Cosmetic pesticide ban – knowledge from what?

This past week saw the McGuinty Government introduce Bill 64 to ban, “the use and sale of pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes”. The legislation –if passed – would initiate the ban in the Spring of 2009, and would include exemptions for farmers and golf courses.

As Opposition Environment Critic I look forward to debating this bill in coming days to ensure that government gets this right. To get it right requires an underpinning of neutral, objective research evidence.

While I think we can all support the concept of eliminating non-essential pesticide use, I do feel that we have to look beyond – to look beyond emotion – and ensure our knowledge of these products is based on fact.

I should first point out that a pesticide is a broad term for product used to control insects, weeds, diseases, fungi, algae, and rodents.

Given the current regulations already in place, if we are moving forward with this prohibition, it is incumbent on this provincial government to do its due diligence and ensure it has the proper scientific data to move forward.

This government has cited the Literature Review of the Ontario College of Family Physicians as proof of the links between pesticide use and cancer, as well as learning disabilities and birth defects. However, based on reports from a number of national health agencies, this review is questioned from many sides.

Health Canada has determined the Ontario College of Family Physicians report, “did not consider all or even most of the relevant epidemiology evidence, which has lead to many questions in interpretation.”

The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution further stated, ”the review seems to over-interpret the findings” ; ”strong conclusions are drawn from evidence of rather weak quality.”

And The UK Advisory Committee on Pesticides indicates, “discrepancies arise from serious flaws in the methods employed in the review – again referring to the Literature Review of the Ontario College of Family Physicians”; “ failure to take account of all or even most of the relevant epidemiological evidence, and the biases inherent in the way material was picked for conclusion”

I am no scientist, but those who made these statements are; and as far as the validity of the Family Physicians report is concerned, I believe we can see that the jury is out.

I regret this proposed legislation does not appear to be based on anything close to a consensus of neutral, objective research and science.

In addition to the questions about science-based reasoning, further questions arise over government’s proposed exemptions.

Bill 64 includes an exemption for farm use - an exemption I support.

However this exemption clearly sets a double standard. As Scott’s Canada (they have a plant in Delhi) has submitted to the Environmental Bill of Rights, “a ban focusing on towns and cities while ignoring rural areas would be seriously flawed…..Clearly where our health and the health of our environment is concerned, a double-standard is neither desirable or acceptable.”

Golf courses are also exempt. But as Kim Novak wrote in her Simcoe Reformer editorial, “Yet how long will it be before a golf course worker somewhere challenges the law, saying they are being exposed to what the government has deemed to be unhealthy material?” When will a farm worker or forest worker do the same? I ask.