Pesticides

Here in London, Ontario, the city council has voted to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. I don't follow the news all that closely here, but my impression is that this issue has been pushed heavily by activist groups and a few councillors over the last few years. A few opinion polls showing support for a ban were released, and I think the results led some wavering councillors to fear that the issue might be used against them in the November municipal elections.

I haven't studied this issue in any depth. But I do have a few concerns.

1) The by-law, as implemented, carries the penalty of a fine under the Provincial Offences Act. But, really, I can't see how anyone at City Hall is going to catch offenders. What is to stop anyone from driving to Strathroy or St. Thomas and purchasing his or her favourite weed-killer? I doubt whether by-law officers will be dispatched to check the toxicity levels of private lawns. Now, some will respond that the point of the by-law is to educate and persuade local residents, thereby gradually reducing the use of pesticides and not necessarily to eliminate them immediately. Of course, if the proponents of a ban are to be believed, then pesticides are not safe at any level, and so the continued use of pesticides by those still committed to achieving perfect lawns will prevent the elimination of whatever health risks there are.

2) Beyond the problem of enforcement, the by-law has exemptions for many uses of pesticides, including pools, farming, infestations, golf courses, playing fields, and utility rights of way. Frankly, given that there are at least several golf courses and many sports fields within the city, the use of pesticides will still be significant. Again, the implication is that reduction, and not elimination, in usage is the most important thing. (And the three-year phase-in of the by-law suggests that the health risks are not urgent.) But, of course, what we've been hearing is that pesticides at any level are unsafe.

The London Coalition Against Pesticides (LCAP), which, based on the article above, appears to be the main advocacy group pushing for a ban, addresses the golf course issue in a report it recently submitted to a city committee. Interestingly, however, while the report denies that there is any improper discrimination, it does not explain why the continued use of any pesticides should be permitted given their allegedly dangerous effects.

3) The city councillors voting in favour of the ban have not pointed to any evidence of the health risks allegedly created by the use of pesticides. The London Free Press article linked to above mentions that "ban supporters concede there's little or no scientific evidence showing a direct link between pesticide use and health issues." The LCAP report refers to a report prepared in April 2004 by the Ontario College of Family Physicians. The report is a long (188 pages) review article summarizing the results of other studies. I'm not qualified to assess the report's conclusion, but then again I suspect that no one on London City Council is either. In the end, the OCFP and LCAP's best argument is that there is a link or association between pesticides and illness. Which is of course true. Any significant exposure to pesticides would be dangerous -- I wouldn't drink the stuff from a bottle.

But the problem is that any chemical will be dangerous at a certain level, and that the job of the state is to determine whether a chemical can be safely used. I saw a federal government employee make a similar point when quoted in a local community newspaper. Pesticides are safe when used according to directions. In the end, what I suspect we have here is a local manifestation of the emerging trend towards environmental nostalgia. People were a lot healthier back in the days before "chemicals," and we were better people before the Americans and their corporate partners got us addicted to pesticides, crude oil and agricultural hormones. These are largely aesthetic judgments, and so evidence is not required, or even wanted.