Cosmetic Pesticide Bylaws
by author Trudy Peskett

Pesticide reduction is a hot issue likely to hit a city hall near you, if it hasn’t already. More than 60 Canadian communities, including large cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, have enacted bylaws to ban cosmetic use of pesticides on private property.

Homeowners buy five to 10 percent of all pesticides in Canada. A 2001 Ipsos-Reid poll of 600 homeowners found that most respondents (77 percent) remove pests in their lawns and/or gardens either by hand or with suitable self-purchased products. Thirteen per cent said they hire professionals for lawn and garden care.

The BC Pesticide Control Act defines a pesticide as any material intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate an undesired pest (insect, weed, rodent, fungus, bacterium, or other micro-organism). Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides - even some wood preservatives, disinfectants, and swimming-pool algae products - are included in this definition. “Cosmetic” means that pesticides are used purely for aesthetic purposes.

Concern over pesticides has risen steadily in recent years; more and more studies point to health problems associated with pesticide exposure. Acute symptoms include headaches, sleep disturbances, diarrhea, throat and eye irritation, and vomiting. Longer-term, chronic exposure has been associated with reproductive problems, miscarriage, liver and kidney damage, birth defects, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and childhood leukemia. Children are most susceptible to chemical exposure because of their developing immune systems.

The environmental impacts of pesticides are considerable. Many linger for decades in the environment contributing to soil and air pollution, as well as the unintended destruction of wildlife and beneficial species such as bees and butterflies. As a result of both health and environmental impacts, federal and provincial agencies now frequently recommend reduced pesticide management strategies on public lands.

But that’s not enough, some experts contend. This precautionary tone was reflected in Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment by the federal Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The unprecedented May 2000 report recommended a moratorium on cosmetic pesticides “until science has proven that the pesticides involved do not constitute a health threat and some light has been shed on the consequences of their use in urban areas.”

Hudson, Quebec, passed the first municipal bylaw banning pesticide use in Canada in 1991, a move challenged shortly thereafter by two lawn-care companies claiming that the municipality didn’t have jurisdiction over federally approved products. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in June 2001 that cities may indeed regulate pesticide application.

Across the country, upwards of 60 municipalities have taken matters into their own hands, including (in Quebec) Beaconsfield, Chelsea, and Shediac. In Ontario, twenty municipalities have been working on or have passed bylaws to reduce pesticide use, including Toronto, Cobalt, Perth, and Thorold.

Last December, Port Moody passed British Columbia’s first municipal bylaw for private lands. On Jan. 15, 2004, Vancouver approved a bylaw to go into effect in 2006. Many communities in the Greater Vancouver area are making moves to follow suit, including Burnaby, Richmond, and North Vancouver.

Even if your community isn’t considering a cosmetic pesticide ban at present, it may offer an educational program offering tips on home pesticide reduction. Effective, nontoxic alternatives to pesticides do exist and ensure a safer future for our gardens, our children, and our planet.

Source: alive #259, May 2004