Wed 05 May 2004
The Ottawa Citizen
Health evidence
justifies pesticide ban
By Meg Sears
Pesticides are a real health threat to the people of
Ottawa, and the anti-pesticide position of the
Ontario College of Family Physicians should be
applauded rather than being dismissed, as it was in a
recent Citizen editorial ("Weeding out bad
policy," April 27).
The Citizen has missed some important pesticide
issues recently. It will be news to readers that lawn
and garden pesticides polluted the Rideau River and
tributaries last summer, every place city staff
looked. An insecticide was twice the level toxic to
aquatic species, such as mosquito predators that
could protect us from West Nile virus. The
insecticide is a type linked to human immune and
neurological disorders.
Contrary to editorial opinion, the Ontario College of
Family Physicians has good reason to link lawn and
garden pesticides to a variety of maladies, including
neurological and reproductive disorders and cancer.
The authors were frankly surprised at the strength of
the evidence that landscaping pesticides pose serious
health risks. The declining incidence of
herbicide-related cancer after common herbicides were
banned in Sweden, and studies designed specifically
to address impacts on children and families, are
compelling.
Clearly, broadcasting toxic compounds designed to
kill is harming our health. Ottawa physicians have
called for pesticide restrictions to prevent maladies
they see in their patients.
It is unethical to test pesticides on people, so we
are conducting an enormous uncontrolled experiment in
the real world. Epidemiology tries to sort out the
effect of one element, such as pesticides , in
isolation from other exposures. Toxic compounds are
ubiquitous in our environment -- in our water, air,
soil, even carpets -- so only strong effects rise
above the "background noise." This is why
consistent observations of harm must be heeded.
Two solitudes deal with pesticides at Health Canada.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA)
registers pesticides . It has been criticized by the
commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development, in Parliament and elsewhere for not
reassessing pesticides rigorously, according to
modern standards. Testing is done by and for
pesticide companies, on select samples that are not
representative of what is on the store shelves (toxic
contaminants are common). Testing is done on animals
that are better at detoxifying chemicals than are
some people, and does not address important
mechanisms of toxicity.
Other Health Canada scientists conduct studies that
raise serious concerns about Canadians' safety in
spite of registrations. Journalists must be
persistent to gain access to these experts.
It is illegal in Canada to claim in advertising that
pesticides are "safe." Pesticide assessment
is supposed to ensure that risks do not exceed
thresholds. The issue is the possibility, rather than
the probability of harm. Evidence of harm is
mounting.
Another editorial absurdity -- pesticides do not keep
sports fields safe.
Neither medical literature nor the Children's
Hospital of Eastern Ontario report injuries from
weeds on sports fields. "Heading" is the
gravest health risk in soccer. A couple of articles
link injury to lack of vegetation, but pesticides
don't get rid of mud or rocks.
A safe playing field has vegetation and no toxic
chemicals. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
researched mixed-species "low maintenance"
turf that required no pesticides , and less water,
fertilizer, mowing, money and time than conventional
turf.
Gardening expert Ed Lawrence identifies 20 per cent
as the magic clover content for a lawn to be
self-sustaining and to need no fertilizer. Manotick
has a field that is largely clover. In Quebec a
soccer field with thyme turns purple in August.
"Beyond grass" can be a beautiful landscape
indeed.
How do we ensure that people follow the doctors'
advice? After two years of an Ottawa city education
campaign, pesticide use was expected to decrease by
16 per cent. It increased by six per cent. Despite
imperfect measurement techniques, a
22-percentage-point discrepancy is too big to ignore.
A recent study of pesticide-reduction initiatives in
North America and Europe concluded that restrictions
are necessary. Just as with seatbelts, legislation
engenders behaviour change.
More than 60 Canadian municipalities restrict
pesticides , including Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and
Vancouver. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that
local governments may protect citizens' health with
bylaws.
Pesticide bylaws are nuisance bylaws, like "poop
and scoop." No "pesticide police"
snoop in sheds. Use is restricted, possibly with
exemptions for infestations. Legal costs shouldn't be
a big worry. A competent horticulturist can identify
the distinctive deformity induced by "cancer of
the plant" after herbicide application. The
Ontario Superior Court ordered pesticide companies
challenging Toronto's bylaw to pay costs.
Protecting health is prudent. What liability will be
faced when pesticide-related maladies ensue in
workers? Will the City be liable for harm if it
didn't act when it had jurisdiction and good reason?
Given the choice of pesticide-peddlers, journalists
or doctors, I'll stick to the Ontario College of
Family Physicians for health advice. It is time that
the City of Ottawa did too. A pesticide bylaw with
public education is needed to make it happen.
Meg Sears is a
member of the Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa.
Community Web.