Cosmetic pesticide ban may be a slippery slope

So it’s fine to use the pesticides on crops we’re going to eat, but not fine to use them on our gardens. – Christina Blizzard, St. Catharines Standard, April 26, 2008

This week we commenced formal debate of the proposed Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act.

It goes without saying, we need to drastically reduce the amount of toxic materials that we come in contact with every day. However, government must show due diligence and ensure that it has the proper scientific data to move forward. That’s why we have debate. That’s why we have public hearings. That’s why it’s so important to review literature, to review the research and the evidence.

As Official Opposition, we support the elimination of non-essential pesticide use. But there must be a clear delineation of the difference between non-essential use of pesticides versus cosmetic use.

For example, there are a series of health and environmental risks that are controlled through the use of pesticides – everything from severe allergies, to insect infestations, to sports injuries. We must be sure there is an ability for the use of pesticides in “essential” situations – as opposed to cosmetic – to ensure protection in cases of health and environmental risks.

We must demand that the science behind this ban is solid and ensure that the emotional aspect of the anti-pesticide argument does not override science and fact.

This ban may be a slippery slope, as noted in recent Ontario Federation of Agriculture ads in the Ontario Farmer:

Ontario’s proposed ban on lawn and garden pesticides is moving forward, and could have a significant impact on farmers. All pesticides undergo the same rigid health and safety standards. With Health Canada’s review in place and by following label directions, pesticides can be used safely in agriculture, on fairways and greens, lawns and gardens, in forestry or in public health settings. Banning pesticide use in urban settings, while maintaining they are safe for use in agriculture undermines the public’s confidence in farming, the safety of our food supply and Health Canada’s regulatory safeguards.

Take a look at farmers and what they've achieved in reducing their pesticide use by 52% over the past 15 years, through proper, informed use that stresses the benefits of IPM (integrated pest management). As well, farmers are required to go through training and certification every five years.

I look forward to debating this legislation's place within the constellation of rules and regulations, and legislation that's already in existence, not only here in Ontario but right across Canada.

For instance, in the province of Ontario, pesticides and their use are already regulated federally: The Federal Pest Control Products Act controls the sale and use of pesticides in Canada. The Food and Drugs Act allows for the setting of maximum limits for pesticide residue in foods. The Environmental Protection Act includes numerous provisions to protect the environment and human health from injury from pesticides. The Fertilizers Act requires registration of the fertilizer-pesticide mixtures. The Feeds Act is to prevent contamination of livestock feeds. Provincially, as we know, we have the Ontario Pesticides Act, we have the Municipal Act, we already have the Weeds Act and the Forest Sustainability Act.

For government to get this right requires an underpinning of neutral, objective research evidence.