IS THE world a better, healthier place if urban residents have the opportunity to nurture weed-free lawns by using certain pesticides?
Most of us would say no.
Is the world a better, healthier place if farmers have the opportunity to produce more food by using certain pesticides?
Most of us would say yes.
That’s the dichotomy of opinion regarding chemical use that plagues consumers, farmers and the many who are involved in the business of agriculture and food production.
Two things happened last month that renewed focus on the issue of pesticide use: Alberta announced plans to ban “weed and feed” products effective Jan. 1, 2010; and the Canadian Cancer Society held a conference entitled Exploring the Link Between Pesticides and Cancer.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
In announcing the former, Alberta environment minister Rob Renner said the ban would come into effect the same day as a similar ban to be imposed by the City of Calgary. It is one of at least 145 municipal and provincial laws in Canada that have banned the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes.
At the aforementioned conference, the cancer society released survey results showing consumers are increasingly concerned about what pesticide residue on their food might do to their health. Yet multiple conference speakers said there is no conclusive evidence linking agricultural chemical use to the incidence of cancer.
On the one hand, pesticides are viewed as bad. On the other, they are seen as good – or at least helpful in making larger quantities of healthy food available, which outweighs suspected but unproven negative health effects caused by their use.
It’s confusing.
However, the situation is far from static. The majority of farmers agree reduced use of pesticides is a worthy goal – for economic reasons, certainly, but for some there are other reasons as well.
Research into genetic modification, biological controls and breeding of pest-resistant crop varieties are all reducing pesticide use.
Many toxic chemicals of the past are no longer on the market and newer products are more targeted to specific problems, which reduces the amount needed for effectiveness.
These measures are having an effect. Studies show that an estimated 99 percent of the food Canadians eat has residue levels below the maximums set by Health Canada.
Our food is safe and everyone has an interest in keeping it that way.
In contrast, pristine lawns obtained through weed-and-feed applications do nothing for the food supply, nothing for food safety and nothing for society.
To address this, better education about responsible use of chemicals should be the first, best option.
Municipal jurisdictions not willing to do that have imposed bans.
Farmers are already well-schooled in responsible chemical use. Volume and cost ensure that education and safety are part of everyday practices. As well, they are working to reduce the amounts applied.
Let’s not confuse the issue further by considering bans on legitimate agricultural use of chemical tools.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
