Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
BC is NOT a "Pesticide Free" Leader
BC lags behind other provinces - it has not banned the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides.
Ontario's Aprill 2009 ban set a new Canadian standard on how Government can protect citizens and the environment from the unnecessary risk of harmful pesticide exposure. See "Ontario Govt Listened" right sidebar.
Both the Ontario and Quebec governments courageously rejected the powerful pesticide industry lobby led by CropLife Canada when provincial bans were passed in 2009 and 2003.
In BC, the Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada (I.E.P.M.A.) is leading industry's active lobby against a BC pesticide ban.
See "IEPMA Opposes BC Ban" and "IEPMA Opposes Activists" left sidebars.
Liberal Government Silent on Ban
As part of BC's May 2009 election campaign, CAPE , the Canadian Cancer Society , the David Suzuki Foundation and Toxic Free Canada called on all political parties to support a provincial ban.
The Canadian Cancer Society asked the political parties for their position on a ban.
The Liberals were silent on supporting a ban (See Question 5).
The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Green Party of BC support bans. See "BC Party Positions on Ban" left sidebar.
Because "the B.C. Liberals have failed to take a stand on this issue", in November 2009, the NDP's Environment Critic introduced his private member's bill (Bill M 206) to ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides in BC. See "BC Legislature has Ban Act" left sidebar.
This "made-in-BC" legislation establishes Canadian "gold medal" pesticide protection:
* Applies to all private property including residential and industrial uses.
* Mandates a 3 year phase-out period for golf courses.
* Does not apply to agricultural or forestry uses.
* Contains a list of permitted low-risk pesticides.
* Permits municipalities to pass stronger cosmetic pesticide bylaws (as done with smoke-free bylaws).
* Mandates a public awareness and education campaign.
Bill M 206 is based on legislation prepared by the Canadian Cancer Society, Toxic Free Canada and UVic's Environmental Law Centre.
BC Coalition Calls for Ban
On January 14, 2010, an unprecedented coalition of 18 health and environment organizations asked the BC Government to "go for gold" and pass leading-edge legislation to ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides:
"We support the BC Government’s interest in safeguarding the environment from cosmetic chemical pesticides and call for new legislation that:
* Prohibits the use, sale, and retail display of chemical pesticides for lawns, gardens, and non-agricultural landscaping;
* Allows exemptions only to protect public health;
* Provides for public education about the ban and alternatives to chemical pesticides;
* Includes effective mechanisms for enforcement; and
* Is passed in 2010 and fully implemented within the first two years of the government’s current mandate."
For why the Coalition want the BC Government to "go for gold", see " BC Coalition Wants Gold" right sidebar.
For Coalition's January 14, 2010 statement, click here.
For the Coalition's 18 health and environment organizations, see "BC's Ban Coalition Groups" left sidebar.
BC Govt is Consulting . . . til Feb 15, 2010
On December 16, 2009, the Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment, launched the Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Consultation Forum.
The BC Government is consulting on "how we can encourage all British Columbians to reduce unnecessary pesticide use".
As reported in the Vancouver Sun January 7, 2010, the Canadian Cancer Society is asking why the Government is consulting, rather than acting:
" . . there is enough research on the topic for the government to move forward now and adopt a strong cosmetic-pesticide ban.
'The question is why does the government need a further consultation process when they already have this information?' "
See "BCers Support Ban" and "Will BC Govt Listen? sidebars.
The on-line consultation is open until February 15, 2010.
It is VERY important that comments be submitted to the consultant who has been contracted to manage the consultation process . . . every email, letter, fax counts.
BC's Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Consultation Forum includes . . .
* a Consultation Paper.
The Paper has background info and eight questions that focus on . . .
o Ministry of Environment objectives,
o regulatory restrictions on pesticide use,
o creating classes for pesticide use (or non-use),
o limiting pesticide use to qualified applicators and encouraging IPM,
o notification and signage,
o selling pesticides to authorized/trained buyers,
o public education, compliance and enforcement, and
o additional comments.
Question One is the only question that refers to health protection.
* three response form options for your comments.
o an on-line response form. Cannot be saved or printed.
o a word doc response form. Can be saved and printed. Space will expand to allow for all your comments.
o a pdf response form. Can be saved and printed. Space will expand to allow for all your comments.
* Comments must be submitted by Mon February 15, 2010.
Go over how to submit your comments as you can email/mail/fax comments to the consultant and not use the specified forms.
Comments or suggestions beyond the identified issues can also be submitted.
Comments received after February 15, 2010 will be reviewed by the Ministry of Environment but may not be included in the consultation summary report.
* During January 2010, the Ministry of Environment will host web/telephone information session(s) on the consultation paper and answer consultation questions.
* Consultation comments will be made public in the spring of 2010, with info on the "next steps to address" cosmetic pesticide use in BC.
For consultation forum and consultant contact info, click here.
To take action! by Monday February 15, 2010, click here.
Ont Government Consulted and Decided . . . in 3 Months
There are three critical differences between what's happening in BC and Ontario's consultation process . . .
* Three months was all the time the Ontario Government needed to decide once it started public consultations . . .
In January 2008, the Ontario public was asked to comment on a pesticide use ban.
Three months later, in April 2008, the Ontario Government announced that, in the spring of 2009, it would ban the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides.
Within fifteen months of starting the January 2008 consultation, Ontario's rules were in place for April 22, 2009 ban.
Our BC Liberal Government is silent on whether it supports a provincial ban.
In contrast, the Ontario Government followed through on a Sept 2007 election commitment and was very public about supporting a ban.
* The BC Ministry of Environment's consultation process is about "reducing" pesticide use.
In contrast, Ontario's consultation process was on how and when a ban should be passed.
* Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is entrenched as part of "normal" lawn and garden care in BC.
In 2003, BC's Campbell Government passed North America's first IPM legislation.
IPM uses chemical products that continue to harm, long after their initial "kill".
This is why the Canadian Cancer Society does not want IPM practices included in BC's ban. See "Cancer Society - No IPM Ban" and "BC IPM Applicator Death" right sidebars.
IPM is promoted by the chemical landscaping industry as the "proper" way to use pesticides by trained and licensed IPM applicators.
The BC Ministry of Environment actively promotes IPM as "Safe. Effective. Responsible.".
In contrast, Ontario has no IPM legislation.
Ontario's "Pesticide Free" Ministry of Environment encourages "beautifully lawns and gardens naturally". See "Ontario's Pesticide Free" sidebar.
Bylaws do NOT Protect BCers
It is wrong that harmful pesticide exposure depends on where we live in BC.
Only a quarter of British Columbians (27%) live in the eleven "gold medal" communities that provide the best protection from pesticide exposure.
Another 17% of BCers live in "not recommended" bylaw communities . . . where it is "business as usual" for IPM landscaping companies.
The remaining BCers (just over half at 56%), have no protection from harmful pesticide exposure as they live where there are no pesticide bylaws. See "Gold Medal Bylaws" right sidebar.
Pesticide bylaws do not adequately protect any BC resident for two reasons:
* First, bylaws apply only to municipal and residential lands.
Bylaws do not cover other private lands, including institutional, industrial and commercial properties . . . our day cares, school yards, parks, sports fields, golf courses, educational campuses.
BCers are unknowningly exposed to pesticides when on, or near, these areas unless the land owner has voluntarily stopped using pesticides.
Stopping pesticide use on these properties is a provincial responsibility.
* Second, pesticides continue to be sold in BC stores.
Some BC stores, like The Home Depot and Rona, have shown leadership and voluntarily stopped selling pesticides.
Others big retailers, like Canadian Tire, continue to sell products in BC that they can not sell in Ontario or Quebec.
Toxic Free Canada and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee have highlighted why a BC ban is needed to close this legal "loophole".
Stopping the sale of pesticides is a provincial responsibility.
For the past two years, the group that represents BCers in cities, town and rural areas throughout BC, the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), has asked the BC Government to ban the sale and use of pesticides.
For more info . . .
* on the BC Ministry of Environment's promotion of IPM and why BCers do not want a weak IPM "ban" like New Brunswick or PEI, click here.
* on why Health Canada does not protect the health and safety of British Columbians, click here.
* on industry opposition to pesticide laws, except those that continue "proper" IPM pesticide use, click here.
* on why municipal bylaws have been used in Canada to restrict pesticide use, click here.
* on why bylaws don't really protect BCers, click here.
* on Ontario's ban, click here.
Help make BC Pesticide Free . . .
A BC provincial ban will not happen without a sustained, co-ordinated effort of concerned citizens (aka voters) and Pesticide Free BC supporters.
Talk with people about pesticide use and harmful exposure . . . your neighbours, friends, work colleagues, day care parents, veterinarian, doctor, golfing buddies, mail carrier, your family.
Tell people about this website and the Government's on-line public consultation . . . send the PFBC website to everyone you know throughout BC.
It's time for BCers to tell our Government that all of British Columbia must be protected from harmful and unnecessary pesticide exposure.
It's time for the BC Government to listen and ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides.
Email your "no IPM" ban request right now! and click here.
Take action! by Monday February 15, 2010.
Last Updated on Saturday, 30 January 2010 10:40
BC must be Pesticide Free. Take Action! by Monday Feb 15, 2010.
BC lags behind other provinces - it has not banned the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides.
Ontario's Aprill 2009 ban set a new Canadian standard on how Government can protect citizens and the environment from the unnecessary risk of harmful pesticide exposure. See "Ontario Govt Listened" right sidebar.
Both the Ontario and Quebec governments courageously rejected the powerful pesticide industry lobby led by CropLife Canada when provincial bans were passed in 2009 and 2003.
In BC, the Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada (I.E.P.M.A.) is leading industry's active lobby against a BC pesticide ban.
See "IEPMA Opposes BC Ban" and "IEPMA Opposes Activists" left sidebars.
Liberal Government Silent on Ban
As part of BC's May 2009 election campaign, CAPE , the Canadian Cancer Society , the David Suzuki Foundation and Toxic Free Canada called on all political parties to support a provincial ban.
The Canadian Cancer Society asked the political parties for their position on a ban.
The Liberals were silent on supporting a ban (See Question 5).
The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Green Party of BC support bans. See "BC Party Positions on Ban" left sidebar.
Because "the B.C. Liberals have failed to take a stand on this issue", in November 2009, the NDP's Environment Critic introduced his private member's bill (Bill M 206) to ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides in BC. See "BC Legislature has Ban Act" left sidebar.
This "made-in-BC" legislation establishes Canadian "gold medal" pesticide protection:
* Applies to all private property including residential and industrial uses.
* Mandates a 3 year phase-out period for golf courses.
* Does not apply to agricultural or forestry uses.
* Contains a list of permitted low-risk pesticides.
* Permits municipalities to pass stronger cosmetic pesticide bylaws (as done with smoke-free bylaws).
* Mandates a public awareness and education campaign.
Bill M 206 is based on legislation prepared by the Canadian Cancer Society, Toxic Free Canada and UVic's Environmental Law Centre.
BC Coalition Calls for Ban
On January 14, 2010, an unprecedented coalition of 18 health and environment organizations asked the BC Government to "go for gold" and pass leading-edge legislation to ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides:
"We support the BC Government’s interest in safeguarding the environment from cosmetic chemical pesticides and call for new legislation that:
* Prohibits the use, sale, and retail display of chemical pesticides for lawns, gardens, and non-agricultural landscaping;
* Allows exemptions only to protect public health;
* Provides for public education about the ban and alternatives to chemical pesticides;
* Includes effective mechanisms for enforcement; and
* Is passed in 2010 and fully implemented within the first two years of the government’s current mandate."
For why the Coalition want the BC Government to "go for gold", see " BC Coalition Wants Gold" right sidebar.
For Coalition's January 14, 2010 statement, click here.
For the Coalition's 18 health and environment organizations, see "BC's Ban Coalition Groups" left sidebar.
BC Govt is Consulting . . . til Feb 15, 2010
On December 16, 2009, the Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment, launched the Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Consultation Forum.
The BC Government is consulting on "how we can encourage all British Columbians to reduce unnecessary pesticide use".
As reported in the Vancouver Sun January 7, 2010, the Canadian Cancer Society is asking why the Government is consulting, rather than acting:
" . . there is enough research on the topic for the government to move forward now and adopt a strong cosmetic-pesticide ban.
'The question is why does the government need a further consultation process when they already have this information?' "
See "BCers Support Ban" and "Will BC Govt Listen? sidebars.
The on-line consultation is open until February 15, 2010.
It is VERY important that comments be submitted to the consultant who has been contracted to manage the consultation process . . . every email, letter, fax counts.
BC's Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Consultation Forum includes . . .
* a Consultation Paper.
The Paper has background info and eight questions that focus on . . .
o Ministry of Environment objectives,
o regulatory restrictions on pesticide use,
o creating classes for pesticide use (or non-use),
o limiting pesticide use to qualified applicators and encouraging IPM,
o notification and signage,
o selling pesticides to authorized/trained buyers,
o public education, compliance and enforcement, and
o additional comments.
Question One is the only question that refers to health protection.
* three response form options for your comments.
o an on-line response form. Cannot be saved or printed.
o a word doc response form. Can be saved and printed. Space will expand to allow for all your comments.
o a pdf response form. Can be saved and printed. Space will expand to allow for all your comments.
* Comments must be submitted by Mon February 15, 2010.
Go over how to submit your comments as you can email/mail/fax comments to the consultant and not use the specified forms.
Comments or suggestions beyond the identified issues can also be submitted.
Comments received after February 15, 2010 will be reviewed by the Ministry of Environment but may not be included in the consultation summary report.
* During January 2010, the Ministry of Environment will host web/telephone information session(s) on the consultation paper and answer consultation questions.
* Consultation comments will be made public in the spring of 2010, with info on the "next steps to address" cosmetic pesticide use in BC.
For consultation forum and consultant contact info, click here.
To take action! by Monday February 15, 2010, click here.
Ont Government Consulted and Decided . . . in 3 Months
There are three critical differences between what's happening in BC and Ontario's consultation process . . .
* Three months was all the time the Ontario Government needed to decide once it started public consultations . . .
In January 2008, the Ontario public was asked to comment on a pesticide use ban.
Three months later, in April 2008, the Ontario Government announced that, in the spring of 2009, it would ban the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides.
Within fifteen months of starting the January 2008 consultation, Ontario's rules were in place for April 22, 2009 ban.
Our BC Liberal Government is silent on whether it supports a provincial ban.
In contrast, the Ontario Government followed through on a Sept 2007 election commitment and was very public about supporting a ban.
* The BC Ministry of Environment's consultation process is about "reducing" pesticide use.
In contrast, Ontario's consultation process was on how and when a ban should be passed.
* Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is entrenched as part of "normal" lawn and garden care in BC.
In 2003, BC's Campbell Government passed North America's first IPM legislation.
IPM uses chemical products that continue to harm, long after their initial "kill".
This is why the Canadian Cancer Society does not want IPM practices included in BC's ban. See "Cancer Society - No IPM Ban" and "BC IPM Applicator Death" right sidebars.
IPM is promoted by the chemical landscaping industry as the "proper" way to use pesticides by trained and licensed IPM applicators.
The BC Ministry of Environment actively promotes IPM as "Safe. Effective. Responsible.".
In contrast, Ontario has no IPM legislation.
Ontario's "Pesticide Free" Ministry of Environment encourages "beautifully lawns and gardens naturally". See "Ontario's Pesticide Free" sidebar.
Bylaws do NOT Protect BCers
It is wrong that harmful pesticide exposure depends on where we live in BC.
Only a quarter of British Columbians (27%) live in the eleven "gold medal" communities that provide the best protection from pesticide exposure.
Another 17% of BCers live in "not recommended" bylaw communities . . . where it is "business as usual" for IPM landscaping companies.
The remaining BCers (just over half at 56%), have no protection from harmful pesticide exposure as they live where there are no pesticide bylaws. See "Gold Medal Bylaws" right sidebar.
Pesticide bylaws do not adequately protect any BC resident for two reasons:
* First, bylaws apply only to municipal and residential lands.
Bylaws do not cover other private lands, including institutional, industrial and commercial properties . . . our day cares, school yards, parks, sports fields, golf courses, educational campuses.
BCers are unknowningly exposed to pesticides when on, or near, these areas unless the land owner has voluntarily stopped using pesticides.
Stopping pesticide use on these properties is a provincial responsibility.
* Second, pesticides continue to be sold in BC stores.
Some BC stores, like The Home Depot and Rona, have shown leadership and voluntarily stopped selling pesticides.
Others big retailers, like Canadian Tire, continue to sell products in BC that they can not sell in Ontario or Quebec.
Toxic Free Canada and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee have highlighted why a BC ban is needed to close this legal "loophole".
Stopping the sale of pesticides is a provincial responsibility.
For the past two years, the group that represents BCers in cities, town and rural areas throughout BC, the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), has asked the BC Government to ban the sale and use of pesticides.
For more info . . .
* on the BC Ministry of Environment's promotion of IPM and why BCers do not want a weak IPM "ban" like New Brunswick or PEI, click here.
* on why Health Canada does not protect the health and safety of British Columbians, click here.
* on industry opposition to pesticide laws, except those that continue "proper" IPM pesticide use, click here.
* on why municipal bylaws have been used in Canada to restrict pesticide use, click here.
* on why bylaws don't really protect BCers, click here.
* on Ontario's ban, click here.
Help make BC Pesticide Free . . .
A BC provincial ban will not happen without a sustained, co-ordinated effort of concerned citizens (aka voters) and Pesticide Free BC supporters.
Talk with people about pesticide use and harmful exposure . . . your neighbours, friends, work colleagues, day care parents, veterinarian, doctor, golfing buddies, mail carrier, your family.
Tell people about this website and the Government's on-line public consultation . . . send the PFBC website to everyone you know throughout BC.
It's time for BCers to tell our Government that all of British Columbia must be protected from harmful and unnecessary pesticide exposure.
It's time for the BC Government to listen and ban the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides.
Email your "no IPM" ban request right now! and click here.
Take action! by Monday February 15, 2010.
Last Updated on Saturday, 30 January 2010 10:40
BC must be Pesticide Free. Take Action! by Monday Feb 15, 2010.
Comments (2)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Write comment
[I think the issue is not that chemicals are used after all other methods are tried, but routinely applied without much thought about the cumulative effects. And, chemicals are used not just for food production, but applied cosmetically on golf courses, lawns, boulevards, etc. -ed.]