BC Govt Promotes IPM

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

BC Ministry of Environment
brochure
and website.

BC is IPM Leader

"BC is seen
as a leader
by other jurisdictions
in that legislation
requires
the use of IPM."

Ministry of Environment
Information Note on
Consultation Results

March 29, 2010.

Also see Ministry's
Aug 22, 2011 presentation
to Special Committee
on Cosmetic Pesticides

and Hansard record
of supplemental
Jan 25, 2012 presentation.

Use Safely

"If you choose
to use a pesticide
in or around your home,
you are responsible
for using it
safely".

Government of Canada
website.

No IPM in Nova Scotia

IPM applicator accreditation
and IPM practices are
not included
in Nova Scotia's
Dec 2010 regs
on the sale and use of
non-essential pesticides.

Since April 2011,
IPM companies 
must use the same
"allowable" products
as everyone else.

For the allowable 
pesticides list, click here.

For exceptions, click here.

No IPM - Cancer Society

"IPM sounds reasonable,
but in practice
does not work
as
its principles
are vague and
open to interpretation.

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.

No Risk to Golfers

"All pesticides
used in the golf industry
ARE THE MOST
STRINGENTLY
TESTED
AND RIGOROUSLY
REGULATED PRODUCTS
that are federally registered
and approved
by Health Canada
for use on turfgrass.

These products
are applied only
by provincially licensed
professionals and
pose
no unacceptable risk
when used
according to
manufacturers' directions.

Western Canada Turfgrass
Association's Nov 18, 2011
URGENT MESSAGE
to
those who love
to play golf
for submission to
2011 Public Consultation.

No Safe Application

" Canadian cosmetic
pesticide bans were
the result of
the findings of
independent science,
which had
to overcome
the pressure exerted
by self interested
industry lobbyists,
who claim that
pesticides are safe
as long as they are
'properly' applied
and
the quantities
are moderate. 

This is mere
industry propaganda,
to which, unfortunately,
some city councillors
tend to succumb.

Training to apply pesticides 'properly'
protects only the applicator,
and chemicals
can be harmful
even when applied
in minute quantities."

Jean Cottam, 
Honorary Canadian observer,
US Pesticide Working Group.
LTE  The Telegram
Dec 8, 2009

Sound Science Gimmick

"While these corporations
and trade associations
are always on the side of
sound science,
everyone else
in the public health field,
according to this construct,
favours 'junk science'.

. . . The vilification
of any research
that might threaten
corporate interests as
'junk science'
and the sanctification
of its own
bought-and-paid-for research
as 'sound science'
is indeed Orwellian
– and nothing less
than standard operating
procedure today.

But to give credit where
credit is due, the
sound science/junk science
dichotomy has worked
wonders as a
public relations gimmick
and has gained
widespread acceptance
in the current debate
over the use of
scientific evidence
in public policy.”

David Michaels.
Doubt Is Their Product
How Industry’s Assault on Science
Threatens Your Health.

2008. pp. xi – xii.

Junk is Sound

"In the hotly contested
terrain of regulatory
and liability law,
'junk science'
is the term that
corporate defenders
apply to any research,
no matter how rigorous,
that justifies regulations
to protect the environment
and public health.

The opposing term,
'sound science',
is used in reference
to any research,
no matter
how flawed,
that can be used
to challenge, defeat,
or reverse environmental
and public health
protections."

Sheldon Rampton
and John Stauber.
Trust Us, We're Experts!
How Industry Manipulates
Science and Gambles
with Your Future.
2001.
Pages 222 - 223.

BC IPM Applicator Death

"The connection
was as plain to Debbie
as the spectacular
hanging baskets
Brad was famous for
in downtown Peachland:

a link existed between
the pesticides Brad used
and the cancer
that took him.

When it came
to pesticide use,
Brad would have assumed
that what he was
using was safe . . .
Brad received his pesticide
applicator's license
in March 1997
and took the proper
precautions."

Do Pesticides Cause Cancer?
Dave Preston, Peachland View
March 15, 2007.

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.

Also see Ministry's
Pesticide website
for more on why Ontario's
"banned" lawns and gardens
are healthy.

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.
Industry Opposition to BC Ban

The chemical landscaping industry opposes ANY pesticide regulation, except ones that . . .

  • Focus on "plant science" and "plant health" (not public health).

  • Allow continued use of Health Canada's approved products by Integrated Pest Management (IPM) trained and licensed applicators.

  • Educate the public about "safe" and "responsible" use.

Canada's chemical landscaping industry is led by CropLife Canada, a North American trade association representing:

"the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science innovations - pest control products and plant biotechnology - for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings." 

This powerful association (with Canadian head offices in Etobicoke and Ottawa, Ontario) strongly opposes a BC ban and told BC's Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides that "urban use pesticides" are . . .

  • "Safe, effective tools for public and private places" and

  • Should be utilized under "IPM systems to reduce pest damage and when necessary, use products that have had their safety assessed and have been approved by Health Canada."

    See Special Committee on Cosmetics Pesticides Nov 7, 2011: Presentation Transcript

Crop Life Canada's "no ban" position has been "out there" for some time with President Lorne Hepworth's numerous letters in BC newspapers.

For samples of Mr. Hepworth's letters, see Rossland News Jan 20, 2011, Nanaimo News Bulletin May 24, 2011 and The Tri-City News May 30, 2011. For rebuttal to Mr. Hepworth, see Maple Ridge News June 2, 2011.

It is very disturbing that prior to the May 2012 Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides "no ban" report,  both Premier Clark and then Environment Minister Lake had publicly committed to ban legislation.

However, the lobby of the chemical landscaping industry (led by Crop Life Canada) successfully "mowed down" this ban support.

See top right sidebars . . . "Premier Breaks Ban Promise", "Premier for Ban in 2011", "No Ban Needed - CropLife" and "Mayor Lake Wanted Ban".

 

In addition to CropLife Canada, BC's chemical landscaping industry is represented by several associations . . . all oppose municipal pesticide bylaws, a provincial ban and support the use of Health Canada's approved products by trained and licensed IPM appplicators:

  • the BC Landscape and Nursery Association (BCLNA). Surrey, BC.

    The "voice for the BC Landscape horticulture industry" represents over 700 nursery growers, landscapers and garden retailers in BC and provides education and training for industry, in partnership with HortEdBC and educational institutions.

    The BCLNA's position is that the BC Government should:

    • Focus on "plant health",
    • Establish a PlantHealthBC program (to be run by BCNLA) to train IPM applicators to enable "accredited professionals to control damaging pests and diseases in the landscape", and
    • Use the pharmacy model at the retail consumer level "to take regulated products out the hands of untrained applicators" (keep products behind sales counter, as done with tobacco).

      See Special Committee on Cosmetics Pesticides Oct 26, 2011: Presentation Transcript.
  • the Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada (IEPMA). Kelowna, BC.

    The IEPMA is an educational association for BC's professional pesticide applicators, commercial nurseries, school districts, golf courses and municipal governments.

    The Association holds an annual conference in Kelowna and strongly opposes the "anti-pesticide activists and the bans they have been promoting".

    See right sidebars . . . for a statement from John Holland and Jacquie Doherty in "IEPMA Opposes Bans" sidebar and the Association's on-line petition during BC's 2009 public consultation in "IEPMA Opposes BC ban" sidebar.

    The IEPMA's "no ban is needed" position was clearly presented to BC's Legislative Committee:
"The IEPMA supports the use of pesticides under the guidelines of Health Canada's PMRA and BC's Integrated Pest Management Act and Regulations. It does not support further restrictions.
The IEPMA believes pesticides are not 'cosmetic' and are necessary tools for homeowners and companies throughout BC."
See Special Committee on Cosmetics Pesticides Nov 8, 2011: Presentation Transcript
  • the Western Canada Turfgrass Association (WCTA). Hope, BC.

    WCTA is the education and research body for BC's turf industry with members from . . . golf courses, landscapers, lawn bowling greens,  nurseries, school boards, sod farms, municipalities and industry suppliers.

    The WCTA is opposed to a BC ban . . . see left sidebar "No Risk to Golfers".

    See Special Committee on Cosmetics Pesticides Oct 26, 2011: Presentation Transcript


For other supporters of IPM and Health Canada who made presentations to BC's Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides, see . . .

 

To sum up, the chemical landscaping industry opposes pesticide bans because, in their opinion,  . . .

  • Pesticide products are safe because Health Canada has approved their use.
  • Health Canada protects Canadians as approval decisions use "sound" science.
  • Pesticides are rigorously reviewed and regulated. More rules are not needed.
  • Bans lead to infestations and unattractive green spaces.
  • Sports fields and other turf surfaces, including school yards and play grounds, are more costly to maintain when chemicals are not used.
  • Pesticide use is not "cosmetic" as the products are needed for lawns & gardens, and this use is no different than agricultural and forestry applications.
Opposition to strong, no-IPM ban legislation for BC is NOT supportable because . . .
  • Pesticides are toxins that are designed to kill and continue to do harm long after their initial use.
  • Health Canada does not protect the health or safety any Canadian.

    Health Canada relies on industry data when it approves landscaping products.

    This is an obvious conflict of interest as this federal agency must also protect the health and safety of Canadians.  

    See right sidebars . . . "Biased PMRA Studies" and "PMRA's Conflict of Interest".

  • Health Canada uses "acceptable risk" when approving cosmetic pesticides.

    Seven provincial governments do not accept this approach as they have banned landscaping products and/or ingredients approved by Health Canada. 

    The Ontario Government pesticide website states that cosmetic pesticide use "presents an unncessary risk to our families and pets, especially when we can have healthier lawns and gardens without chemicals." 

    "Unnecessary risk" is why Ontario banned the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides in 2009, rejecting the chemical industry's position that Health Canada's "acceptable risk" protects Canadians.

    See "No Safe Application" left sidebar and "Unnecessary Risk" right sidebar.  

    For more on provincial bans, click here and for Health Canada's flaws, click here.
  • Organic turf operations do NOT cause infestations and are NOT more expensive to maintain than facilities using chemicals.

    For a cost assessment of Ontario's ban impact on turf operations in three municipalties, see "Ont Turf is Less Costly" right sidebar or click here.

    For a 2010 cost comparison of chemical vs organic turf, click here.

    For info on the Certified Organic Associations of BC (COABC)'s support for a BC ban, see Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides Oct 26, 2011 Presentation  Transcript.
  • Use of pesticides on lawns, play grounds and school yards is different from agricultural and forestry applicationss. 

    Lawns, playgrounds, sport fields and school yards are where our vulnerable children (and pets) play!
See left sidebars . .  "BC Govt Promotes IPM", "BC is IPM Leader", "Use Safely","No IPM in Nova Scotia" and "No IPM - Cancer Society".

The chemical landscaping industry has other unsupportable arguments opposing bans, including . . .
  • The "Sound vs Junk" Science Gimmick
    Don't get drawn into the "sound" vs "junk" public relations gimmick. 
This "debate" is a self-serving distraction that says only Health Canada and the chemical industry use "real" or "sound" science. 

Alll others who support pesticide bans use "junk" or "unsound" science  . . . including physicians, scientists, public advocacy groups, government officials, elected politicians and seven provincial Governments. 

Industry's "sound" science position is not based on fact and wastes everyone's time whenever it is presented.

See left sidebars . . . "Sound Science Gimmick" and "Junk is Sound". 
  • Golf and other Turf Exemptions 
    The turf industry continues to maintain that their operations (particularly golf courses) have to use chemical pesticides to maintain their "green" turf.   
As is evident from presentations made to BC's Legislative Committee, there is a widespread, entrenched attitude in the turf industry and golfing asssociations that golf courses must be exempt from rules that are in place to protect public health and the environment.

Unfortunately, law makers tend to support exempting turf from pesticide bans.

This is unconscionable.

Why should golf courses and other "turf" facilities (our school yards and sports fields) continue to use chemicals that are known to harm our children, pets and the environment?

Turf facilities do not need chemicals to maintain their greens. 

In 2011, Denmark committed to phase out pesticide use on its' golf courses . . . why can't BC?
In 1988, Colorado's Applewood golf course became North America's first chemical free golf course. The owners (the Adolph Coors Co.) did not want to contaminate the aquifer used for Coors products.

Golf Digest's How Green is Golf 2008 article discusses golf's chemical dependence and why this must be phased out. 

BC has two organic golf courses . . .
  • Parksville's 9 hole Brigadoon opened in 2008.
  • Salt Spring Island's 9 hole Blackburn Meadows, Canada's first organic golf course established in the early 1990s.
Several BC golf courses have significantly reduced their cosmetic pesticide use, including Saanich’s Cedar Hill Municipal Golf Course.

These golf courses and Denmark will serve as excellent "can do" examples when BC phases out pesticide use on turf facilities. 

In March 2013, Paul Tukey of SafeLawns.org assured the WCTA's 50th Annual Conference and Trade Show in Kelowna that the golf industry will survive pesticide bans and showed many examples of successful transition to organic lawn care principles.

See right sidebars . . . "Golf is not Green", "Golf can be Green", "Denmark's Phase Out" and "Golf will Survive Bans".
  • Loss of Business
    BC's chemical landscaping industry (especially the golf industry) says they will experience business losses if they cannot use cosmetic pesticides. 
This assertion is not based on fact.

Organic landscaping is a "growing" Canadian business, according to Agriculture Canada.

Five years after Halifax’s Aug 2000 pesticide bylaw, the number of landscaping companies increased by 53%.

This is trend is supported by Statistics Canada’s 2005 report on the impact of pesticide bylaws on lawn care and landscaping companies.
Landscape Nova Scotia expressed support when Nova Scotia's Department of Environment launched the "Healthy Lawns for a Healthier Nova Scotia" education campaign in March 2011. 
In Ontario, Communities in Bloom were "delighted to be involved" with the Government's pesticide-free efforts.  
Where are BC's Communities in Bloom initiatives and Landscape BC?

Why aren't they helping BCers transition to pesticide free landscapes like their Ontario counterparts?
See right sidebars . . . "Supportive Industry in NS" and "Communities in Bloom". 
No Chemicals = Safer Workplace
The chemical landscaping industry needs to "get it" that they must stop using chemical products to protect the health of their employees, and their families.

A chemical free workplace means . . .
  • Staff do not need protective equipment.
  • Companies do not have to purchase special insurance.
  • Employees are not exposed to harmful toxins "on the job".
  • Employees do not take contaminated items home.
Sadly, a Peachland widow, whose husband was the town's licensed and trained IPM applicator, knows of this occupational hazard.  See "BC IPM Applicator Death" left sidebar.

Industry needs to "Get It" and become Pesticide Free
The chemical landscaping industry needs to "get it" that there is no safe, nor "proper" way, to use cosmetic pesticides.
 
"Proper application" may improve protection for the applicator, but the pesticides used by a resident, or a trained IPM applicator, do not stay where they have been "properly applied". 

Pesticides go everywhere, persist long after their application and kill more than the intended "pest" target. See bottom right sidebar "Labelled Use Dangerous".

BC's chemical landscaping industry needs to "get it" that many others "get it" about harmful chemical pesticide use, including . . .

The chemical landscaping industry's self interested promotion of continued IPM pesticide use is why BC needs a strong "no IPM" pesticide ban.

For more info on . . .

  • To get your lawn and garden off traditional, highly toxic pesticides by using low risk products and sustainable land care practices, click here.
  • Why BC needs a strong "no IPM" ban (like Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec) and why this won't happen under the BC Liberals, click here.

  • To advocate for strong ban legislation in BC, click here.
Last Updated on Friday, 20 September 2013 10:37
 

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.


                                                                                                                     
 


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.

Premier for Ban in 2011

In a May 4, 2011 news scrum
Premier Clark said she has
supported a ban
"for years now."

This commitment
was made during
her leadership campaign:

"I don't want to see
anyone's child
playing on a lawn
with toxic pesticides."

See Feb 2011 Liberal leadership
campaign commitment.

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.

Mayor Lake Wanted Ban

"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.

IEPMA Opposes Bans

"The IEPMA has
decided to develop
a proactive program
and business plan
with
the express purpose
of opposing
the anti-pesticide activists
and the bans
they have been promoting."

John Holland & Jacquie Doherty
Integrated Environmental
Plant Management Assoc of Western Canada.

Biased PMRA Studies

" . . . the researchers
who have carried out
the studies
that are presented
to the PMRA
are paid
by the company
which is making
the product
they are examining.

The company
will have designed
the experiment
in a way most likely
to make their product
look good.

And if the test
goes badly
for the product,
the company's unlikely
to forward it
to the PMRA."

"Bias Built into
Feds' Pesticide Use Review
BC Doctor"

The Tyee.ca  Oct 22, 2011

PMRA's Conflict of Interest

" . . we asked ourselves
whether it is possible
for one agency,
the Pest Management Regulatory Agency
(PMRA), to perform
two virtually
conflicting tasks,
namely that of
approving
chemical pesticides
as requested
by industry
while
at the same time
regulating them
in order
to protect
human health."

Pesticides, Making the right choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment
.

Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Environment and
Sustainable Development. 
May 2000 Report.

 See Chair's Preface to Report.

Unnecessary Risk

"The government 
believes 
the use of pesticides 
to control weeds and insects 
for purely 
cosmetic reasons 
presents an 
unnecessary risk 
to our families and pets,
especially when 
we can have healthier
lawns and gardens 
without chemicals."

Ontario Ministry of the
Environment Pesticide website.

Ont Turf is Less Costly

"While there were
incremental costs
in some specific areas,
impacts
were not 
as severe as they
might have been."

Ont Ban Impact on 
Municipal Turf Operations, 
Summer 2010

Golf is not Green

“The extensive use
of pesticides 
on golf courses
raises
serious questions
about people's
toxic exposure,
drift over
neighboring communities,
water contamination,
and effects
on wildlife and
sensitive ecosystems.”

Golf and the Environment
Beyond Pesticides website.

Golf can be Green

“The goal of the
Organic Golf Project
is to prove
that
golf courses 
can be maintained
organically,
and
thereby demonstrate
that all turf
can be maintained
without chemical pesticides.”

The Neighbourhood Network Organic Golf Project website.

Denmark's Phase Out

The Danish Government
announced in
February 2011
that pesticide use
on
golf courses
will be
phased out
throughout the country. 

For more on this phase-out,
see Beyond Pesticides
Feb 18, 2011 blog

Golf will Survive Bans

". . . the reality is that
there was golf
before pesticides.

Bobby Jones founded
the Masters prior
to the arrival of 2,4-D.

Rest assured
there will be golf
when
many of today's
synthetic chemical
pesticides are gone."

"Safe Lawns Urges
Pesticide Reduction in
British Columbia"

SafeLawns.org
March 7, 2013 blog.

Supportive Industry in NS

"Our industry and clients
want to maintain
healthy landscapes
in
an environmentally
sustainable manner
that does not create
unacceptable
health risks,
and
this initiative
supports that goal."

Landscape Nova Scotia
in support of 
Dept of Environment's
"Healthy Lawns for a
Healthier Nova Scotia
"
March 22, 2011
education campaign launch.

Communities in Bloom

“We’re delighted
to be involved in helping
Ontarians achieve
a pesticide-free landscape."

Communities in Bloom
support for Ontario Govt
April 22, 2008
Ban Announcement.

Labelled Use is Dangerous

"However, one need only
to read the pesticide label
of many typical
household pesticides
to realize that these are
dangerous substances -
in the sense
that they are quite
capable of causing
significant health and
environmental impacts.

For example: Avoid
breathing of spray mist.

Avoid repeated
contact with skin . . .

Avoid contamination
of aquatic systems
during application."

West Coast Environmental Law Association
Nov 7 2011 Presentation
to Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides.