asthma.

      "For no real purpose other than enhancing grass or improving our golf game, we're endangering health and decreasing biodiversity," said Thompson, who's slated to speak at the hearings tonight.

      Grassroots activists such as Nick Ternette go even further, claiming pesticides cause cancer and present an immediate danger to human health.

      But the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, a division of Health Canada, currently permits the use of cosmetic pesticides in proscribed quantities.

      Geoff Gunn, general manager for Winnipeg lawn-care company Green Drop, said the quantities of pesticides currently applied by his staff are far below the federal limits.

      Gunn said his customers only need weed killers to battle serious infestations when they're just beginning to get their lawns in shape, as solid ground cover prevents weeds from taking hold.

      "I guarantee the average homeowner uses far more products than licensed applicators do," said Gunn, who opposes a cosmetic-pesticide ban. "It would take away our ability to get those weeds under control initially."

      A weed-killer ban may even backfire in the form of "pesticide vigilantism," where homeowners afraid of weeds on city property apply the chemicals illegally and excessively to boulevards near their yards, argued David MacKay, executive director of the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers and a former campaign spokesman for Mayor Sam Katz.

      "The consequences far outweigh the benefits," said MacKay, who is also slated to address the hearings tonight. "Leave this to the professionals. Don't let homeowners take this into their own hands, because they don't always take the time to read labels."

      MacKay's lobby group opposes an urban cosmetic-pesticide ban because it could lead to "paranoia" that may adversely affect farmers' ability to apply chemicals.

      "If this is not well thought out, it could get out of hand," he said.

      However, Thompson said Canadian municipalities that have enacted bans have had positive experiences, provided they phase in the reductions in stages, beginning first with city property and then with private yards.

      She also said the chemical industry routinely underestimates the dangers of pesticides by assuming they're always applied properly and are not encountered by children or people with chemical sensitivities.

      In Winnipeg, city lawn-care crews apply chemicals to grass in larger parks an average of once every five years, while smaller parks -- and all lawns around play areas -- are never treated, said pest-management co-ordinator Jeff Swereda.

      He said the city will closely monitor this week's hearings, which are only intended to deal with non-essential pesticides.

      Chemicals used to control mosquitos and other insects are not on the table.

      "There is no political will at city council to deal with that," said Gerbasi, who's looking forward to two days of pesticide hearings.

      "I expect it to be informative and educational. We learned a lot when we brought in the smoking bylaw."

      But it will be months before it's known whether her colleagues on council will debate a ban on cosmetic pesticides on city property, private lawns or both -- if at all.


      bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Which pesticide are you on?



      Informal hearings at city hall mark Winnipeg's first baby steps toward enacting restrictions on the use of cosmetic pesticides.


      When are the hearings?

      Tonight from 6 to 9 p.m., and Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Councillors Jenny Gerbasi and Mike Pagtakhan are moderating.


      What's on the agenda:

      No less than 44 delegations will speak to the pros and cons of banning cosmetic pesticides and herbicides -- basically, the products spread on lawns and gardens and golf courses.


      What's not on the agenda:

      The use of mosquito-killing chemicals. The city is not holding an inquest into the use of malathion.


      What happens after the hearings?

      City environmental co-ordinator Alec Stuart will compile the presentations into a report due before council in September. That's when the real cosmetic-pesticide debate begins at city hall.


      Will the proposed restrictions affect city lawns or private property?

      It's too soon to say. Dozens of jurisdictions across Canada -- including Toronto, Halifax, Brandon and the entire province of Quebec -- have enacted full or partial bans in a variety of ways.


      What chemicals do City of Winnipeg lawn-care crews use?

      Right now, at least four -- mecoprop, glyphosate, dicamba and 2,4-D. Some are considered more toxic than others but all are approved for use by Health Canada.

      Are there alternatives to using lawn chemicals?


      Yes. You can overseed your lawn to crowd out weeds, pick weeds by hand, grow grass longer to deprive sun-loving weeds or replace some or all of your lawn with vegetable gardens, native perennials, rock gardens or trees. Generally speaking, weeds will not infest a healthy lawn.


      -- Bartley Kives


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
      © 2007 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved. 

May 29, 2007

CBC News

Winnipeg debates pesticide ban

The City of Winnipeg will hold the first of two public meetings
Tuesday night on the pros and cons of banning or limiting chemical
pesticides and herbicides for cosmetic use.

"I think Winnipeg is behind the times when it comes to controlling the
use of these chemicals," said Coun. Jenny Gerbasi, who chairs the
committee examining the issue.

More than 100 communities across Canada, including Brandon, Halifax,
Ottawa and Toronto, have restricted the non-essential use of toxic
lawn and garden chemicals.

Last year, Quebec adopted the toughest standards in North America in
banning 20 different chemicals, such as 2,4-D, found in the most
popular herbicides.

"I think there's more and more awareness growing of the health
concerns to humans and even to pets of the use of chemicals," Gerbasi
said.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has warned
that pesticides have been linked to cancer, birth defects and
neurological disease.

The use of mosquito-killing chemicals such as malathion is not on the
agenda for the meeting, which will be held from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. CT in
city council chambers. Another public meeting is scheduled for
Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CT.

Gerbasi said the committee will eventually submit a report to city
council on the prospect of banning lawn and garden chemicals.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2007/05/29/pesticide-debate.html

========================

Wed May 30 2007
 
 Winnipeg Free Press
 
 'It's time for city to wake up': delegate
 
 By David Kuxhaus
 
 A cosmetic pesticide ban is good for the environment and the lawn care businesses who use the chemicals, city councillors were told at a public hearing Tuesday night.
 
 Ian Greaves of the Campaign for Pesticide Reduction in Winnipeg said lawn care companies haven't suffered in cities such as Toronto and Halifax where pesticide restrictions have been imposed.
 
 "I've not seen bylaws have any adverse affect," said Greaves.
 
 According to Statistics Canada, Greaves said the number of landscape and lawn care companies grew by 53 per cent in Halifax between 2000 and 2005. Halifax banned the used of cosmetic pesticides in 2003.
 
 The City of Winnipeg is now looking into a partial or full ban. So-called cosmetic pesticides are used to enhance the appearance of lawns, gardens and golf courses as opposed to other uses of pesticides such as protecting farmers' crops.
 
 Tuesday night, about 50 people turned up for public hearings.
 
 Most of the delegates spoke in favour of the ban. More presentations are scheduled today before councillors Jenny Gerbasi (Fort Rouge) and Mike Pagtakhan (Point Douglas) will be making recommendations to council this September.
 
 Some lawn care companies say cosmetic pesticides are needed to get weeds under control. Moreover lobby groups like the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailer opposes, claims a prohibition could adversely affect farmers' ability to apply chemicals.
 
 Greaves, however, said industry groups are just "fear-mongering".
 
 He told the hearing that with a little care and work a beautiful pesticide-free organic lawn is possible.
 
 The issue, however, is about more than just aesthetics.
 
 Several presenters last night spoke about the scientific data which links pesticide exposure to certain cancers  and other medical problems.
 
 Sandra Madary, a representative of Chemical Sensitivities of Manitoba, said even the Canadian Cancer Society has called for a ban.
 
 "It's time for city officials here to wake up," said Madray. "Because of the availability of pesticides people assume they're safe."
 
 Madray said it's particular difficult for people such as her who have Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). She said in some instances those with the condition end up being prisoners in their own homes because they can't tolerate being exposed to pesticides sprayed on lawns.
 
 "It wreaks havoc in the lives of people with MCS," said Madray. "Buffer zones may offer protection but they are not the solution.
 
 Several presenters said the onus should be on the lawn care companies to show that the chemicals they used aren't harmful.
 
 Andrew Basham, leader of the Green Party, said it should lead the way by imposing a ban, particularly in light of  the fact that the provincial government doesn't seem interested in the issue.
 
 david.kuxhaus@freepress.mb.ca
 
 © 2007 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.
 
 http://tinyurl.com/365kww
 
========================

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

Winnipeg Free Press

EDITORIAL - Debating pesticides

There are wide and conflicting conclusions in scientific and medical literature about the health effects of cosmetic use of pesticides, which have been restricted or banned in dozens of Canadian municipalities, including Brandon. Winnipeg city councillors, having considered a ban in 2003, are addressing the issue again, but there is no clearer evidence today backing up a ban of the appropriate application of chemicals.

City council itself has yet to gather new research as it asks residents, lobby groups, businesses and health authorities for their thoughts on the topic this week. Coun. Jenny Gerbasi says Winnipeg is trailing the pack -- 127 Canadian municipalities have restricted the cosmetic use of pesticides by her count. Ms. Gerbasi is convinced there are deleterious health effects from the use of chemicals that Health Canada approves, and that the city itself applies to its fields, parks and golf courses. There is not absolute clarity on the evidence, however: Health Canada notes, for example, that studies finding links between the 2,4-D pesticide and cancer, birth defects and endocrine disruption are weak, but the epidemiology used to conclude the product is safe to people also has weaknesses.

It is upon the weakness of evidence on both sides of this contentious debate -- 44 delegations had signed up to speak at the two days of public hearings that began Tuesday -- that Winnipeggers will have to weigh the value of any restriction. The city relies upon Health Canada's knowledge on pesticides and will comply with its decision to phase out the use of mecoprop, for example, by late 2009. Further, the city says it is using pesticides more strictly than Health Canada demands. Ultimately, any decision will be a political one, with city council measuring the opinions -- and experiences in other cities -- in the reports to be compiled by fall. Brandon's bylaw essentially requires pesticide use to respect the health sensitivities of individuals; Halifax banned pesticides but allows for exceptional circumstances; and Quebec has taken many products off the store shelves with what's considered North America's most stringent rules.

Ironically, lawn-care companies note that pesticides are rarely needed and then, only sparingly. The businesses warn that a ban on commercial use may result in homeowners -- less inclined to take care with application -- over-using chemicals. It will be a while before city council considers any proposal for a pesticide bylaw. In the least, Winnipeg may benefit from good public awareness that underscores what is obvious: The best protection for the majority of people is the careful, prescribed -- and considerate -- use of a product that indiscriminately applied can, of course, be toxic.

© 2007 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

http://tinyurl.com/2pynxf

========================

May 30, 2007

Winnipeg Sun

Plan of attack
City unveils extensive skeeter program

By SHANNON VANRAES, SUN MEDIA

Mosquitoes won't be the only thing buzzing around Winnipeg over the
next few weeks.

The city is unleashing an extensive larviciding program, including the
use of four helicopters, to combat an emerging mosquito population in
the wake of recent rainfall.

'CHALLENGES'

"We've had a significant amount of rainfall, and that has caused some
significant standing water sites ... This has created some interesting
challenges for the insect control branch," said spokesman Peter Parys.

Last week only 25% of potential sites were holding water. As of
yesterday, 75% were full.

According to Environment Canada, which takes measurements at
Richardson International Airport, the city received 71.5 mm of rain so
far this month, up almost 30 mm from May 2006.

"We are seeing above normal (rainfall) for this time of year," said
Environment Canada meteorologist Dave Carlsen.

To date, the city has seen more than 200 mm of precipitation this
year. The same period in 2006 saw only 128 mm.

"There is a potential for a large emergence of mosquitos," said city
entomologist Taz Stuart yesterday.

He said weather conditions, including warmer temperatures, are now
ideal for the development of larva.

The helicopter program makes up about 80% of the city's larviciding
operations and applies larvicide to large bodies of water difficult
for land crews to access. Larvicide crews are working around the
clock.

City officials also encourage Winnipeg residents to help keep the
mosquito population under control by eliminating standing water or
treating it with larvicide.

Meanwhile, a $200,000 cankerworm control program continues with crews
spraying larvicide on trees in parks and on boulevards nightly from
9:30 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.

However, spraying will only occur if winds are below 20 km/h and there
is no heavy rainfall.

More information is available at www.winnipeg.ca/bugline or at
986-3210.

http://tinyurl.com/2mya6p

========================

Thu May 31 2007

Winnipeg Free Press

Pesticide pros fight proposed bylaw
Argue ban would be impossible to enforce

By Mary Agnes Welch

THE owners of lawn care companies weighed in Wednesday on a proposed
pesticide ban, saying such a ban would be counter-productive and
impossible to enforce.

It was the second and final day of public hearings that brought a
total of nearly 50 delegates to city hall, most of them environmental
activists and health advocates who are rooting for a ban on the kind
of non-essential pesticides used to make lawns, gardens and golf
courses greener and healthier.

But a handful of lawn care professionals piped up Wednesday, arguing
that pesticides haven't been concretely linked to any nasty health
effects.

Banning them will force lawn care professionals, who have been trained
and licensed in the proper application of pesticides, to use more
expensive and less effective products while the chemicals remain on
shelves at Home Depot and Rona, possibly in other cities that haven't
instituted a ban.

It will be impossible for council to completely enforce the ban, and
homeowners accustomed to lush lawns will take matters into their own
hands and overuse off-the-shelf pesticides.

"Bylaws only take away the tools from the professionals, forcing the
untrained homeowner to do it themselves," said David Hinton, owner of
Weed Man Winnipeg.

Lawn care experts said there are only about seven products commonly
used as pesticides and all have been cleared by Health Canada.

Tim Muys, a 15-year veteran of the lawn care industry, said people
don't bat an eyelash at other pesticides such as pools filled with
chlorine, soaps that kill bacteria or spraying for cankerworms that
damage trees.

He said healthy lawns boost property values, help stop erosion, filter
water and even improve people's mental and physical health through
recreation.

Instead of an outright ban, some suggested an environmental levy on
off-the-shelf pesticides to force homeowners to use them more
frugally.

Already nearly 150 cities including Brandon, Toronto and Halifax have
restricted or banned cosmetic pesticides.

Environmentalist, scientists and people suffering from chemical
sensitivities begged the committee to ban non-essential pesticides,
saying they're unhealthy for pets and people and pollute the
environment, especially the water. Several young people told the
committee they did not want to remain in Winnipeg to raise a family if
pesticides are still widely used, and still others said Winnipeg is
lagging badly behind other cities.

"What is more important?" asked River Heights resident William
Hrynkow, "The health and the future of the city of Winnipeg or the odd
dandelion?

maryagnes.welch@freepress.mb.ca

(c) 2007 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

http://tinyurl.com/39t9b5

=========================

Fri 01 Jun 2007
 
  Winnipeg Free Press
 
   Support pesticide ban
 
  The editorial Debating pesticides (May 30) claims that there are "wide and conflicting conclusions in scientific and medical literature about the health effects of cosmetic use of pesticides." This is false.
 
  In 2004, the Ontario College of Family Physicians delivered its Pesticides Literature Review, which surveyed hundreds of scientific and medical studies on pesticides, finding associations between exposure and a range of cancer and non-cancer health problems. The OCFP concluded that: "Stronger intervention at the regulatory level, such as the province-wide cosmetic pesticide ban instituted by the Government of Quebec in 2003, could well prove to provide important cost savings to the health-care system." And the Canadian Cancer Society's website states that: "Since the ornamental use of pesticides has no countervailing health benefit and has the potential to cause harm, we call for a ban on the use of pesticides on lawns and gardens."
 
  There is clear support for a cosmetic pesticide ban from medical and scientific sources. So why is the Winnipeg Free Press creating doubt where none exists? Where is the evidence that pesticide products are safe? Who should we trust: salespeople or doctors?
 
  ANDREW BASHAM
  Winnipeg
 
  http://tinyurl.com/yw4e69
 
  =========================
 
  Fri 01 Jun 2007
   
   Winnipeg Free Press
 
  No proof for cancer claims
 
  In regards to the pesticide hearings being conducted at city hall: the case is not that there is overwhelming support for a ban. It is simply that the vocal minority are making the most noise, as usual. Why the majority of people don't care to voice their opinions and bring forth facts absolutely bewilders me. I was at the hearings and my group was one of only three or four that were against a ban. Our sentiments also seemed to echo the majority of people who took part in the Free Press poll the other day.
 
  The other thing that was blatantly clear at the hearings is that the people in favour of a ban were not bringing forth any evidence to suggest that pesticides are harmful. Instead, they gave non-credible accounts of how their noses are sensitive to chemical smells and that young people don't want to live in Winnipeg because the city still uses chemicals. I think more people will stay away from Winnipeg because of lack of jobs, not because we spray our lawns. The fact is, there is absolutely no conclusive study that says pesticides cause cancer. I hope the City of Winnipeg considers implementing a bylaw based on the facts presented by other groups, and not on emotional hearsay.
 
  CANDACE CALIGIURI
  Winnipeg
 
  http://tinyurl.com/yw4e69
 
  =========================