May 30, 2007

PRESENTATION TO THE CITY OF WINNIPEG
 AD HOC COMMITTEE ON
 NON-ESSENTIAL PESTICIDE REDUCTION

INTRODUCTION

I am presenting today on behalf of The Winnipeg Humane Society to express our hope that the City of Winnipeg will enact a by-law prohibiting the non-essential use of pesticides within Winnipeg. There are two basic reasons why we have come to this position:
1.We now know that the use of pesticides can contribute to life threatening diseases in both humans and animals.
2.We now know that the use of pesticides (lawn chemicals) contributes to the overloading of phosphates in Lake Winnipeg and that all life within Lake Winnipeg is seriously endangered.

I know that there are a number of other presenters today who will be focusing on the human health threats associated with pesticide use so I will focus primarily on the threats to animals, specifically pets. However as a mother and a human being, I feel compelled to state at least once, that there is nothing more precious than the life of our loved ones and in particular, our children, and now that we know about the links between pesticide exposure and cancer, it is our responsibility to do whatever we can to diminish those threats.

RISKS TO PETS

Now I will discuss the reasons that pets are at an increased degree of risk when exposed to lawn chemicals. First, they are smaller and much closer to the ground. They often lie in the grass, they chew the grass and other plants and they lick their paws and groom themselves, thereby ingesting materials that were on the grass. Pesticides are poisons, designed to kill, and they may remain on the ground and in the air for long periods of time.

Exposure can even occur in the house, where pesticides are tracked in on people’s shoes or pets’ paws. I am attaching a study (Nishiola, Lewis, Brinkman, Burkholder, Hines, and Menkedick) that documents the presence of 2,4-D in indoor air and on all indoor surfaces after the application of lawn chemicals. The study measured the residues of 2,4-D one week before lawn application and one week after. The results showed exposures 10 times higher after the lawn application than before and this was a whole week after it had been applied.

I am also including a study (Reynolds, Reif, Ramsdell and Tessari) that documents the presence of 2,4-D in dogs’ urine after contact with treated lawns. This study refers to the increased risk of malignant lymphoma associated with exposure to 2,4-D in dogs. Dogs exposed to lawns treated with chemicals within the previous 7 days were 50 times more likely to have 2,4-D at concentrations of > or = 50 micrograms/l in their urine, than dogs with exposure to lawns than had been treated more than 2 days previously.

Both of the above mentioned studies demonstrate that the application of lawn chemicals creates a much longer risk for exposure than what most of us have understood. The warning signs often refer to staying off the grass until it dries or for 48 hours but according to these studies, exposure hazards last for much longer.

I am also attaching a study (Purdue University – Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, April 15, 2004) that links the use of lawn chemicals to bladder cancer in Scottish terriers. The risk of developing bladder cancer was 4 to 7 times greater in the dogs who had been exposed to lawn chemicals. The study also refers to the similarity between human and dog genomes and the genetic predisposition that some dogs and some humans share towards certain types of cancers.

In the year, 2000, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of the House of Commons, issued a report entitled “Pesticides – Making the Right Choice, For the Protection of Health and the Environment”. That report stated “pesticides are highly poisonous substances designed to kill living organisms... The choice facing us is clear: either to continue with our chronic dependence on pesticides to the detriment of the environment, agricultural sustainability and human health or, to give public health protection clear precedence. We have already done so with tobacco, lead and asbestos. Pesticides should be next.”


CONCLUSION

I will conclude with a plea to you and all members of Winnipeg’s city council to demonstrate the same vision and courage you did when you enacted Manitoba’s first comprehensive smoking ban. This issue, the cosmetic use of pesticides, requires your action, as our elected leaders, to stop what we now understand is a hazardous practice, hazardous to those we love so dearly, our children and our pets. Surely with what we now know we cannot, in any conscience, allow it to continue. It is an issue in which the hazards are not strictly limited to those who are using the lawn chemicals. In Winnipeg, we are part of communities where our children walk to school, play outside and where many of us walk our dogs around our neighbourhoods. The actions of one homeowner, in applying lawn chemicals, can have impacts on many children and pets. That is why ultimately the responsibility and the power to create healthier communities lies with you as our civic leaders. Please do the right thing and put a stop to the non-essential use of pesticides so that our children and our pets can be free of those serious threats to their health.


Respectfully Submitted By,


Vicki Burns
Executive Director
The Winnipeg Humane Society