Manitoba plans to join the ranks of provinces banning the sale and use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes in yards, parks and playgrounds.
It is disappointing that legislators would succumb to emotional pressure to deny citizens access to valuable pest control tools that are safe if properly used.
Pesticides would still be available to farmers, golf courses and sod farms, but urban residents would be limited to using management and bio-pesticides to control weeds.
Farm organizations such as Keystone Agricultural Producers have concerns about the proposed legislation.
Read Also
Sask. ag group wants strychnine back
The Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan has written to the federal government asking for emergency use of strychnine to control gophers
First is the potential that the ban will lead to poor weed control in urban areas and create sources of weeds that will escape into agricultural areas.
More importantly, they worry that such bans cause the public to think that pesticides are highly dangerous and unneeded. The implication is that if they are too dangerous to spray on grass, they are too dangerous to spray on food.
But as KAP notes, pesticides in Canada are highly regulated and the government has assessed and approved their safety for health and the environment. Pesticides are expensive and farmers use them only to protect their investment in their crops.
KAP recommended that Manitoba legislators pay attention to a report by a committee of British Columbia’s legislature that was created to study a similar proposed pesticide ban.
The report is thorough and thought provoking. After hearing and reading many presentations from provincial and federal officials, health and environmental groups, stakeholders and the public, the majority on the committee decided that more restrictions on pesticides were needed but there was not enough evidence to confirm the need for a ban.
The committee noted conflicting scientific evidence about the health and environmental dangers of exposure to chemical pesticides.
The majority concluded that the federal Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency’s rigorous pesticide registration process is science based and effective, and there is inadequate evidence to say that pesticides used as directed are such a danger that they should be banned.
However, the B.C. committee noted that homeowners and others do not always follow application recommendations. Education is needed on how to use pesticides safely as part of integrated pest management, which is the strategy of using a broad range of cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical means to control weeds along with the mindset of accepting a certain level of weeds and other pests.
The committee made several recommendations to address this education gap, including one sure to be controversial among farmers: that commercial class pesticides, which are generally used in agriculture, be sold only to those with a certified application licence.
More generally, domestic class pesticides used by homeowners would not be kept on store shelves. Retailers would have to employ a certified pesticide dispenser knowledgeable about integrated pest management. Buyers would need to justify to the dispenser the need to use the product. The dispenser would provide advice on the best way to control pests and weeds, as well as the correct and legal way to use the pesticide.
Point of purchase advice appears a good idea. Less clear is the practicality and fairness of having a dispenser decide whether a homeowner’s pest problem is worthy of receiving a pesticide.
We are not sold on the necessity of a bureaucracy of certifiers and monitors, but believe education is needed and that governments, environmental groups and retailers all have a role in providing it.
We believe informed people can responsibly use chemical pesticides as part of an integrated pest management approach to safely maintain an aesthetically pleasing urban environment.
