Canada -
News Sections
Will NAFTA exterminate Canadian pesticide bans?
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."
User Tools
Related Stories
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(92)-
Feedback
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.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Comments are now closed for this story
M. Richard
said
VH
said
UhhmYeah
said
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 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
I thought that was how it was done
Ivan
said
shawn
said
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
Don
said
P. Scobie
said
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
Bob
said
Meagan from London ON
said
Support Dow in their fight for our personal freedoms and property rights!
Mark
said
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
Don Eyre
said
Finally the real story
said
Bob C
said
james isherwood
said
MIKE MCDERMOTT
said
Roadrobber
said
PJ
said
Nancy: Freedom of Choice on Bottled Water
said
We need to protect freedom on choice on Water.
Rick in NB
said
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
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
SSS
said
Ron
said
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
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
Leslie
said
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
Mark
said
PROVE 2 4-D is harmful or not harmful, that simple......
If harmful - ban the product
Not harmful - sell the product
Dylan
said
END OF STORY.... go home lefties!
said
Michael Brannon
said
David A Kelly
said
david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]
said
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
D Tiedeman
said
K in Ontario
said
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
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
Ian Scott, Montreal
said
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
Frank
said
BT
said
VagnF
said
jackson
said
Lindsay ONT
said
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
Logan
said
Tim
said
Mike vdB - Chatham, ON
said
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
TedBop
said
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
We are sick and tired of Suzuki and his bleeding hearts.
James in Red Deer
said
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
ouifyg
said
Mike
said
Sean
said
Mark
said
How many years have we listened to the tobacco companies claiming their products werre safe.
mariefrance
said
Kim
said
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
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
Steven
said
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
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
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
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
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
Jake from SK
said
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
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
R Moodie
said
Brian in Alberta
said
budd
said
stevo
said
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
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
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
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
elisa
said
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
Sebastian Margarit
said
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
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
Doug Pettman Tillsonburg
said
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
N. Clarke
said