Ont Ban Reduces Risk

"You can have
a healthy
lawn and garden
without
the unnecessary risk
posed by
using
conventional pesticides
for purely
cosmetic reasons."

Minister of the Environment's
April 21, 2010
News Release on first anniversary of Ontario's ban.

Ont Govt Listened

"We have listened
to medical experts
– like the Canadian
Cancer Society –
who have made
a convincing case
for reducing
our exposure
to pesticides,
particularly children
who are generally
more susceptible
to the potential
toxic effects
of pesticides."
  
Ontario Ministry of the
Environment Pesticide website.

For more on Ontario's
2009 ban, click here.

No IPM in Nova Scotia

Since April 2011,
IPM lawn care companies 
in Nova Scotia
must use the same 
"allowable" products 
as everyone else 
on residential, commercial, 
government and
institutional properties. 

For the allowable 
pesticides list, click here.
For exceptions, click here.

For Nova Scotia Environment's 
2011 and 2012 ban info, 
click here.

For the "Healthy Lawns 
for a Healthier Nova Scotia"
education info 
released March 22, 2011
click here.

New Brunswick's IPM "Ban"

In Dec 2009,
the Dept of Environment
banned
the sale and use
of 200 over-the-counter
lawn care pesticide products
and
the use of 2,4-D products
on residential lawns.

BC does NOT want a "ban"
that allows IPM,
exempts
school yards,
parks, hospital grounds
and golf courses,
and bans 2,4-D
ONLY on residential lawns.

For more on this "ban",
click here
.

BC Govt Promotes IPM

"Safe. 
Effective. 
Responsible.
Ask about IPM."

BC Ministry of Environment
brochure and website.

No IPM - Cancer Society

"IPM cannot be considered
an appropriate part
of a comprehensive ban
to eliminate
cosmetic pesticide use,
because IPM
still uses pesticides."

Canadian Cancer Society
BC and Yukon
Nov 8, 2011 Presentation
to BC Legislative Cttee.
See Slide 11.

Sufficient Scientific Evidence

"There is overwhelming
public support and
sufficient
scientific evidence
about the associated
environmental
and health risks
from the chemicals
contained in household pesticides
for the government
to take action.

Yet, the Liberal members
of the committee
chose to pay
more attention
to arguments put forth
by the very pesticide
manufacturers who stand
to gain most
from not banning
cosmetic pesticides."

"New Democrats
call for action to ban
cosmetic pesticides"

May 30, 2012 News Release
New Democrats website.

Health Studies Support Ban

"The science is
clear and compeling.

Over two dozen
studies show that
pesticide exposures
are associated with
higher rates of cancer,
learning problems
and
behavioral problems
in children.

The question is:
should we protect
our children or
the profits of
the pesticide industry?

I think it is quite telling
that the public has spoken
and, thus far,
has been ignored."

Dr. Bruce Lanphear
Child & Family
Research Institute &
Simon Fraser University
quoted in First Call
BC Child and Youth
Advocacy Coalition
May 28, 2012 News Release.

Evidence Supports Ban

"The committee disgraced
itself by suggesting
that
scientific evidence
'wasn’t there at this time.'

It most definitely
was there,
but the committee
was swayed by industry’s
self-serving propaganda
and
false information
about the pesticide
approval process
in Ottawa."

June 14, 2012
Letter to Editor

K. Jean Cottam, PhD
bclocalnews.com

Nova Scotia Limits Exposure

"We are making it
easier
for the people
of this province
to limit
their exposure
to
unnecessary
chemicals."

Nova Scotia's
Minister of Environment
announcing April 1, 2011
pesticide ban regulations.

Print "Pesticide Free" Poster

poster

Click on image
to print this poster.
Put it up in your
neighbourhood.

Together, let's make
BC pesticide free!

Help BC go Pesticide Free!

The Canadian Cancer Society
continues to lead BC's
health and environmental
groups' advocacy for a
province-wide ban.

See Coalition's Feb 3, 2012
ban statement.

Review ban legislation
given to BC's Environment
Minister in 2010.

Join the CCS's "Pesticide Free
BC" Facebook discussions.

Take action! to help BC
go pesticide free.
BC Needs Strong Sale and Use Pesticide Ban
* * BC is NOT banning cosmetic pesticides. * *

In March 2013, the BC Liberal Government approved minor legislative changes to implement the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides' recommended mandatory Integrated Pest Management (IPM) use of pesticides on "private landscaped areas".

IPM landscaping requirements will be phased in spring 2014 and 2015 based on consultations received to proposed IPM Regulation changes.

This will NOT stop the sale and use of harmful, non-essential lawn and garden pesticides  . . .   BC has one of the weakest approaches in Canada!


For why BC needs to follow Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec, what should be in ban legislation and why BC is NOT getting a ban, read on . . .

Of the seven provinces that have rejected Health Canada's approval of pesticide products, the BC Government needs to follow Ontario, Nova Scotia and Quebec . . .
  • Ten years ago, in 2003, Quebec was the first province to restrict the sale and use of products approved by Health Canada and courageously rejected the powerful chemical pesticide industry lobby led by CropLife Canada.

    Quebec's ban was phased in over 3 years and at the time, was the toughest regulation in North America as it banned 20 carcinogenic ingredients in lawn pesticides and restricted pesticide use in and around schools and daycares. 

    The provincial government is reviewing the Code "to toughen the rules on use in urban areas" and expects the update to be done by December 2013.
  • Ontario followed Quebec five years later, with 2008 legislation and April 2009 regulations .

    Ontario's comprehensive ban set a new Canadian standard on how Government can protect citizens and the environment from the unnecessary risk of harmful pesticide exposure.
  • Nova Scotia's ban legislation was announced in 2010 with phased-in regulations starting April 2011.

    Integrated Pest Management (IPM) use of cosmetic pesticides is NOT allowed in Nova Scotia . . . landscaping companies must use the same "allowable" pesticides as everyone else.
     
BC needs to follow these comprehensive and precautionary approaches because. . .
  • The bans are NOT based on IPM principles.

    The three Governments focus on low risk products and sustainable land care practices that do not require IPM.

    IPM is the self-serving approach advocated by the powerful chemical landscaping industry and promoted by BC's Ministry of Environment (MOE).

    IPM is not the only way to approach pest management and this mindset must be “unlearned” by BC’s chemical landscaping industry and their supporters, including the turf industry and our MOE.
  • All three provinces have banned numerous pesticide products that contain ingredients that are known carcinogens, hormone disruptors and neurotoxins.

    Although Health Canada has approved these products, these Governments decided that traditional, highly toxic pesticides are NOT necessary for beautiful, healthy, disease - resistant landscapes.

  • All three governments provide stakeholder information and education programs on how sustainable “pesticide free” landscaping practices do not need traditional pesticides.
These three provinces have exemptions that can be better controlled or eliminated so there is room for BC to have the best ban legislation in Canada! 

See left sidebars . . .  "Ont Ban Reduces Risk", "Ont Govt Listened", "No IPM in Nova Scotia" and "New Brunswick's IPM 'Ban' ".

See top right sidebar . . . "No Ban for BC".

Also see left sidebars . . . "BC Govt Promotes IPM" and "No IPM - Cancer Society".

For more on BC's promotion of IPM and the seven provincial bans, click here.

BC Needs Strong, Protective Ban Legislation

BC needs ban legislation that protects public health and the environment and stops the sale and use of traditional, highly toxic lawn and garden pesticides.

A strong ban means no IPM use of pesticides and would . . . 
  • Prohibit the use, sale and retail display of cosmetic pesticides for lawns, gardens and non-agricultural landscaping.
  • Allow exemptions only to protect public health.
  • Require a list of permitted, low risk pesticides.
  • Require a 5 year phase-out by golf courses.
  • Require a public awareness and education campaign about the ban and low risk alternatives.
  • Allow municipalities to pass more restrictive bylaws.
  • Have effective penalty and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Not apply to the agriculture or forestry industry.
  • Be passed and implemented within the current government's mandate.

For what's recommended by BC health and environmental groups, click here.

Also see the ban legislation given to the Liberal Government in 2010 and the New Democrats' March 7, 2013  proposed ban legislation, Bill M 207 Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Control Act, 2013.


No Ban under BC Liberal Government . . . despite public commitments
!
Premier Clark and past Environment Minister Lake backpeddled on their ban commitments and continue to ignore scientific evidence and strong public support for a ban!

The Premier commited to a ban during her 2011 Liberal Leader campaign and as a new Premier, she was very public about her ban support: "I've supported this for years now . . . We are going to do it."

Past Environment Minister Lake also championed for strong provincial ban legislation in 2008 when Kamloops Mayor.

However, in March 2013, the Government passed minor legislative changes to implement  the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides' recommended mandatory IPM use of pesticides on "private landscaped areas". 

IPM landscaping requirements will be phased in spring 2014 and 2015 based on consultations received to proposed IPM Regulation changes.

When implemented, BC will have one of the weakest approaches in Canada.

Pesticides will continue to be sold everywhere but residents will have to pay for a licensed IPM applicator to use these poisons on their lawns . . . an unenforceable AND ineffective way to stop cosmetic pesticide use!

This is NOT a solution to the cosmetic pesticide issue as it ignores the reality that numerous low risk products are readily available, as are sustainable land care practices that do not need continued IPM use of very toxic products.

See right sidebars . . . "Premier Breaks Ban Promise" and "Lake Wanted Ban in 2008".

Here's how the BC Liberal Government backpeddling happened . . .

 
2012 Legislative Committee . . . No Scientific Evidence for Ban!
In June 2011, Premier Clark established the bi-partisan Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides to work with the NDP on their shared ban commitment.

In May 2012, after hearing from over 8,600 groups and individuals (setting a new record for public participation in a BC parliamentary committee), the Committee's Liberal majority rejected a ban, citing lack of scientific evidence:

"The majority of the committee does not think the scientific evidence, at this time, warrants an outright ban.

We are not prepared to say to homeowners that purchasing 2,4-D is prohibited, under all circumstances, or that they cannot hire a qualified person to apply it to their lawns."

See May 17, 2012 News Release.

 

The Committee concluded that Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) provides a satisfactory, science-based regulatory review of cosmetic pesticides:


"However, we are not convinced that currently available scientific research provides a basis for disagreeing with the science-based evaluations made by the PMRA.

Committee members representing the majority are satisfied with how the PMRA registers and re-evaluates pesticides and are confident with the scientific integrity of the federal processes."

See May 17, 2012 Committee Report page 54.


These conclusions are stunning as seven provincial governments have banned numerous products approved by  Health Canada . . . evidence that Health Canada does NOT satisfactorily address public health or environmental concerns when approving pesticide products.

Also stunning is that the Committee's press release highlighted 2,4-D as being OK to use in BC. . . the only ingredient banned in all seven provinces!

Committee Recommends . . . what Chemical Landscaping Industry Wants!
The Committee majority's biased support of the chemical landscaping industry is reflected in the 17 weak recommendations for increased public education and mandatory IPM licencing . . . exactly what the industry asked for!

See right sidebars . . . "No Ban Needed - Croplife" and "Ban Support Mowed Down".

For reaction from ban advocates, see right sidebars . . ."Misguided Committee", "Committee Missed the Point", "Displeased BC Doctors", "Weak Report Disappoints" and "Industry Defeats Ban".

The only recommendation the Liberal Government acted upon in March 2013 was Recommendation 14 (mandatory IPM use on residential lawns) . . .


Recommendation 1: Ban sale of commercial class pesticides, except use by certified applicators.
 

Commercial class products are not to be sold to the public . . . only “domestic” products are sold in retail outlets.

This recommendation is not necessary as current regulations prohibit selling commercial class products to the public.

Recommendations 2 - 7:  Change Point of Sale, Compliance and Enforcement so "customers must interact with a certified dispenser before purchasing a pesticide".
 

Customers interaction with a dispenser is to include "the right way to use a pesticide so that it does the job" and "the importance of reading and following the directions on the label."

These recommendations do not stop pesticide use or sales. Their effectiveness is questionable as staff knowledge would vary in retail outlets throughout BC.

 

Recommendations 8 – 15: Public Education including use of IPM principles, a website for householders and IPM accreditation for landscaping licensees.

These recommendations support the position of our Ministry of Environment and the powerful chemical landscaping industry that IPM is a safe and effective way to use cosmetic pesticides.

But, IPM principles do NOT eliminate use of these harmful products, whether followed by a resident or a certified applicator. This is why IPM is also known as "increased pesticide misuse".

Education alone is known to be ineffective without supporting ban legislation.

The Committee majority's dismissal of concerns about pesticide use is reflected in the recommended one day course to "fast-track" consumer purchases!

 

Recommendation 16: Golf industry will be “asked” to develop a province-wide IPM certification process.

Asking the golf industry to become IPM certified does not resolve the industry's heavy reliance on toxic chemicals to maintain golf greens.

This recommendation was requested by the golf industry . . . self-regulation is known not to work, especially without enforcement.


Recommendation 17: Expand Safe Disposal of Unwanted Pesticides

The last recommendation is a good one and needed.

 

These recommendations are why, when implemented, BC will have one of the weakest regulatory approaches in Canada.

  • For Committee proceedings, including presentations, click here.
  • For a summary of  "Who said what in BC's Pesticide Review", click here.
NDP introduce Ban Legislation . . . again!

The New Democrat minority on the Committee were "profoundly disappointed in the outcome of this process" because overwhelming public support and sufficient scientific evidence were ignored by the Liberal Committee majority.

The NDPs showed their disappointment by re-introducing ban legislation on March 7, 2013 . . . for the fifth time!

See "New Democrats Want Ban" right sidebar.


The BC Liberal Government continues to ignore the strong ban support BCers have shown in two public consultation processes . . .
  • In December 2009 the Ministry of Environment initiated on-line public consultations and posted summarized comments in April 2010.

    No action was taken on this review process,  even though 88% of respondents supported a ban 3 years ago!

  • The Legislative Committee's on-line public consultation ended Dec 16, 2011 with over 8,700 submissions, the most a BC parliamentary committee has ever received!

    As reported in the Committee's Executive Summary, of the 7,300 questionnaires submitted, "almost 5,000 supported a ban on the sale and use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes" . . . BCers want a ban!
 
It is disturbing that Premier Clark and Minister Lake acted swiftly in 2011 to protect sled dogs with the "toughest animal cruelty laws in Canada" but have NOT put families first with their back peddling on pesticide ban commitments.

Other provincial governments acted quickly on their ban commitments . . .
  • Three months was all the Ontario's Government needed to act once it started public consultations in 2008. Regulations were in force on Earth Day April 22, 2009.

  • Nova Scotia's Minister of Environment took just seven months in 2010 to pass ban legislation and have regulations phased in starting April 2011.

  • Newfoundland and Labrador's Environment Minister was on the job only six months in 2011 before he introduced legislation that took effect in 2012's lawn season.

So, how will BC get a strong, protective
pesticide ban?

Getting a BC ban will not happen without a sustained effort of concerned citizens (aka voters).

BCers need to continue to talk about pesticide use and harmful exposure . . .  with the Premeir, our Liberal MLAs, our neighbours, friends, work colleagues, day care parents, veterinarian, doctor, golfing buddies, mail carrier, our family.

Tell people about this website  . . . send it to everyone you know in BC.

Help the health and environment coalition led by the Canadian Cancer Society.

Print the Pesticide Free BC poster and put it up in your neighbourhood.

See left sidebars . . . "BC Ban Coalition Groups",  "Print 'Pesticide Free' Poster" and "Help BC go Pesticide Free!".


For more info on . . .
  • The BC Ministry of Environment's promotion of IPM and the seven provincial bans, click here.
  • Why Health Canada does not protect the health and safety of any Canadian, click here.
  • Industry opposition to pesticide laws, except those that allow continued IPM pesticide use, click here.
  • Why BC's pesticide bylaws don't really protect BCers, click here.

  • For low risk pesticides and sustainable land care practices, click here.
     
  • To advocate for strong ban legislation in BC, click here.
Last Updated on Thursday, 12 December 2013 14:05
 

Tell Premier Clark she needs to honour her 2011 pesticide ban commitment.

Call the Premier's office at 250 387 1715 or email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Together, let's make BC pesticide free.

                                                                                                                     
 


No Ban for BC

"The majority
of the committee
does not think
the scientific evidence,
at this time,
warrants
an outright ban."

Don't ban cosmetic pesticides, B.C. MLAs recommend
May 17 2012
CBC News Post.

See Special Committee
on Cosmetic Pesticides
May 17, 2012 News Release
and Report.

See Clark Government's
February 20, 2013
minor legislative changes
for mandatory IPM
on residential lawns
. . . the only action
taken by the Liberals.

The sale and use of
cosmetic pesticides
will not be banned in BC.

Premier Breaks Ban Promise

“It’s hard to imagine
how the premier
could believe
that
these dangerous pesticides
increase the likelihood
of
childhood cancer
and do so little
to prevent
unnecessary exposure
to them.”

Premier breaks promise
to protect children
and the environment
from cosmetic pesticides.


Rob Fleming, New Democrat
Environment critic
February 21, 2013 Release.

Lake Wanted Ban in 2008

"THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED
that the Province
of British Columbia
enact provincial legislation
that will ban
the sale and use of
cosmetic pesticides
province-wide."

Union of BC Municipalities
2008 Resolution B81
championed by
Kamloops Mayor Terry Lake,
BC's past Environment Minister.

No Ban Needed - CropLife

"We encourage
responsible use of pesticides
for all their uses including:

• urban green spaces,
including lawns and gardens
• agriculture/horticulture/
forestry/industrial
vegetation management
• structural pest control
• golf courses and
recreational
sports turf
• personal use
including insect repellents
and pool chemicals".

CropLife Canada's
Nov 7, 2011 Presentation
to Special Committee,
See Slide 5.

Misguided Committee

"All this explains
why the PMRA
(and its recent fans,
members of BC's
Special Committee on
Cosmetic Pesticides)
and
the health
and medical community
reach opposite conclusions
regarding pesticides
and human health.

The doctors rely upon
the real-life human
epidemiological research,
rather than the
confidential
industry-produced
animal test data
or the PMRA's
evaluation reports
of this test data."

"Misguided Recommendations,
Due to Reliance
on a Deficient
Regulatory System
."

Prevent Cancer Now
May 2012.

Ban Support Mowed Down

"Big business and lobbyists
have publicly
defeated the plans
of not one but
two successive
BC Liberal premiers,
the Canadian Cancer Society
and
the Lung Association
to ban cosmetic pesticides.

. . . Bennett's majority ruling
also rejected
the pro-ban submissions
of
roughly 80 per cent
of the over
8,600 individuals
and organizations
that participated --
a record number
for a B.C. committee."

Who Mowed Down
the Premier?


The Tyee May 22, 2012

Committee Missed the Point

"The long-awaited report
from B.C.'s special
legislative committee
on cosmetic pesticides
was
not worth the wait. . .

Unfortunately, it seems
the committee
missed the point.

It is deeply disappointing
that after all that mulling,
the report, released May 17,
does not even
recommend a ban.

Instead, it proposes
a series of toothless measures
and tries to pass the buck
on the main issue."

Committee passes the buck
on pesticide-free B.C.

David Suzuki Foundation
May 12, 2012 Blog

Displeased BC Doctors

"Doctors are displeased that,
given all we know about
pesticides and illness,
the committee would offer
something so weak.

We will continue
to urge the BC government
to implement
strong province-wide
cosmetic pesticide legislation,
similar to Ontario's."

Canadian Association of
Physicians for the Environment
Executive Director in
Top health groups
disappointed by
weak pesticide report
.

Canadian Cancer Society
Media Release May 17 2012.
See March 5, 2013 media
report on re-newed call
for BC ban.

New Democrats Want Ban

“There is
overwhelming
public support
and sufficient
scientific evidence
about the associated
environmental
and
human health risks
from the chemicals
contained in
household pesticides
for government
to take action,”

"New Democrats
call for action to ban
cosmetic pesticides"

May 30, 2012 News Release
New Democrats website.

See Bill 207 introduced
March 7, 2013, the
NDP's fifth ban legislation.

Weak Report Disappoints

“We waited years
for the BC government
to follow the lead
of other provinces
and BC municipalities,
and this is the result?

The report was slow
in coming
and is weak in content.
It is disappointing overall.”

Canadian Cancer Society,
BC and Yukon CEO in
Top health groups
disappointed by
weak pesticide report
.

Canadian Cancer Society
Media Release May 17 2012.

Industry Defeats Ban

"Unfortunately, the
multinational chemical
industry was also
very active in promoting
their perspective, and
in the end
the Committee
recommended against
a ban . . .
The recommendations
in the report itself
would have little impact
on creating
a healthier British Columbia
for families and
the environment."

Organizing for Change website.

Protect Sled Dogs not Kids?

In 2011, Premier Clark
and past
Environment Minister Lake
acted swiftly
because of 56 dead
Olympic sled dogs
and
"amended legislation
to give this province
the toughest animal
cruelty laws
in Canada."

"Land Act changes improve
protection of sled dogs."
BC Govt Newsroom
Oct 22, 2011
.

When will  
the Liberal Government
protect
British Columbians,
our pets and
the environment
from harmful
cosmetic pesticide use
with
"tough" ban legislation?