New evidence makes Sarnia’s decision easy

- May 6, 2006, The Observer
New evidence makes Sarnia’s decision easy


A few years ago, a common pesticide called diazinon was used on lawns and gardens across Canada. You may have used it or had a lawn care professional apply some in a spray or granular form on your property to rid yourself of chinch bugs or earwigs. It was said to be safe enough to use on lawns. The federal government’s Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency allowed its use; though it was known to be deadly if swallowed, and toxic to fish and wildlife.
Today, as you look to products you could use for pest control, you will find products with diazinon to be unavailable. It is banned from store shelves across Canada and the United States. As it turns out, the risk to human health and the environment from the use of diazinon was never acceptable.
After five years of debate, Sarnia City Council now looks poised to pass a restrictive pesticide by-law. A public meeting is being held in Council Chambers at 4:00 on May 8. Common pesticides (herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) are still being used by some for lawn care in Sarnia, whereas cities like Toronto, Peterborough, and about 90 other municipalities in Canada as well as the entire province of Quebec have banned the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. In those areas, companies using organic methods are booming. To build the case for a Sarnia by-law, allow me to provide some specific examples.
The chemical and lawn care industries now claim that the most commonly used chemical on lawns is safe. A herbicide known as 2,4-D, it is often used in combination with other chemicals such as in products like PAR III. Very little is known about the “cumulative effects” on human health and the environment when herbicides are combined with others in one product, or when they react with other chemicals already present in soil and water.
Startling findings were released in a study last week when researchers of cancer, pediatrics and reproductive medicine discovered that 2,4-D is “persuasively linked” to cancer, neurological and reproductive problems. The doctors, who published their results in the journal Paediatrics and Child Health, also add to mounting criticism of the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) saying, “They are looking at what happens in animals and their information is largely proprietary… The doctors are looking at what is happening in children and people living across the country and they are seeing major reasons for our problems.”
Reading the chemical industry’s own studies of 2-4,D, one finds reason for great concern. The PMRA’s latest review of the herbicide takes data from the second Industry Task Force on 2,4-D Research Data. The review mentions a study which showed exposure to the herbicide caused moderate increase in risk for early abortions. The study was rejected because the sample size of pregnancies was too small. So it is not a surprise that further research by doctors finds a strong link with reproductive problems.
The report goes on to say that 2,4-D is slightly to moderately toxic to birds such as the mallard, Sarnia’s most common species of duck. There is a moderate to high risk of decreased pup survival for small mammals, who are easily exposed and can’t read the warning signs on our lawns. Finally, the review states, “Few studies address children’s health effects from exposure to pesticides, and there are even fewer studies that address childhood cancer from exposure to specific pesticides.”
An industry-made response to the health-based movement against pesticides is a by-law allowing pesticides to be used under IPM or Integrated Pest Management. IPM Accreditation for lawn care companies is governed by the IPM-PHC Council of Ontario which includes member groups such as CropLife Canada, a pesticide industry front group and the Environmental Coalition of Ontario, a fake environmental organization which has a mandate is “To mount an [sic] public advocacy campaign in order to prevent municipal bans on pesticide use” and whose website does not mention its members.
To become accredited, a process useful for marketing, a company must send a fee to this group, provide an annual desk audit (a company must fail all five criteria to have their registration removed), and an on-site audit every three years. In addition, an exam must be taken by just one person from the company. This person must also take eight continuing education credits per year, but this can by foregone by simply writing the exam every year.
While a municipality has the right to regulate the use of pesticides, according to a London staff report an IPM by-law would regulate the users (accredited companies) and this type of by-law has not been upheld in court. Such a by-law could pose risk for the City of Sarnia.
Just like the smoking by-law, public health should be the deciding factor on pesticides. The municipal decisions are now forcing higher levels of government to take note. Once Sarnia has passed a restrictive pesticide by-law, the City can work with local stakeholders to achieve greater environmental goals. Hopefully the next decision won’t take five years.
-------------------------------

Darcy Higgins is a native of Sarnia who is currently completing a degree in Environmental Studies. He can be reached by e-mail at darcyhiggins@gmail.com