CTV News | Will NAFTA exterminate Canadian pesticide bans?

Canada -   

Will NAFTA exterminate Canadian pesticide bans?

Rich Staudt of Total Landscaping Care & Design waters a customer's lawn with his organic 'compost tea', Wednesday, June 27, 2007. (AP / Mary Altaffer)

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(92)

By: Parminder Parmar, CTV.ca News

Date: Sun. Mar. 29 2009 7:10 AM ET

A battle brewing over cosmetic pesticides between one of North America's biggest chemical companies and Canadian lawmakers may end up re-shaping the future of Canada's environmental policies in the years ahead.

Next month, Onatario is set to become the second province in the country (after Quebec) to ban the sale and use of most off-the-shelf cosmetic pesticides.

"The ban would eliminate the use of conventional pesticides for cosmetic purposes on lawns, gardens, school yards and parks," says an Ontario government press release. That means 250 products containing one or more chemicals on a list of prohibited materials will be pulled out of stores by Earth Day on April 22.

Environmental and health advocates hail the provincial bans as big steps in protecting public safety and children. But the pesticide prohibitions are not sitting well with the Dow Chemical Company. When Quebec enacted similar regulations, the Dow AgroSciences unit of the company filed a notice of action against Ottawa claiming the Quebec legislation violates NAFTA.

Dow's fight is centred on one chemical in particular: 2,4-D, which is used as one of the world's most common herbicides. Dow says it's safe if used according to instructions.

But proponents of the pesticide ban say studies have shown that 2, 4-D is linked with cancer, neurological impairment and other health problems. They say putting the chemical into herbicides, which are then thrown onto fields and lawns, doesn't make sense.

"This is a no-brainer," Lisa Gue of the David Suzuki Foundation told CTV.ca.

"This is a completely unnecessary source of chemical exposure. It just makes sense that in a world where we are surrounded by so many chemicals to ban unnecessary ones."

Gue and her colleagues have been working with Equiterre, a Quebec-based environmental group that's pushing Ottawa to fight back hard if Dow continues its plans against the Quebec ban. They say their fight is larger than a single chemical or company, arguing that Canadians should be allowed to decide for themselves what is in the best interest of public safety -- especially when it comes to kids.

"Children are more affected because of their physiology and behaviour," said Hugo Seguin, a coordinator at Equiterre.

"Children are children -- they play in the grass and mud and they put their hands on their mouths... Canadians are concerned about public health and health of their children. This is what it's all about."

Conflicting science?

Claude-André Lachance, the director of public policy for Dow Canada, told CTV.ca that Canada's pesticides management agency and other researchers have concluded that 2, 4-D is safe if used appropriately.

"What is relevant is that those agencies, after conducting thorough reviews, have concluded this product is safe if used according to label. Our contention is that the Quebec government did not use a thorough and robust process to determine the safety of 2, 4-D ... It is basically an arbitrary decision," he said.

That's why the company filed a notice of intent to take action under chapter 11 of NAFTA, Lachance adds, noting the Quebec ban sends a bad message to the business community.

"(It) does not meet due process that is conducive to investment and innovation and accountable government," he said.

Gue said the fact that all the scientific reports are not conclusive or completed does not mean that the chemical is safe.

"It's true there is uncertainty around the science. But this is in effect an unnecessary risk. When it comes to lawn pesticides it is an unacceptable risk. It's just not worth the risk to children's health when all we want to do is kill dandelions," she said.

Lachance noted that the company is now in discussions with Ottawa to resolve the issue. However, he added that if an acceptable resolution isn't worked out, the company will move ahead "in the next few weeks" in an effort to settle the matter through the NAFTA process.

"It is certainly Dow AgroSciences' intention to follow with a notice for arbitration if the matter cannot be resolved through those discussions. That's where it stands basically," he said.

That has mobilized Canadian groups who have banded together to fight the corporation. In Quebec, they've started a letter-writing campaign to Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day. On March 24, Equiterre and other groups also appeared before a federal committee looking into the pesticide bans and their implications for NAFTA.

Environmentalists fear that if the pesticide bans in Quebec and Ontario are overturned there will be implications for governments across Canada. Prince Edward Island is considering putting its own pesticide ban on the books, as is New Brunswick. There are also municipalities across the country that have banned the use of cosmetic pesticides.

"We think the governments have a right to regulate to protect public health and the environment. This restriction is not specific to Dow Chemicals," Gue said.

"If it is the case that NAFTA prevents governments from protecting public health from unnecessary chemical exposures, then I have to conclude there is a problem with the way that agreement is written or being interpreted."

Share with your social Network:

Comments are now closed for this story

M. Richard
said

Well Mr. Lachance... I'll tell you what...If you drink a full glass of your wonderful chemical 2, 4-D. I will consider spraying my lawn with it. Didn't think so.


VH
said

Once again, corporations demonstrate that they are out for profits, not public well-being and safety. I think we need to toughen up and rework this NAFTA agreement, because it seems to me that the US benefits from it more than Canada does. Our autonomy to make decisions in our best interest should not be continually undermined by US corporations.


UhhmYeah
said

So if I follow this logic . . .

We have no choice but to accept pharmaceuticals from the States without our own approval process?

If we decide certain chemicals or substances are legal we can force them on the States?

If we legalize the cheeba, would they be forced to accept its sale and distribution in their country?

There should be no discussions. Smack the big company down. We don't need this crap on our lawns.


James
said

If there isn't conclusive evidence that this chemical is bad, it shouldn't be banned. Often domestic groups will try to argue that foreign goods/substances should be banned "in the interests of the public" when in fact this is just a cover to advance their own interests.

If you want to allow Canadians to decide what is in the best interest of their public safety, educate people about the products and let them decide on their own if they wish to buy them or not.


jeremy
said

can't they just change the compound a bit and give it a different name and say it's safe
I thought that was how it was done


Ivan
said

I wish people would get their terminology right. Those who say - 'Ban all chemicals' are really showing their own ignorance. Water, oxygen, carbon dioxide ... are all chemicals necessary for life. What you should be saying is 'limit the use of unnecessary chemical products' Your arguments will be taken more seriously if you sound like you know what you're talking about.


shawn
said

For once, I'm on the government's side. There is no need for pesticides in public places. I hope our government sticks to their guns on this one.

Shame on Dow if they take this to court. They have untold billions in profit. You made your money now back off! This is not your country.


Connie (Calgary)
said

Profits over people. It's the North American way!


Don
said

The Federal Government tested 2-4-D and concluded it safe to use, the Ontario government says it's okay for farmers and golf courses to continue using it, but not homeowners. The city of Toronto is overrun with weeds after just 2 years. It sounds like McGuinty is out in left field on this one and hope Dow prevails.



P. Scobie
said

Another step in the right direction to protect the public and the environment.

I support the ban. If you need to have a perfect lawn get your ass out there everyday and pull the darn weeds.


Jack Reddekopp
said

2-4D has been studied for over 30 years. Science has yet to conclude any linkages to cancer or other disease from it. This is really a bandwagon issue - not a true health concern. If people are really concerned about chemicals dangerous to children, why not ban all our nasty cleaning solutions?


Bob
said

Just refuse to purchase products manufactured by DOW.


Meagan from London ON
said

Good. I hope the nanny-state government in Ontario (along with all the enviro-idiots) finally gets smacked down. Who does the province think they are to ban something by homeowners when it has already been okayed by the federal government, and that it's safe enough for golf courses and farms to use?

Support Dow in their fight for our personal freedoms and property rights!


Mark
said

...and golf courses and farmers-the ones who grow our food use pesticides, herbicides all the time. Funny, I've not read anything about an epidemic of cancers among golfers, those who live near golf courses or farmers.

Don is right-you see leftist logic hard at work and again McGuinty (I'll ban coal burning plants, there'll be no houses on the Oakridges Morraine-oh but don't ask me about Caledonia) McGuinty continuing to bark up the wrong tree.

Oh, and why quote anybody from David Suzuki's "Foundation" (the darling of the CBC)? Let us not forget that this guy was a fruit fly geneticist who would have us believe that he knows all and sees all rather than environment Canada? I don't think so.

Science folks, not politics.


John
said

Someone please tell me of one person who has died because someone sprayed this stuff on a lawn. Just one name. It sounds so scary. We have to do it for the health of our children. I was a child once, I played on lawns with this stuff, I didn't die. People actually live longer now than they ever have before. Stay the hell off my property and out of my life government.


Don Eyre
said

It,s too bad that we always must have legislation to make up for people's stupidity. Follow the directions,you don't use it where children and pets must play before the residue is gone. The next thing you know they will try and stop farmers from getting these valuable chemicals and then they will have to go back to using more cultivation which will use more fossil fuels and increase so called "global warming". Then there will be legislation against that and food prices will skyrocket.


Finally the real story
said

Finally some sense will come to the political stupidity of banning the pesticides. I hope th ban falls! Another example of environmentalism gone wrong. Because it kills something it must be bad.


Bob C
said

Blah, Blah, Blah, If used properly the company says it's safe, and if Golf courses are allowed to use it, so should the rest of us. Did you know that if you injest a large bottle of Tylenol all at once it can kill you, however if you follow the label you should be ok. When they ban Tylenol I will grow weeds on my lawn, until then....Spray away!!


james isherwood
said

As Soon as I read if used as per instruction, this tells me it is not safe to be used in puplic areas or around where people may frequent.



MIKE MCDERMOTT
said

Has any U.S. cities or states banned or restrictied 2,4-D? It may be best to get American allies to tackel the 2 edged sword of NAFTA. Let see if Dow is moving against groups in their own country


Roadrobber
said

It's comments like the one make my M. Richard "...if you drink a full glass of 2-4-D..." that demonstrates just how illogical the debate can get. Any kind of pesticide, along with probably thousands of other products we use every day, are not meant to be used in that fashion. Does anyone out there eat a cup of salt every day? How about sugar? How about a glass full of bleach? Ammonia? Do you sprinkle powdered laundry detergent on your pancakes?


PJ
said

I can put fertilizer (nitrogen, phosporous, potassium) and lime (calcium carbonate) on my lawn. I can put salt (sodium chloride) on my driveway. But I can't buy moss killer (iron sulphate) any more because it's a "pesticide". If we are going to make laws banning substances, let's make ones that make sense and have some basis in science, not the fear-mongering that the activist groups use to bring in donations.


Nancy: Freedom of Choice on Bottled Water
said

Chemicals like fertilizers leak into our water systems, thats why I buy bottled water.

We need to protect freedom on choice on Water.


Rick in NB
said

All you pro 2,4-D people are proof that the Jones family are alive and running your life.

These chemicals have one use only. An artificial sense of a job well done. Hours of lawn care in a minute.

Are we really that shallow that we would give up the health of our children, pets and wildlife just for show.

Act like an adult not the child.


K. Jean Cottam, PhD
said

The problem with Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is that its screening process amounts to rubber-stamping problematic evaluations of industry's rat data. The common herbicide 2,4-D was one-half of Agent Orange--the other half was 2,4,5-T, banned since 1983. Both are known to be contaminated by toxic dioxin--2,7-DCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDD respectively.

A whistle-blower from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported that dioxin is still present in 2,4-D. (I happen to have her data.) Dioxin is generated by high temperatures in the reactor and lowering temperatures makes the manufacturing process impractical. Agent Orange did kill and crippled millions in Vietnam; it also sickened and killed Canadian soldiers at Gagetown, N.B. Currently, the industry is not testing 2,4-D for the cancer-causing dioxin 2,4-DCDD generated during manufacturing under high temperatures, as well as for immune, neurological, reproductive and developmental harm.

Each herbicide in a mixture is tested individually and only partially. The so-called "synergistic" effect is ignored. When children put their hands in their mouth on toxic lawns, the herbicide is somewhat filtered out by the liver, the cleansing organ. Inhalation and dermal contacts are by far the worst exposures and for these there is no remedy except being far, far away from the sprayed area. Staying off the toxic lawn is not enough.




David Burgoyne
said

I work as a gardener, my job is to make wealthy peoples yards look good. This ban has directly affected my ability to do my job. Are you tree huggers prepared to step up to the plate and fix it or am I to loose so a dandelion can win?


SSS
said

It's DDT Redux!!!


Ron
said

I know pesticides are used on farmers fields all the time so why can I eat the product but not walk on it?

This debate will never end because politics is allowed to influence policy decisions. The only way to resolve this debate is to get all stakeholders to agree on what constitutes "safe" and then test the product. If you can't do this, the debate will go on forever.


Katie fr Sudbury.
said

To the people supporting pesticide use,

Read this book: SILENT SPRING by RACHEL CARSON.

Long term problems arise when society blindly accepts that approvals from government have put the health of the nation first. Agreed, the Federal government can be paternalistic, but the 'we know what's best' attitude doesn't include providing us with *all* of the info we need to make informed decisions.

Ever heard of LD50 and LC50, the lethal dose and concentration of a product that kills 50% of a test population?? Or 'acceptable limit'? - a formula that uses LD#'s and LC#'s plus profit minus detriment to determine what an acceptable number of deaths due to product use are??? COMPANIES HAVE THESE FIGURES AND EQUATIONS IN MIND WHEN THEY TELL YOU THE PRODUCT IS 'SAFE' IF USED ACCORDING TO LABEL. It is industry standard to do this, and yes, it's frightening.

Consumers control industry, and if it's not being bought, the producer will change their product - to something safer.
Pesticides are not a point source pollutant. They diffuse in the environment; they are NOT confined to their point of application. They can react with other chemicals to produce new more harmful and more stable compounds. This reactivity is often unknown!
Please DO SOME RESEARCH, it doesn't take much to see the many bad decisions that have been made. It takes big kahunas for government to stand up to industry , especially one so powerful as DOW - Stand by the Provincial governments as they try to make a right decision here!


Dan LeClair
said

Did we sign away soverignty of our nation when we signed on for free trade?


Leslie
said

Who exactly paid for the studies that show 2,4-D is safe if used according to the manufacture's directions? I would suspect DOW itself, which certainly implys the possibility a bias in the results. DOW is not looking out for the public interest - they just want to sell more product. They are not interested in long-term health effects or how their chemical persists in the environment.
And how long is this obssesion with a perfect lawn going to persist? With water shortages and summer watering restrictions becoming common in many Canadian cities, finding an alternative to a weed-free lawn, which does not require all these chemicals, just seems sensible.
As for those pointing a finger at farmers using chemicals as a reason for the average urban homeowner to be free to spray his lawn whenever he wishes, unless you are a cow you cannot eat grass. Spraying crops to reduce disease is part of what keeps the food costs in Canada among the lowest in the world. Food is essential for life - a perfect lawn is not.


Ban the banners...
said

There is NO PROOF to suggest cosmetic pesticides are harmful. The socialist lobby whose political agenda has infiltrated Liberal governments is pushing to destroy our lifestyle due to these foolish unfounded claims. Time to ban the liberal socialists!




Mark
said

If the all these groups that are against chemicals stopped screaming "chemicals are bad" and used FACTS that are from proven sources. Maybe people would listen, these groups sound like a bunch of children having a tempure tantrum. Salt is bad for the environment, dont see it on the list, prove that 2 4-D is harmfully to people so that any person can see and understand the FACTS that is is dangerous to health, then people will stop using it. If you can't prove it then stop trying to shove your ban onto everybody.

PROVE 2 4-D is harmful or not harmful, that simple......

If harmful - ban the product
Not harmful - sell the product


Dylan
said

We seem to be a nation of narcissistic lawn lovers who really could care less about the environment. Think of the waste of water, the waste of energy, and the use of harmful chemicals all to make sure that our lawns our greener than the guy's next store. It's really pathetic. The one reason that environmentalists cite human health concerns in this fight is that protecting ecosystems and biodiversity still isn't sexy. And to Nancy, the bottled water supporter - most of that bottled water you drink comes from the same tap that you are drinking from in your house, and likely has the same chemical composition.


END OF STORY.... go home lefties!
said

"The Federal Government tested 2-4-D and concluded it safe to use....."


Michael Brannon
said

Despite the fact that I for the most part have a hard time buying into arguements put forth by zealot organizations I think this issue has legs. If a corporation has to depend on trade agreements to keep their product on the shelf, there is probably something "Rotten in Denmark". I suggest a temporary ban on the involved products which would become permanent within a specified time frame, allowing Dow and the rest of the Chemical Industry to prove their products safety. I only wish that my own government south of your the border was so enlightened as to be able to even have such discussions.


David A Kelly
said

Over 98% of all materials ever tested have been found to be carcinogenic. It is not the chemical per se that is a problem, it is the dosage. No matter what you ingest, if it is more than your body's tolerance threshold, you increase you risk of cancer. Government regulations are there to protect the ignorant.


david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]
said

Interesting....Two camps on this one..
Please take note,, I am a bona fide farmer, I grow food you eat.
Let me be clear, I detest david suzuki and his stance on the environment.I do not like government telling me what to do. I think al gore is an idiot politician and should have the nobel prize pulled.
I kinda sound like a neo-conservative redneck farmer, right??
Wrong!!!
I farm organically and have for years. Chemical farming is not my cup of tea,, I would not eat chemical -laden food,I do not knowingly eat GMOs. I hate the control that the monsantos exert on our governments.
The key here folks is education.
Just because I don't like how these chemicals ruin the environment and I do whatever I can to stop pollution,, does NOT mean I have to jump into bed with the eco-terrorists.
People need to educate themselves,, not blindly follow the enviro-nazis!!
The choice is yours, to use or not to use..


B. Kelley, Ontario
said

I would like to see some hard science on this one and I don't mean the self-serving David Suzuki commercial brand. This ban will only reduce 2-4-D use by about 5% since agriculture and golf courses are exempt. So are we supposed to believe that its okay to put on our food and ingest it but we shouldn't get it on our shoes by walking across our lawns? And, apparently, golfers are somehow immune to its dangers? Again I ask. Where is the science that proves this substance is harmful on only 5% of the land?


D Tiedeman
said

This is really a discussion on a governments right to pass laws, not whether something is safe or not. No corporation should be able to get a court to overturn laws passed by duly elected governments. We have seen to much of courts being in a position to make laws or at least strike down laws it doesn't like. That is not the job of the court. The courts job is to interpret law period!!!!


K in Ontario
said

I'm disgusted by the insignificance of the war that is waged on 'weeds'.

TO David the Gardener:
The arrogance of your statement floors me!!!
Are you asking me, as the 'tree hugger' you say I am, to risk my health and the health of my children so you can kill dandelions for rich people??!!
Do you like pesticides because they make your job easier? Maybe you could work a little harder and research some effective, less harmful methods of weed removal so the tree huggers can keep their kids cancer-free. mmm?


Me
said

The trouble with most people is they don't know how to grow a lawn without chemicals. Keep your grass full and healthy and the grass doesn't allow the weeds room to grow.

Pull out any thatch in the spring and top dress with compost. Add agricultural lime if the soil is acidic and needs it and maybe a little fertilizer. Rough up the soil and seed any bare spots--mix it with a little soil to keep the birds out and aid germination.

Our lawn is one of the nicest around and we never use any kind of chemicals on it. A walk around with a step on dandilion digger every couple of weeks takes care of weeds and dandilions that happen to sprout.


trimmer905
said

I'm old enough to remember Hooker Chemical and the Love Canal disaster in western New York.Consequences of that are still felt to this day.I really don't trust these corporations and trust their figures even less.


Ian Scott, Montreal
said

A couple of things come to mind as I read this article. A few years back, Canada tried to stop an American company from selling a gasoline additive which had raised health concerns. The company filed under NAFTA and we had to allow distribution of the additive in Canada, AND pay a 20 million dollar penalty to the company. Of course, the product that was forced on us under NAFTA was already a banned substance in the US.

For those who question whether the product is unsafe or not, I should remind you that the first clinical tests regarding the health hazards of smoking were conducted just after the first world war. It took 75 years to get the companies to finally admit to the harmful effects of smoking. Asbestos was suspected of being a dangerous material for 25 or 30 years before it was conclusively proven. In Canada, we may finally get Health Canada to admit that 1500 mg of salt is the proper amount for an adult, not 2400 or 3200 mg. I would personally prefer that we begin to err on the side of caution when it comes to potentially hazardous chemicals. And let's face it, we're talking about people's grass here, so who gives a flying fig if it is not of golf-green quality.


Josh
said

What is so complicated? Like Gue says, in a world of so many chemicals, why have unnecessary ones? It's time for money to take second place to health! DOW needs to act like a socially responsible company... like DuPont with the CFC issue! WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


Frank
said

Another propaganda war that leaves the consumer wondering who is right and who is wrong. Unless the government deems this product bad in the proportion that we use on our lawns I believe the NAFTA fight will favour Dow. The board will look to government studies as they are suppose to be impartial as compared to Dow or Suzuki Foundation. Personally if someone can put a weed killer on the market that is environmentally friendly, that does not gouge my pocket by saying it says so I will buy it. But until the greedy environmentalists put a competitive product on the shelf I will use the cheapest product that is effective for my needs. So if it is Dow then so be it. It is a two way street here the greedy environmentalists or the greedy Chemical companies. No matter what it is the poor consumer who usually suffers. I did not get cancer from playing in the grass I got it from smoking. Luckily it was found early and I am alive 20 years later.



BT
said

I guess if we legalize marijuana, then we should be allowed to sell it in the U.S or they will be violating NAFTA...


VagnF
said

I hear bleach is bad for your health if used improperly. We should ban the use of bleach because we're surrounded by too many chemicals.


jackson
said

i live in ontario and i for one hope dow chemical wins this fight, i am tired of special interest groups telling me what is good for me and what isnt. it has never been proven that 24d is cancer causing. why dont these people mind there own business and i will look after mine


Lindsay ONT
said

So by stopping this ban people think it will somehow preserve freedom of choice, gardening jobs and anti-left/tree-hugging views? Have common sense people! Yes, sometimes science is not black and white, but science HAS shown that applying unnecessary chemicals pose risks to health, the environment etc. - 2,4-D is UNNECESSARY! By not applying elbow work, YES, YOU WILL LOSE YOUR FIGHT WITH WEEDS! Being so narrow-minded and asthetically centred will not only cost you your health, it will cost the health of countless others because of your choices. The public does not have to understand how chemicals can leach through our environment, concentrate and thus pose health hazards. No, that’s why scientists have a responsibility to relay that information and for governments to act. Back in the day, inconclusive evidence found smoking to be hazardous...but only recently did science actually get to conclusively show that. Millions of people died before the science could prove this and for laws to be made, but its too late for those people – why not be pro-active in this case? Don’t lift these bans...they protect the public and our environment and if you don’t see that, than go inform yourself on how many other chemicals you are exposed to. One less can make a BIG difference.
O, and because of the so called “fruit fly geneticist” your life and/or others are saved everyday, so go ahead, attack them...it does nothing to strengthen your argument.




BLE
said

While banning chemicals to control weeds may sound good, is it really what we want? It another case of, be carefull what you wish for - you may get it. Our parks and lush green lawns look that way because of the use of chemicals and fertilizer. Now, in your mind, picture them full of weeds. So,are you prepared to have your neighbours dandelions go to seed and blow onto your property? I doubt it!! You'll be on the phone complainng to your municipality and the answer will be, "Sorrrryyy, the law says!"


Logan
said

Don't blame the US for NAFTA, Canada signed it too, guys. What the heck did you THINK was going to happen??


Tim
said

This issue is MUCH bigger than just lawn chemicals. It's about corporate rights and profit over a sovereign nation's ability to govern for the good of its own people. NAFTA legally enforces corporate rights over the rights of people, no matter what the financial or health consequences are for the people. Our country was sold out with NAFTA, and made our sovereignty a plaything of foreign corporations.


Mike vdB - Chatham, ON
said

I, as a customer, would prefer to purchase and use environmentally friendly alternatives to harmful products any day....if they were widely available. I also, as that same customer, should be able to purchase and properly use a product that will soon be considered a banned product by the Ontario govt.

The policy was flawed from the start and did not give any company a grace period other then a lousy year to come up with practical alternatives. I have never used extensive pesticides or herbicides on my yard but appreciated their use if I needed them.

I agree with the others that say that this needs to be science and education based and not done through scare tatics.

And to the one person that thinks she will save herself if she buys bottled water. The chemicals from the bottle not only can leech into that water, but they spend a lifetime in the landfill and eventually leech chemicals back into the ground.

Don't be a hypocrite.


James in Red Deer
said

My next door neighbour applies 2, 4-D so heavily on his lawn you can smell it for days after application. He treats his lawn 4 or 5 times per summer. There are many people who behave like this, using 10 times as much as the label says. The extra chemical then runs off into the storm drains and eventually ends up in the river. Add that to the many herbicides used by farmers and many other industrial wastes that also end up there. Then we drink the water and eat the fish and wonder why there is a cancer epidemic? I really don't know why we are so stupid to not aggresively stop the widespread contamination of our food and water supply. Then we try to take a small step and the multi-national chemical company wants to sue the government. Boycott Dow Now!!


TedBop
said

It would be hard to fund a more uninformed group that the pro ban people on this comment thread.

The filing under NAFTA is because BOTH countries decided that if you're going to ban a product it has to be based on actual science, not just some made up feel good bandwagon.

John wanted to hear of one person who has died because someone sprayed this stuff on a lawn. I'll make it even easier. Show me a single replicatable study that shows a higher incidence of cancer in the workers than manufacture 2-4-D. That should be real simple, they're exposed to it every day. They must be riddled with tumors.

It's not DDT redux unless you referring to the completely non-scientific fiasco around that ban.

And if you think drinking bottled water is safer than tap water you are truly deluded.


Wolfgang Petrov
said

I am sick and tired of the gestpo tactics of the Ontario governement to tell us what we can use and what we can't. Before all these so called chemicals, life span was 35 now it is 75, so it can't be hurting us that much. Furthermore, Toronto and Mississauga are looking worse than 3rd world countries all attributable to not using chemicals to keep parks and roads maintained. Unacceptable when we pay some of the highest taxes in the world,a nd are living in what looks like slums, dirty, poorly maintained.
We are sick and tired of Suzuki and his bleeding hearts.


James in Red Deer
said

To David Burgoyne:

Oh yes of course it is OK that you are spraying toxic chemicals that end up in our water suppyly if it means a job!! (sarcasm intended)

Give me a break. People make money so it should be OK? This rhetoric is ridiculous. Maybe you should go tell someone who has cancer that it is OK because you make money.


Roadrobber
said

That bastion of human interference and bureacracy, the European Union, found it safe enough to use, so that must tell you something. In Ontario, our "Ban" Premier, urged on by Toronto Mayor David MillerDalton McGuinty, will ban just about anything if he thinks it will get him a vote or two. Maybe he should ban tax increases after promising not to raise taxes one cent and he's now about to introduce probably the second of the top two tax increases in Ontario history. His PST/GST Harmonization and his Health Premium (as he called it).


ouifyg
said

I don't understand why anyone would spray poisonous chemicals on their lawn. If you dont like the weeds then PULL THEM OUT. This is common sense poeple! There is absolutly NO health risk involved and we don't need to do any studies on it. Furthermore it's absolutly free! Come to your senses!


Mike
said

No body asked me what I thought of the use of these chemicals. Also what is going to happen when all these people who want the chemicals banned now get severe allergies from these weeds when we can't kill them anymore. Then what gov't funded allergie care.


Sean
said

Instead of using harful unnecessary chemicals. I usually dig up the weeds to the roots. Or if they are really bad you can pour Vinegar on the weeds to get rid of them. Cheap cost effective and works with minimal harm to the environment and people.


Mark
said

making note on the fact that the studies they mention are inconclusive or incomplete. Lets remember that all these studies are designed to be done this way so they can claim what they want and get away with it. Remember when Dupont got its patent on chemical plastic, what they claimed about hemp in order to get rid of their natural competition and eliminate a far superior product. These chemical companies will do anything to hide the truth to protect their bottom line.
How many years have we listened to the tobacco companies claiming their products werre safe.


mariefrance
said

Is this another example of the goverment taking over our right to decide? Is this going to be another DDT mess? DDT got banned on false research and documentation and even though it was later proven that the research had been falsified, hundreds of thousand of people in Africa suffered and died from malaria because we forced them to follow our ban. We give them moskito nets instead. Try to work the fields wrapped in a moskito net. Let us decide for ourselves what we want to use or not use.


Kim
said

People were dying of cancer long before pesticides came along in 1948.

The funny thing is that science knows of the 19 know carcinogenic chemicals that cause cancer. All 19 of them are in cigerettes and we have not banned them. None of the 19 are in pesticides and we ban them. Why do not trust science?


Glenn
said

heh! DDT, as it turns out, isn't as poisonous as everyone thought. neither is asbestos and vaccines don't cause autism and spinage isn't as good for you as everyone thought. This is always a very passionate debate and "selling poison" grabs headlines. You people are sheep being manipulated by these crazies that spout this stuff.
24D is as poisonous as.. aluminum. copper. zinc. and any of a 100 other diferent compouds you eat in tiny quantities everyday. none of you complain about that or the 100's of soluble plastics that your food is packaged in. you don't care that your pop bottle was washed before it was filled but the plastic fork you put in your mouth wasn't. fools the whole bunch. And i'm a little surprized at Susuki helping top perpetuate this junk.


MIke from Toronto
said

I am a staunch capitalist and dont believe in a human made global warming but I think banning these chemicals is the best thing ive heard in a while. We are exposed to thousands of chemicals on a daily basis unnecessarily and then they wont where all this cancer comes from? Sometimes we just need to put people's health ahead of greed.


Steven
said

"Nancy: Freedom of Choice on Bottled Water
Chemicals like fertilizers leak into our water systems, thats why I buy bottled water.

We need to protect freedom on choice on Water. "

Does bottled water not come from our water systems. And its not regulated and tested as often as municiple water supplies. Plus the bottles pollute the planet.




michael hanna
said

mike from bowmanville
it appears that our provincial government is forcing the entire province to the will of socialist toronto...
however people i wouldn;t get my shirt in a knot as this "ban" is basically un-enforcable seeing as these products are not illegal to own and use(as per federal ministry).this is just a "good will" gesture suggesting we shouldn't use them.
even if the products are "banned" from being sold at canadian enterpeurs(canadian tire)home depot will continue selling them as per nafta as they are an american enterpeur.
the dow company should not have a problem with their case as it will be up to our provincial government to prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that these products are dangerous to our health...they will not be able to
i will personally continue to keep my lawn looking fit and free of weeds and harmfull insects via legal pesticide products


Doug BC
said

I'm of two minds on this issue because there seems to be two issues.
On one hand,there is little,if any evidence to support a ban on this chemical.Those who argue one way or another have made up their minds,and are now busy spinning details to support their position.Everything on the planet,in excess,comes with negative impacts.To much water,or if breathed under pressure,to much oxygen can be fatal.It's alll about moderation and "proper" usage.
That said,this is a debate for Canadians,not for Dow chemical.But it is a tricky path to navigate.We can expect to be treated the same way we treat others.If we get another "mad cow",for example,the USA will close the border for "safety" reasons.All to often these decisions open the door for "protectionist" trade policies through the use of non tarrif trade barriers.If we go down this path,we must expect the USA to "ban" the use of many things we sell to them.So,the science on this had better be able to stand up to close scrutiny both here,and in the USA.And any policy we put in place on this fertilizer will also have to be applied to any other product that even one person thinks may be even modestly hazzardous.
For example,"Nancy's" freedom of choice on water is someone else's problem with plastic,and the problems that come with it.
Well stated "Bob C"



MuskyBuck
said

To K. Jean Cottam, PhD and SSS.

Great work and very informative post. Everyone else here is giving their opinion on a story they know nothing about.

The problem here is the science and regulatory aspects are so far above almost every Canadians head, there can't be any honest discussion and debate.

One post by UhhmYeah shows how little Canadians even understand pharmacuetical approval processes in Canada.

By the way, no Canada doesn't 'approve' drugs for sale here if they've already been on sale in the US, UK or other partner countries.

They are automatically approved if already approved elsewhere.

Because I have a business that is Health Canada approved, you can imagine the reams of information and regulations I must adhere to.

Because I've already gone down the road with funky regulatory practices by Health Canada, I can also tell you that 'science' rarely exists within our government bodies.

But with that being said, I'm one that also understand the black history of Dow.

Has anyone here forgotten Bhopal, India? Rather, how many even know?

Granted this tragedy happened while the company was known as Union Carbide, but that's almost a moot point as the travesity of justice in compensation is being committed daily by Dow who refuse to pay for medical expenses to the thousands that were killed and injured.

So on both sides there are arguements but the bottom line is that no matter how you change names, the chemical is what it is and knowing that most Canadians can't shake themselves from ignorance before making comments....the real danger is allowing these same people the use of a dangerous, toxic chemical that they themselves haven't the first clue about.

So as I see it nothing short of full disclosure on the matter will make a fair and honest judgement.

This starts obviously with the manufacturer, Dow.


PTOL
said

Go ahead and ban cosmetic pesticides in Ontario - I will just drive to Niagara Falls USA and by my products there. No way I am having a weed infested lawn!

And to all the hippies out there who will reprimand me for my stance. Next time you pour youself a nice bowl of Harvest Crunch take a look at the package contents and you will see BHT listed - BHT is a carcinogen and is present in almost every cerial box 'to maintain freshness' - why don't you protest that!?!


Bruce Botchar
said

why dont they just pour the stuff into some water and drink it, then lets see how safe it is


Jake from SK
said

2, 4-D and other chemicals are proven to be safe when used according to label instructions, which are not complicated. There is no science behind the claims that pesticides cause cancer or any other negative health effect. And for M. Richard, 2, 4-D is no more toxic than table salt. Drink a glass full of table salt, and you will die. 2, 4-D may only make you sick.

Weeds are a serious problem in agriculture, and cities are a breeding ground for them. If these provinces are willing to ban pesticides in cities, what is to stop them from banning pesticides in agriculture? Take pesticides away from agriculture, and watch the devastating numbers of starvation that will ensue.


Dan D Lion, Nanaimo
said

Pesticides and herbicides eventually get into our water, and we end up eating contaminated fish. If you believe these chemicals are harmless, then visit a psychiatric ward and observe patients with advanced Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease. Ask yourself, how do we know that the chemicals that pollute our water, air, and food are not causing these devastating illnesses? The answer is that we just don't know.

We should not have to risk our health for the sake of people who want fancy lawns. If you want a fancy manicured lawn, then pay at bit more for manual weeding. That's how I weed my own lawn. It's more exercise, but exercise won't kill you.


R Moodie
said

There are more than enough safer alternatives. We spend millions each year trying to kill Dandelions and yet we demand the leafy part be organic in our store bought product. Try using vinegar if you really want to kill the dandelions, or just get down and dirty...dig 'em out.


R Moodie
said

2-4-d in and of itself might be safe. However, it, along with numerous other chemicals will end up in the water table. The combination of mixed chemicals is something we leave for our children to sort out.


Brian in Alberta
said

if you are 30 yrs and old er here, where did you grow up as when you were all growing up, we all used this stuff, our neighbors used it, the towns and cities used this and no one was dropping dead. On the farm, we use chemicals all the time, at night, the fields are not glowing in the dark. Now grant you we were not drinking this, we sprayed it on the grass. Our dogas and cats didnt die, the birds were not dropping out of the air, and by god, the gopher population sure has not been affected. So where is the proof this is killing us folks. Hey dont let Mr,Suzuki suck you in with everything he says.


budd
said

One individual on our street has his lawn sprayed every other week byn "professional lawn care people" I know they have been there as soon as i turn on to my street due to the stench. He has the rattiest lawn on the block. The rest of us are happy we have greenery in the middle of a drought - and it doesn't cost a small fortune to water.


stevo
said

"Dow says it's safe if used according to instructions."
What is Dow supposed to say?

Guns are safe if used properly. So is alcohol, morphine, a seat belt...

Besides, since when are dandelions and clover weeds? They're kind of pretty and at least they're not genetically mutated like the sod I put down last year. A lawn has to be the most unnatural growing environment on the planet. Where in nature does a perfectly manicured lawn exist?


Zhimmy
said

People who use pesticides should be charged!

Didn't we go through this with gas additives and we lost. Now we are all getting it when we fill up our tanks?


Sask Man
said

Common sense needs to prevail.

If city folk are ok with Dandelions, and other weeds, then they should not use 24-D

A ban on 24-D in the cities should never extend to rural areas and farmland as there is no scientic evidence that it affects our food supply.
Stop all the fear mongering.


Concerned Canadian
said

Mark- you asked for science, not politics, and K. Jean seems to have provided it. Doesn't look good, does it?

But the issue is not simply whether this particular substance is dangerous or not, but exactly what you said, Mark- science, not politics.

The question here is whether as Canadians we want decisions made concerning our health to be made by U.S. companies or by our elected representatives.

Under NAFTA, we may find that we have lost our democratic power to ban these substances from our country because of deals brokered by politicians in the interests of economics, not safety.

Those of you who are calling for the right to make your own decisions might think this through a bit more clearly, because that's exactly what's been taken away from you by NAFTA.

The point too, is that it's not just a decision that affects you alone. When you put these substances on your lawn, you're actually introducing them into the environment as a whole. It's a decision that could affect not just your own kids, but other people's as well.

And when did you get the right to make that decision?


TVic
said

NAFTA better not interfe with this one. Any government within Canada and any Canadian should have the right to choose NOT to use a product. Big corporations shouldn't be dicating the terms to us. There have to be limits put on Coroporations to prevent them from challenging good environmental law.


elisa
said

How many of you work in the health care system? Cancer is an epidemic, it is surpassing heart disease. Any of you who say you played on sprayed lawns and haven't died may have cancer...5-10 yrs from now you may have it. Don't speak too soon!!
Do any of you know someone with dementia and/or Alzheimers? I work with them everyday, it's horrible. What if these chemicals are linked to these brain diseases? (dementia and Alzheimers is on the rise as well...yes we live longer, but the quality of life for some of these people sucks).
I can't believe how selfish and narrow minded/stubborn Canadians can be when it comes to their grass!!!
Flowers, trees (natural shade), and bushes/shrubs are ways to make a lawn look nicer without having to use chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, and maybe even brain diseases...or liver disease or kidney disease (these are on the rise as well)...and who knows what!!
I hope the Ontario gov't will ban the use of chemicals on residential and other lawns.


Steve (Calgary)
said

2-4 D is a long proven, safe guard against noxious weeds. Dandelions primarily, as well as other destructive weeds, will quickly destroy vast areas of cultivated, productive land and decimate the green spaces in our cities, creating a massive ecological disaster against which the use of these mild, certified residential weed killers is a mere drop in the ocean. It will further INCREASE considerably the use of chemicals to control weeds on agricultural land as our cities and towns become noxious weed seeding centers sending out hugh clouds of seed across the countryside. There are some enviornmental activists (or is that extremists) that need to do some homework.


Sebastian Margarit
said

The funny thing about pesticides it that the active ingredient is often quite safe, however the "trademarked" and mostly secret mixes which are combined as surfactants and preservatives are often more toxic than the actives. They do studies on "Glyphosate" aka Roundup, and when you read the study they don't use Monsanto TM Roundup, they use pure glyphosate. This is not to say that I support outright bans, nor am I a tree hugger, nonetheless to go on as if there is no debate about these pesticides is false, no matter which side you're on.

I think what people are trying to argue is that with the level of uncertainty that exists we should err on the side of caution, especially when we're talking about something superficial like a lawn, and we're talking about something as critical as our children's safety. That argument is much less difficult to understand, and much more difficult not to agree with.


Harold
said

Thank you, K. Jean!

I thought I was the only one who remembered that Agent Orange consisted of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T ... My neighbour insists that Roundup is great (2,4,D) and I SHOULD use it!!

I don't think so!!




Gerard from Barrie
said

I wonder why there has been such an increase in diseases like asthma and autism. Hmm, could there be an connection with pesticides and other chemicals about which we have no idea what their effect is on humans and the environment.


Doug Pettman Tillsonburg
said

With several exterminator licsenes to my name one of the topics is the Leathel dose required to kill 50% of the population.The LD 50 of malathion is 1350mg /kg of body weight to kill a person.
This compares to Coffee which is 250mg/kg That means that coffee is 4 times deadlier than malathion.I would not drink a glass of this but drink several coffees a day.Nicotine is 1mg/kg.So dont talk to me about how bad pesticides are when your drinking a coffee and having a smoke.


ProEco
said

You would think that as a former Member of Parliament, Mr. Lachance would have a better appreciation of what makes good public policy - and it sure isn't "what's good for Dow is good for Canada"...


N. Clarke
said

Funny thing, if the chemicals are not bad, why is it that farmers get on their tractors, outfitted like they are going into outer space, and proceed to spray the orchard. Ditto for the lawn care guys. It is time to change the NAFTA agreement to where governments trumps over any big international chemical company. The last time I check, big corps are not worry about my health or safety, just my state of my pocketbook!


 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz