0
Banning pesticides: my ideas
18 October 2006
[indent]Public pressure is finally starting to make some politicians think long and hard about pesticide use in this community. And, even if it's taken a long time to get it into the public debate, I'm pleased it's here.
The question of banning cosmetic pesticides has been raised at all-candidate meetings and I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth, with several candidates promising support without really thinking it through.
If we'd had the sort of pressure we're getting during this election, I think it could have been passed a long time ago. I really appreciate the public making it a frontline issue and push some of the politicians into a corner. I now think we can get this done this winter, while people are still thinking about it. Wait until spring and we may lose momentum. I want to see this brought in before people start spraying, not after.
Years ago, as a Library board member, I fought for, and achieved, a ban on pesticide use on the Library lawn. I strongly support banning pesticides and herbicides - we don't use them at all here at our house, by the way, not even spot-spraying. When I want to remove weeds, I get out the trowel.
I have always been in favour of such a ban, because I strongly agree about the threat to health and habitat posed by these chemicals. But I believe it has to be accompanied by an education campaign to achieve public cooperation because usage has become an ingrained habit for many.
I've worked in the background trying to get support for this for the last three years, but there was resistance among some at the table to "telling people what they could do with their own property." I got that when I tried to present a tree preservation bylaw, too. Earlier this year I was working to create a pesticide bylaw to be brought forward, but was interrupted by the summer break and the election. So here's what I've been thinking about:
I am in favour of a more creative approach than mere legislation, and a gradual ban:
This phasing is to allow people time to find alternatives, let the lawn care companies make the necessary changes to alternate solutions, and allow us the time to work a strong public education campaign.
As a sidebar, those fees will help pay for the extra cost of policing this new legislation. In parallel, I would also increasing the fine for spraying without a license.
Over the past term, I read quite a bit about how to get people to go green and one of the comments was that people won't change their attitude on purely moral grounds. They need to have something affect their pocketbook. Hit them in the wallet and they'll sit up and pay attention.
In my scheme, you can't get a license for cosmetic spraying in prohibited zones no matter how much you pay: this is to set up those outside that (expanding) zone and prepare them for the inevitable prohibition in a year or two. Licensing would be in addition to other restrictions, not an alternative to them. Perhaps having to get a license and pay an extra fee - a fee that increases every year - will discourage some people before the legislation forces them to stop, and encourage them to find alternative, safe methods. I'd really prefer a voluntary decision if possible.
I want the community to be behind a ban, to embrace it and feel proud of being part of it. I want a buy-in at all levels. A simple all-out ban won't do that: it will create animosity, resentment, and merely lead to untrained howeowners buying chemicals and doing it themselves (which may be even more dangerous because they won't have the knowledge to know the correct amounts).
And it will put many people out of work.
There are literally hundreds of part-time condo owners who depend on lawn care people to manage their property while they're away. We want to get those companies to develop safe alternatives that keep people employed, while helping our environment. With all the threats of plant closings here, we should not jump at solutions that mean more unemployment.
We should be the model for this solution, we should lead the way, not just follow what others have done.
We can achieve this by working with people better than by just bludgeoning them. Give people a chance to adapt and accept. Toronto's mayor said this during the recent debate on pesticide use in that city:
Legislation alone hasn't stopped anyone from smoking, just moved them outdoors. Simply banning pesticides won't stop people from running to the local hardware store to buy the chemicals and do it themselves. This has happened in other areas where the ban has been brought in. From that same CBC background story:
In a similar story at Responsible Pest Management, a phased-in ban was reported to have proven successful in Halifax:
Note that the Halifax ban extended to prohibt people from using commonly-available pesticides themselves. I would support that inclusion, but I have serious doubts we would be able to enforce it effectively. Plus such a ban will likely mean people dispose of existing stock around their house, and we will need some time to develop the means to deal with discarded pesticides, and divert them from the landfill and make sure they're not poured down the drain!
We need people to believe in the science, the reasons, and to agree with us. And we need the resorts, golf courses, developers and condo managers onside, too.
We want people to feel proud of their support for alternate uses, we want a positive response. We want willing public cooperation: that will achieve much more than a simple ban.
And we really want the lawn maintenance people on our side, working with safe and natural alternatives. Many people cannot or do not wish to maintain their own lawns and gardens, so they need these services.
We really don't want to simply put a few dozen people out of work here: they are your friends, neighbours and relatives. They deserve the opportunity to work with us to come up with something that keeps them employed while keeping the rest of us safe.
I believe that we can achieve a pesticide ban that is welcome and widely approved if we approach it from more than just a legislative perspective. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recommends "increased stakeholder participation and education" in its National Strategy for Responsible Pest Management. It also outlines a variety of alternate practices and approaches that we can use.
Toronto, London and Halifax all have a phased-in approach (as have other communities) - I think it will work here. If re-elected, I will present my plan as soon as our new council meets. Why wait until spring? Let's get this going before people start doing their springtime lawn care.
[/indent]
The question of banning cosmetic pesticides has been raised at all-candidate meetings and I'm seeing a lot of back-and-forth, with several candidates promising support without really thinking it through.
If we'd had the sort of pressure we're getting during this election, I think it could have been passed a long time ago. I really appreciate the public making it a frontline issue and push some of the politicians into a corner. I now think we can get this done this winter, while people are still thinking about it. Wait until spring and we may lose momentum. I want to see this brought in before people start spraying, not after.
Years ago, as a Library board member, I fought for, and achieved, a ban on pesticide use on the Library lawn. I strongly support banning pesticides and herbicides - we don't use them at all here at our house, by the way, not even spot-spraying. When I want to remove weeds, I get out the trowel.
I have always been in favour of such a ban, because I strongly agree about the threat to health and habitat posed by these chemicals. But I believe it has to be accompanied by an education campaign to achieve public cooperation because usage has become an ingrained habit for many.
I've worked in the background trying to get support for this for the last three years, but there was resistance among some at the table to "telling people what they could do with their own property." I got that when I tried to present a tree preservation bylaw, too. Earlier this year I was working to create a pesticide bylaw to be brought forward, but was interrupted by the summer break and the election. So here's what I've been thinking about:
I am in favour of a more creative approach than mere legislation, and a gradual ban:
- Start with a phased-in ban that initially stops all usage near all waterways and shorelines, and expands from that to cover the whole town in three years;
- Initiate a permit fee for for usage in remaining areas that increases annually (financially discourage their use as well), and
- Back it up with a strong public education campaign that encourages both community support and alternate solutions. Create contests for the best ideas, get schools involved, host workshops, teach people about alternatives and send out literature in utility bills.
This phasing is to allow people time to find alternatives, let the lawn care companies make the necessary changes to alternate solutions, and allow us the time to work a strong public education campaign.
As a sidebar, those fees will help pay for the extra cost of policing this new legislation. In parallel, I would also increasing the fine for spraying without a license.
Over the past term, I read quite a bit about how to get people to go green and one of the comments was that people won't change their attitude on purely moral grounds. They need to have something affect their pocketbook. Hit them in the wallet and they'll sit up and pay attention.
In my scheme, you can't get a license for cosmetic spraying in prohibited zones no matter how much you pay: this is to set up those outside that (expanding) zone and prepare them for the inevitable prohibition in a year or two. Licensing would be in addition to other restrictions, not an alternative to them. Perhaps having to get a license and pay an extra fee - a fee that increases every year - will discourage some people before the legislation forces them to stop, and encourage them to find alternative, safe methods. I'd really prefer a voluntary decision if possible.
I want the community to be behind a ban, to embrace it and feel proud of being part of it. I want a buy-in at all levels. A simple all-out ban won't do that: it will create animosity, resentment, and merely lead to untrained howeowners buying chemicals and doing it themselves (which may be even more dangerous because they won't have the knowledge to know the correct amounts).
And it will put many people out of work.
There are literally hundreds of part-time condo owners who depend on lawn care people to manage their property while they're away. We want to get those companies to develop safe alternatives that keep people employed, while helping our environment. With all the threats of plant closings here, we should not jump at solutions that mean more unemployment.
We should be the model for this solution, we should lead the way, not just follow what others have done.
We can achieve this by working with people better than by just bludgeoning them. Give people a chance to adapt and accept. Toronto's mayor said this during the recent debate on pesticide use in that city:
Quote
"You need the people of Toronto to buy in and the lawn-care industry to buy in. I'm confident that by giving them some time, they will," said Mayor David Miller, citing the bylaw as the right thing to do from a public health point of view.
from a CBC story on pesticides
from a CBC story on pesticides
Legislation alone hasn't stopped anyone from smoking, just moved them outdoors. Simply banning pesticides won't stop people from running to the local hardware store to buy the chemicals and do it themselves. This has happened in other areas where the ban has been brought in. From that same CBC background story:
Quote
Councillor Jennifer Clarke said other communities that have imposed bans have found it only affects commercial operators who are skilled at applying pesticides.
"It has homeowners who may be less skilled purchasing the pesticides and using them themselves," she said. "There's no ability to enforce against that."
"It has homeowners who may be less skilled purchasing the pesticides and using them themselves," she said. "There's no ability to enforce against that."
In a similar story at Responsible Pest Management, a phased-in ban was reported to have proven successful in Halifax:
Quote
After a three-year phase-in, the city's pesticide ban takes full effect today.
It is now illegal to use a number of commercial pesticides on your property, including such common products as Weed 'N Feed.
The man in charge of the pesticide ban, Stephen King, said yesterday the phased-in approach has worked well.
"I think over the last two years the public education and awareness has really helped. I think having that two-year transition has made a huge, huge difference," King said.
It is now illegal to use a number of commercial pesticides on your property, including such common products as Weed 'N Feed.
The man in charge of the pesticide ban, Stephen King, said yesterday the phased-in approach has worked well.
"I think over the last two years the public education and awareness has really helped. I think having that two-year transition has made a huge, huge difference," King said.
Note that the Halifax ban extended to prohibt people from using commonly-available pesticides themselves. I would support that inclusion, but I have serious doubts we would be able to enforce it effectively. Plus such a ban will likely mean people dispose of existing stock around their house, and we will need some time to develop the means to deal with discarded pesticides, and divert them from the landfill and make sure they're not poured down the drain!
We need people to believe in the science, the reasons, and to agree with us. And we need the resorts, golf courses, developers and condo managers onside, too.
We want people to feel proud of their support for alternate uses, we want a positive response. We want willing public cooperation: that will achieve much more than a simple ban.
And we really want the lawn maintenance people on our side, working with safe and natural alternatives. Many people cannot or do not wish to maintain their own lawns and gardens, so they need these services.
We really don't want to simply put a few dozen people out of work here: they are your friends, neighbours and relatives. They deserve the opportunity to work with us to come up with something that keeps them employed while keeping the rest of us safe.
I believe that we can achieve a pesticide ban that is welcome and widely approved if we approach it from more than just a legislative perspective. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recommends "increased stakeholder participation and education" in its National Strategy for Responsible Pest Management. It also outlines a variety of alternate practices and approaches that we can use.
Toronto, London and Halifax all have a phased-in approach (as have other communities) - I think it will work here. If re-elected, I will present my plan as soon as our new council meets. Why wait until spring? Let's get this going before people start doing their springtime lawn care.
[/indent]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 10:19 PM
To: ichadwick@sympatico.ca
Subject: question
Dear Mr. Chadwick,
I commend you on your desire to help direct the future of Collingwood with your political involvement. We actually met 2 years ago when I organized 'Kids Day International' and your business was kind enough to support some of our printing needs.
As a health professional in town, I am always concerned with issues that pertain to people’s health. There is an abundance of research validating the dangerous effects of pesticides on both our food and the land we walk on. Whether inhaled or ingested, these powerful toxins act as poisons in our bodies and it’s only a matter of time before they accumulate and exert their effects. Children, being smaller and less physically mature, are at the greatest risk.
I also represent a group of approximately 100 people interested in natural health and environmental awareness, collectively known at the Holistic Living Network. This issue has already been discussed at length and is something everyone feels strongly about.
It came to my attention that there has been a recent push toward the banning of cosmetic pesticide use in town, following the actions of now 122 other municipalities across Canada. I attended the forum on Wednesday evening and was surprised this topic was not raised.
I would like to know your position on this issue, and if you are supportive of a ban, what your vision of it taking effect would be.
Thank you again for your desire to serve Collingwood.
Sincerely,
Dr. Melissa Vecchio
My reply:
Thank you for your question, Dr. Vecchio. The short answer is yes, I support a ban. The long answer is a bit more convoluted, but it still says yes:
I've been an environmentalist since I read Rachel Carson in the 1970s. I sat on the town's Greening of Collingwood committee in the 1990s. I was the driving force that got the Library to stop using pesticides on its lawn (that was later overturned by a subsequent board, however). Just as an FYI, we don't eat meat, either.
I have always supported banning pesticides - we have never used commercial pesticides and my answer to weeds is to get out the trowel, or better yet, change my yard to something that doesn't include grass.
This term I was trying to bring a bylaw forward, and have discussed several ideas with Michele Rich of the Environment Network (unfortunately time and other issues conspired to confound me and I wasn't able to draft anything before the election was on us).
I'm really happy that it has become an election issue because, frankly, there was resistance among some other members of council about "telling people what they can do with their private property." Making it a frontline issue helps politicians realize how important it has become. In my speech, Wednesday, I did say that in my vision for Collingwood in the very near future I saw us "happily weaned off pesticides and herbicides," although there were no questions from the audience about the issue.
I have read a lot about the issue the last three years, about the debate and about municipal solutions, including the FCM strategy for responsible pest management. I favour a holistic approach rather than simple legislation. I think people will respond better to a process that respects them as well as recognizing our collective need for safely and health, and carries long-term community involvement.
By this I mean we combine a phased-in ban that spreads outwards from our shoreline and waterways, increasing every year so that there is a total ban across the community at the end of three years. During that time we hold workshops and seminars, create a public awareness/education campaign, have mailings in utility bills, contests for students, contests for the best alternate pesticide solutions, etc.
At the same time, we bring together lawn management companies, golf courses, condo corporations and hardware stores (who sell pesticides) to develop a strategy to wean people off chemicals, find viable alternatives, and help companies plan for the transition without having to close or lay people off. In fact, if we position this right, chemical-free lawn care can become a growth industry, and create jobs.
And finally, to encourage those in the remaining but annually dwindling "permitted" areas (which will all vanish after three years), I recommend we create a fee structure for cosmetic spraying that also increases annually (starting at, say, $25 year one, then going to, $50 and finally $100 per usage). I believe if we make it economically onerous, people will be more likely to stop using chemicals on their own. People are often motivated more by economic issues than moral ones. Plus the fees will help the town pay for some of the costs of enforcement. This is in addition to an ever-widening ban, not instead of - people won't be able to buy a permit for prohibited areas.
Again I emphasize that a full town-wide ban will be in place within three years.
I really want this to be a community buy-in, not just legislation that generates resentment and animosity. I don't want people running to the hardware store for the sprays to do it themselves instead of having a lawn care company do it. Having untrained people spraying their own lawns would be worse. We need to clearly communicate the dangers of this approach to people.
It's like the smoking bylaw: banning smoking didn't stop anyone from smoking, it merely moved them outdoors. I would have preferred to work with the health unit to do it in parallel with an educational program that got people to quit permanently and discourage people from hanging around doorsteps blowing smoke at customers trying to enter.
I want the people of Collingwood behind this because they believe in it, not simply because they have to do it. That's why I want a broader approach. My idea is similar to the phasing that's been used in Toronto, London and Halifax.
I have expressed my ideas on my election website at: http://www.ianchadwi...environment.htm and commented further on my blog.
I hope to call a public meeting early next term to hear from all sides on this, and get other ideas on how we can best make this happen. We need to do it quickly - this winter while the snow is still here and before the spring spraying starts. Let's get a ban in place that will help reduce toxic runoff into streams and the bay before the end of February.
I'm not a scientist or a sociologist, just a layperson, but I think I understand both the science and social issues. I'm open to being convinced by a good argument that an immediate ban will better serve the community, but only if it's backed up by good science, fact (not just emotion) and examples. That's why I want the public meeting: to bring those arguments forward for everyone to hear so we can determine the best, most effective strategy.
Whatever the outcome, whatever the plan we decide to pursue, I will fight to ensure we will have pesticides banned here this term.
Thanks for helping to make this a public issue. I hope you will support me this election.
Cheers
Ian