Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Pesticide campaign confusing the issues...And More
Pesticide campaign confusing the issues
Dear Editor - Re: "Farmers choose science over serendipity" (OwenRoberts's column, Dec. 22).
I am a retired federal intelligence analyst and currently honoraryCanadian observer on the Pesticide Working Group with headquarters inWashington, D.C.
Independent, well-educated professionals do not talk about a threat toscience. The alleged threat to science, supposedly perceived byfarmers, is nothing but the bravado of spokespersons for the chemicallawn application industry who wish to delay, at all costs, theimplementation of Ontario's Bill 64, which prohibits the use and saleof pesticides that may be used for cosmetic purposes.
What I object to is the current campaign sponsored by pesticidemanufacturers, as well as their lobbyists and friends, whose aim is toconfuse the issues.
Bill 64 is intended to prevent the unnecessary urban, second-handpesticide exposures, often via inhalation, that are especially harmfulto young children and may adversely impact future generations.
The inhaled toxic residues go directly to the brain, bypassing theliver, which is the cleansing organ. It follows that ingestion ofresidues in food, which are cleansed by the liver, is safer.
To suggest that all this fuss is about pesticide harm to flowers isshameful and ridiculous.
Deplorably, Don McCabe, vice-president of the Ontario Federation ofAgriculture, has embraced the pesticide industry's point of view. Hissuggestion that "the process being used by the government would appearto close the door on new product innovation in Ontario" has no basisin fact.
On the contrary, the intent of the process is to encourage, ratherthan discourage, product innovation, especially with a view todeveloping alternate, healthy and effective lawn and garden caremethods.
-- K. Jean Cottam, Nepean, Ont.
Karl Grossman (New York) interviews Carolyn Raffensperger at theOctober2008 Bioneers conference in San Rafael, California [Enviro Close-Up#584].
Carolyn Raffensperger [VIDEO interview 9:58], environmental attorneyand founding executive director of the Science and EnvironmentalHealth Network (SEHN), speaks in this Enviro Close-up of how the wiseapplication of science is critical to the protection of theenvironment and public health. And she stresses the importance of thePrecautionary Principle -- key elements include taking precautions inthe face ofscientific uncertainty; exploring alternatives to possibly harmfulactions and placing the burden of proof on proponents of an activity.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=NJv03EHEcyU
Mon 29 Dec 2008
The Western Morning News (Plymouth, UK)
Pesticide victory must not be in vain ; Oth Anthony Gibson, formerlySouth West regional director of the National Farmers' Union, and TimRuss, a specialist lawyer with Clarke Willmot in Taunton, have writtenWMN comment articles about my High Court victory last month againstthe Government, over pesticides.
Oth Anthony Gibson, formerly South West regional director of theNational Farmers' Union, and Tim Russ, a specialist lawyer with ClarkeWillmot in Taunton, have written WMN comment articles about my HighCourt victory last month against the Government, over pesticides.
I felt compelled to respond to these articles, not least because theyboth contained inaccuracies about the case, meaning that the correctfacts need to be made clear.
This case was based on a set of core arguments that I identified andhad been presenting to the Government over the past seven years.
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Collins, was in "no doubt" that theGovernment has been acting unlawfully in its policy and approach, asit does not comply with the relevant EC Directive regarding theauthorisation of pesticides. This requires that before a pesticide isapproved for use it is established that there will be "no harmfuleffect" on human health. This must apply to all the necessary exposuregroups, including residents.
But the Government's only method of assessing the risks to publichealth from crop spraying is based on the model of a "bystander", inwhich it assumes there will only be occasional short-term exposure tothe spray cloud at the time of the application, only from a singlepass of a sprayer and to only one individual pesticide at any time.
The judge agreed with my long-standing charge that this bystandermodel cannot address residents who are repeatedly faced with variousexposure factors and routes, to mixtures of pesticides and otherchemicals, throughout every year, and in many cases, like my ownsituation, for decades.
The exposure factors include long-term exposure to pesticides in theair; exposure to vapours, which can occur days, weeks, even months,after application; exposure to mixtures, precipitation, reactivation,pesticides transported from outdoor applications and redistributedinto an indoor air environment, as well as long-range transportation -as studies have found pesticides miles away from where they wereoriginally applied.
The fact that there has never been an assessment of the risk to healthfrom long-term exposure for those who live, work or go to school nearpesticide- sprayed fields, is an absolute scandal, considering thatcrop spraying has been a predominant feature of farming for more than50 years.
Under EU and UK law the absence of any risk assessment means thatpesticides should never have been approved for use in the first placefor spraying near homes, schools, children's playgrounds and otherpublic areas.
Adverse health effects from exposure to pesticides are recorded in theGovernment's own monitoring system every year, and include acuteeffects like rashes, itching, sore throats, burning eyes and noses,blistering, headaches, nausea, stomach pains and burnt vocal cords,among other symptoms. These acute effects are regularly reported to meby rural residents from across the UK.
Therefore, the Government, the Pesticides Safety Directorate, and theAdvisory Committee on Pesticides were all fully aware that theseadverse health effects have continued to be reported, but wronglyaccepted such effects as not being serious. Also, by the Governmentallowing acute effects to be considered acceptable, it is then alsoallowing the risk of chronic illnesses and diseases, because the riskof chronic effects developing increase when acute effects repeatedlyoccur as a result of long-term cumulative exposure.
This has been recognised previously by the European Commission, whichacknowledged that: "Long-term exposure to pesticides can lead toserious disturbances to the immune system, sexual disorders, cancers,sterility, birth defects, damage to the nervous system and geneticdamage."
I spent much of last year working on my legal case, and after re-reading about 3,500 pages of documentation that were before the courtI submitted a 149- page witness statement which provided the criticalevidence for the case.
This witness statement showed quite clearly that the Government hasknowingly failed to act, has continued to shift the goalposts, hascherry- picked the science to suit the desired outcome, and has misledthe public - especially rural residents - over the safety ofagricultural pesticides sprayed on crop fields throughout the country.
In his judgment, Judge Collins stated: "The alleged inadequacies ofthe model and the approach to authorisation and conditions of use havebeen scientifically justified. The claimant has produced cogentarguments and evidence to indicate that the approach does notadequately protect residents and so is in breach of the Directive."
The primary purpose of pesticides policy and legislation is supposedto be the protection of public health. This means there is notsupposed to be a balancing approach in relation to harm (or the riskof harm) to human health with the supposed benefits of pesticides,such as cost or economic benefits for farmers and the chemicalindustry.
So, in a legal framework such as this, a balancing of interests is notpermitted - and public health protection must be paramount.
Neither Anthony Gibson nor Tim Russ appeared to understand thiscritical and fundamental point in their comment articles.
The most important action that should now be taken is to preventexposure for residents and communities by banning crop spraying aroundhomes, schools, children's playgrounds and other public areas.
Considering that studies have shown that pesticides can travel in theair for miles, the distance of the no-spraying area would need to besubstantial.
The Government should now be admitting that it has got it wrong,apologising - especially to all those residents whose health and liveshave been affected - and actually getting on with protecting thehealth of the citizens in this country.
Instead, the Government's decision to appeal this ruling continues todemonstrate its absolute contempt for rural residents and communities,and is a disgrace.
Heads should be rolling following such a landmark High Court judgment- but instead it is business as usual, with the Government'srelentless attempts to protect the industry, as opposed to the healthof its citizens, abundantly clear.
January 15, 2009
HORTICULTURE REVIEW -
LO created a tearful moment for David Suzuki
By Stephanie Smith
Dr. David Suzuki joined Landscape Ontario’s Toronto Chapter forEnvironmental Awareness Day on November 30th. This was a braveundertaking, as not all LO members are fans of David Suzuki. Actually,there are a lot of people who told me they weren’t fans at all.
The Chapter understood the challenge and went ahead in an attempt tohelp the public understand the benefits of planting for theenvironment and providing a sustainable future of our children.
The day was a public fundraiser, with the proceeds going to theToronto Botanical Garden (TBG) and Sick Kids Foundation. Part one wasa luncheon featuring a tour of the TBG and a wonderful lunch cateredby Absolutely Fine Foods, followed by a brief commentary from Suzuki.The event wrapped up with a tree planting that featured Suzuki and thechildren from the TBG kids’ club. The students were very excited aboutthe visit and they created beautiful books for the guest of honour. Hewas so touched, he has sent the kids gifts in return.
This is the beautiful thing about the work our members do, creating animpact that inspires children and promotes healthy living. The peoplein this industry consistently create beautiful things year in and yearout.
The second event took place at the John Bassett Theatre, with 400attending a lecture from David Suzuki. To begin the evening, LO memberBeth Edney presented her beautiful butterfly garden design that wasbuilt by Landscape Ontario members for Rachel through the Make a WishFoundation. All who have come in contact with Rachel have beengenuinely touched by this little girl. She has such a zest for life,and is curious and intelligent above her years. She is an inspirationand a billboard for living life to the fullest. She is a reminder ofhow precious life is and how lucky we all are to be alive. She isbrave too, so brave that she stood on stage throughout thepresentation and then thanked everyone before introducing DavidSuzuki.
This will always be a beautiful memory for me personally, the dayDavid Suzuki came to Landscape Ontario and the work of our membersmade him shed some tears. It was a great moment in LO history when wechanged Suzuki’s perception of the industry and showed him how ourcontribution to Rachel made such a profound influenceon her every daylife. It is not just Rachel who has benefited from the work that themembers do, we have thousands of goodwill stories to share. It isimportant that we continue to strive to give back to our communities.I know from working closely with all the Chapters that there will bemore goodwill shown in the future to the various charities in ourcommunities.
One thing I do know is that David Suzuki is an interesting man and isvery dedicated to his beliefs; his drive and passion remind me of ourmembers. Most of us realize we need to make environmentalimprovements. We need to understand this in everything we are tryingto do today in business and in life. Renewable energy is not going tohurt anyone, and instead will create jobs and help to promote cleanerair. This is our only chance, and we should use fewer resources andfind a way to do more with the resources we have.
Thanks to everyone involved in this event for your tireless effortsand for taking a risk. We couldn’t have done it without you!
====================================Warning Industry Propaganda Below====================================
Dec 30, 2008
Last Year to Use 'Weed and Feed'
Herbicide-fertilizer combination products such as Weed and Feed willbecome a thing of the past over the next year.
Paris Engram with Alberta Environment says their full-lawn applicationfeature is a problem for the province's water quality as the excessproduct often gets washed down the sewer. The herbicide product byitself will still be allowed though as it's intended for spotapplication. Engram says the ban won't come into effect until January1st, 2010, but they're getting it out there now so store owners arecautious not to buy too much product for the 2009 growing season. Shesays, once January 1st rolls around, any left over supply will have tobe disposed of.
Professional Lawn Care Association of Ontario
Support Needed To Fight Proposed Provincial Pesticide Ban
PLCAO in conjuction with its members & other stakeholders arecurrently launching legal action in Kingston over the proposedprovincial pesticide ban. This legal challenge is expensive & is ourlast chance to prevent the ban & save the lawn care industry. We needyour financial support! Contact either PLCAO or Jeffrey Lowes byemail or go to Jeff's website for more information.
Alan Pinsonneault, President,Professional Lawn Care Association of Ontarioc/o Guelph Turfgrass Institute328 Victoria Road S.Guelph, ON N1H 6H8Telephone: 519-836-4906Fax: 519-766-1704Email: email@example.comCheryl Machan
PLCAO was started in 1990 to help the lawn care industry fight thechanges in the pesticide sign regulations. Our office is based inGuelph at the Guelph Turfgrass Institute. PLCAO lobbies on behalf ofall lawn care companies ensuring good legislation and also supportsongoing research in the turfgrass industry at the Guelph TurfgrassInstitute. We provide educational seminars to keep you up-to-date onthe industry and an annual Symposium "Ontario Turfgrass Symposium" isheld with a section dedicated to the education of the lawn careindustry.
Professional Lawn Care Association of Ontario retails residential andcommercial pesticide signs and stakes, a product called Masker-Aidwhich is an odour counteractant and mower measures and rain gaugeswhich you can customize. All products are offered at reasonable rates.
Alan Pinsonneault, President, Professional Lawn Care Association ofOntario"The government people, you know, they like to tell us to usealternatives," Pinsonneault said. "But I don't feel they're effectiveor safe because none of them have been tested."Me? I believe in science and I feel safe doing what I've been doingfor the last 27 years."
(Source: March 7, 2008, Brantford Expositor, 'Industry queriespesticide ban: 'Where's the science?'', by Vincent Ball,http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=934744)
Wednesday May 14, 2008
Chatham This Week
Lawn care industry already well-regulated, provincial associationpresident says
by Karen Robinet
The president of the Professional Lawn Care Association of Ontariosays he’s “flabbergasted” at news the province plans to introducelegislation eliminating the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes.
Al Pinsonneault, who owns Al’s Lawn & Garden in Chatham, says thegovernment has “no scientific proof whatsoever that pesticides areharmful.”
However, Pinsonneault did say, in an interview on May 1, that if hisindustry was exempted from the ban, along with the farming andforestry industries, it might not be so bad. Golf courses would alsobe exempt from the ban under the proposed legislation.
“It would be a good thing,” Pinsonneault said, “because people don’tread the label. If they did, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.”
Those who make their living working with pesticides are licensed andthe industry is highly regulated, Pinsonneault said.
And, unlike homeowners who can ignore instructions, the penalties forthose in Pinsonneault’s line of work are severe.
“The label is the law,” he said. “If we deviate from the label, it’s aminimum $5,000 fine.”In announcing the legislation, which is expected to be in place nextspring, the province said it is responding to public concerns over thechemicals.
“Our generation is becoming more and more aware of the potential risksin our environment, not only to our health, but to our children’shealth,” Premier Dalton McGuinty said on April 22, which was EarthDay.
Pinsonneault said he believes the ban is “just a political move.”
He said Canada has some of the toughest restrictions in the world interms of pesticide use and said, “if I thought it was bad, I wouldn’tbe waiting for a government to tell me to stop.”
Pinsonneault, who’s been in the industry for 27 years, said, “we havea proven record of safety and health as applicators. If we didn’t, Idon’t think we’d be doing this.”
He said his organization provided its input to the environmentministry while the legislation was being created, but said there hasbeen no dialogue since.
“We told them what we thought,” he said, “and nothing came back.”
Pinsonneault said his industry has already reduced its reliance onpesticides by 80% in the past decade, and said the government isencouraging lawn care specialists to rely on organic solutions ratherthan chemical ones.
However, the Chatham man said he’s concerned that some of the methodsbeing proposed haven’t been tested “by any levels of government.”
Bill Pachkowski, Chatham-Kent’s horticulture supervisor, said themunicipality has been using far fewer chemicals than it used to onlawn areas in recent years.
“We basically knew what was going to be coming down from thegovernment two or three years ago,” he said last week.
The municipality’s lawn areas are now being fertilized primarily withcorn gluten, which Pachkowski said, “acts as an organic fertilizer andreduces some weeds.”
He said there is more manual labour involved in keeping themunicipality’s grassy areas in good shape without pesticides, but hesaid “it’s just good horticultural practice.”
Composting and being more diligent about checking areas for weeds,then pulling them at a young age, are all part and parcel of copingwithout pesticides, he said.
Like Pinsonneault, Pachkowski said he thinks it’s a good move to takepesticides out of the hands of unlicensed homeowners.
“I think they’re wise taking the products out of the hands of peoplewho may not be using them properly or reading the directions,” hesaid.
Pachkowski said there are some relatively simple things homeowners cando to keep their lawns in good shape.
The most important thing, he said, is to keep lawnmower blades sharp.When grass is torn rather than cut, the ragged edges provide anopening for diseases.
Pachkowski also recommends letting the clippings go back onto the lawnwhere it acts as a fertilizer, and aerating the lawn on a regularbasis.
The thicker the lawn, the less chance there is of weeds popping out,he said.
In other areas of the property, such as on driveways or in sidewalkcracks, Pachkowski recommends a mixture of straight vinegar with alittle lemon juice and coarse salt to kill weeds. However, he cautionsthat the brew will “kill anything green,” so homeowners shouldn’t useit on their lawns.
And, he said, people shouldn’t worry that they need to eliminate everysingle weed. “In some cases, weeds are green, and it’s not all thatbad to have a few,” he said.
=================================Warning Industry Propaganda Below=================================
Top Industry Propaganda Quotes of 2008
#18 ~ John Ordowich, Co-owner, Lawn Treats Inc."All this organics is just fertilizer," said John Ordowich, co-ownerof Lawn Treats Inc. "If we pull up to a lawn full of weeds, you haveto pick them by hand... it's going to kill us. You have to understandthat once you go organic, it's more money and it's a poor solution(for weed control)," said Ordowich.
(Source: April 26, 2008, Burlington Post, 'Pesticide ban may 'kill'lawn care work', by Ryan Bolton, http://www.burlingtonpost.com/printarticle/171612)
#17 ~ Alan Pinsonneault, President, Professional Lawn Care Associationof Ontario"The government people, you know, they like to tell us to usealternatives," Pinsonneault said. "But I don't feel they're effectiveor safe because none of them have been tested. "Me? I believe inscience and I feel safe doing what I've been doing for the last 27years."
(Source: March 7, 2008, Brantford Expositor, 'Industry queriespesticide ban: 'Where's the science?'', by Vincent Ball,http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=934744)
#16 ~ Chris Lemcke, Technical Coordinator, Weed Man USA/Turf Holdings,Inc."Our company, over the past 10 years, has probably put a milliondollars into stopping bylaws. It's tough to go to meetings every nightand defend something you're not the manufacturer of," Lemcke says.(Source: May 1, 2008, Landscape Management, 'Surviving bans', byFelicia Daniels, http://tinyurl.com/3ms4fg)
#15 ~ Tom Delaney, Director of Government Affairs, The ProfessionalLandcare Network (PLANET)"We can all relate to what is happening in Canada where the banning ofpesticides in many communities for all users is fact, not fiction. Ourcounterparts there can only wish that they had been better prepared.The United States is not immune - there are many government entitiesin the states that are already making decisions for stringentregulations, or are doing outreach with negative or misleadinginformation about pesticides, fertilizers and water use."
(Source: September 19, 2008, Lawn & Landscape Magazine, 'MonthlyLegislative Column' , by Tom Delaney, http://www.lawnandlandscape.com/news/news.asp?ID=6728)
#14 ~ Geri Kamenz, President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture"There are no known studies that provide any evidence of efforts byurban society to promote the safe and efficient use of pesticides inthe urban setting."
(Source: February 22, 2208, CKNX Radio, Canada, OFA Commentary #0808,http://www.am920.ca/newsfarm.php?artID=24024)
#13 ~ Shannon Coombs, President, Canadian Consumer Specialty ProductsAssociation"Our organization is at a loss to understand the government'sdistinction between the agricultural use and the urban use of pestcontrol products, since both contain the same active ingredients andall are regulated by Health Canada. If these products are safe to useon our food and forests, then it follows that they are safe to use onour lawns."
(Source: March 9, 2008, The Ottawa Citizen, Letter to the Editor,http://tinyurl.com/ynqwcp)
#12 ~ Teri Yamada, Managing Director of Communications and GovernmentRelations, Royal Canadian Golf Association"If we honestly had research that unequivocally showed a linkagebetween any of the products we use and detrimental health effects,gosh we'd be the first ones to stop using them," she said, recalling aban on mercury-based products years ago. "The last thing we want to dois endanger any of our clients or staff."
(Source: May 5, 2008, Toronto Sun, 'The two sides of pesticides', byIan Hutchinson, http://torontosun.com/Sports/Golf/2008/05/05/pf-5472366.html)
#11 ~ Gerald R. Stephenson, Professor Emeritus (College), Universityof Guelph"It's the dose that makes the poison," said environmental toxicologyresearcher Gerry Stephenson citing Paracelsus, the father oftoxicology. Stephenson said there's little problem using chemicalapplications to control weed and insect pests but overuse can lead toproblems including resistant strains of pests.
(Source: February 25, 2208, New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal, 'Use ofherbicide and insecticide dramatically cut in last few years', byRichard Duplain http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/221712)
#10 ~ Leonard Ritter, Professor, University of Guelph and ExecutiveDirector, Canadian Network of Toxicology Centres"I don't offer patients advice on when they should have their gallbladder taken out," said the esteemed toxicologist and expert onpesticides at the University of Guelph. "And I sometimes think itwould be better if physicians, largely family physicians, who reallyhave no training in this area at all, it would be better to leave theinterpretation of the data to people who are competent to do it."
(Source: May 28, 2008, The Ottawa Citizen, 'You read it herefirst ... but you shouldn't have', by Dan Gardner, http://tinyurl.com/6culqp)
#9 ~ Keith Solomon, Professor and Graduate Co-ordinator, University ofGuelph"This is random activity by governments keen to make political hay outof claiming to protect the public," he says. "To ban things on thebasis of a health risk when the data doesn't support it is not beinghonest."
(Source: May 26, 2008, Maclean's, 'How did we become such fans ofbans?: The ban on cans is lifted in P.E.I. But elsewhere in thenation . . .', by Peter Shawn Taylor, http://www.macleans.ca/ )
#8 ~ Keith Solomon, Professor and Graduate Co-ordinator, University ofGuelph"There are no clear or compelling toxicological or health reasons toban domestic pesticide use. There are infinitely more serious healthissues facing Canadians and this debate on domestic pesticides isdistracting from real risks to both adults and children."
(Source: May 6, 2008, Kitchener- Waterloo Record, OpEd, by KeithSolomon, http://news.therecord.com/printArticle/346322)
#7 ~ Lorne Hepworth, President, CropLife Canada"Our industry's science helps to enhance Canadians' quality of life.We also believe decisions regarding health and environment areimportant and should be made based on full scientific evidence."
(Source: October 24th, 2008, The Fredericton Daily Gleaner, Letter tothe Editor, http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/458615)
#6 ~ Lorne Hepworth, President, CropLife Canada“We support a focus on eliminating the improper or unnecessary use ofpesticides. New legislation should be founded strictly on science. Itis important to remember that the products available to consumers havebeen approved as safe for use through a rigorous regulatory process byHealth Canada and other regulators around the world.”
(Source: CropLife Canada 2008 Annual Report,http://www.croplife.ca/web/english/who_we_are/annual_reports.cfm)
#5 ~ Jim Wispinski, President and CEO, Dow AgroSciences"This challenge is aimed at ensuring that important public policydecisions are based on scientific evidence, predictability and a clearset of principles, and are managed within a transparent framework. Theactions of the Government of Quebec are tantamount to a blanket banbased on non-scientific criteria, and we are of the view that this isin breach to certain provisions of NAFTA."
(Source: October 22, 2008, Canada Newswire, 'Dow AgroSciences filesNotice of Intent to submit NAFTA challenge in Canada',http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2008/22/c8638.html)
#4 ~ Gavin Dawson, Chair, 2007-2008 Lawn Care Commodity Group,Landscape Ontario"The year began with a promise from the provincial government to bringforward the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act (Bill 64), an Act to amend thecurrent Pesticides Act. It was passed in June. Since then, thegovernment has been working to develop the regulations that will serveunder this Act. This activity has consumed much of our lawn caregroup’s efforts. While opinions of this government initiative varygreatly among the Ontario public, and even within the green industry,there is no doubt about the regulatory direction our lawn care grouphas faced for several years."
(Source: Landscape Ontario Annual Report 2008, Lawn Care CommodityGroup, http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=wrtsqp#/page30/)
#3 ~ Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario"Cosmetic and non-essential pesticide use should be banned as a matterof principle. In the past there has been rampant unnecessary use.Treatments were made when no weeds or insects were present. The oldpractice of spraying on schedule (regardless of infestations) wasnever scientifically or environmentally sound. We have always beenagainst this approach and were at the fore-front of providingeducation and professional development for applicators for almost 40years."
(Source: July 15, 2008, Horticulture Review, Pesticide issue polarizesindustry, byTony DiGiovanni, http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=gfqpp#/page6/)
#2 ~ Allen James, President, RISE (Responsible Industry for a SoundEnvironment)“The activists plain outworked outworked us up there,” James said ofmounting pesticide bans and usage restrictions in Canada. “We clearlyhave lost the battle in Canada for the most part. Now, it’s just amatter of how far the bans and restrictions will extend into agmarkets. We cannot allow this to happen in the U.S.”
(Source: September 16, 2008, Landscape Management, It’s in da BAG, byMarty Whitford, http://tinyurl.com/7detxy)
#1 ~ Richard Aucoin, Acting Executive Director, Pest ManagementRegulatory Agency, Health Canada"We are therefore confident that the pesticides approved for use inCanada, including lawn and garden products, can be used safely whenlabel directions are followed. Canadians should use pesticidesjudiciously, carefully follow label directions, and take measures tobecome better informed about their safe and effective use."
(Source: April 26, 2008, The Guelph Mercury, Letter to the Editor,http://news.guelphmercury.com/Opinions/article/321248)
January 15, 2009
HORTICULTURE REVIEW, page 9
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGEPesticide regulations are unfair lawns and landscapes.
By Tony DiGiovanni CHTLO executive director
The long-awaited regulations for the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban havefinally been published (www.ebr.gov.on.ca registry number 010-5080)and the news is not good for many of our members, employees and theirfamilies. The regulations are aggressive, extreme, unfair, insensitiveand illogical.
Landscape Ontario originally gave conditional support to the cosmeticban, as long asthe regulations allowed limited use of products based on non-cosmeticinfestations and IPM Accreditation. We are now withdrawing thatsupport. The regulations have taken away most of the effective tools.
Our approach would have drastically reduced pesticide risk. Ourapproach would eventually and quickly lead to the development ofbetter products and processes. Our strategy is sensitive andrepresents common ground. All sides agree on the reduction of riskand introduction of effective alternatives as they become available.All sides believe in public and environmental safety. All sidesbelieve in the value of plant material and the need to protect plantsfrom harmful pests. In my view, the sides are not far apart. Thisregulation simply represents an insensitive approach and will severelyaffect the livelihood of many hardworking family businesses and theiremployees at a time of economic uncertainty.
Why is this regulation insensitive, illogical, aggressive and extreme?
• It does not respect the business processes of lawn and landscapemaintenance companies. Many have already signed contracts with theircustomers for next year. If the tools are taken away, how will theymeet their contractual obligations?
• As the regulation is currently written, the ban will come intoeffect immediately upon proclamation. How can the government expect aseasonal industry to survive such drastic changes? At the very least aphase-in period is essential.
• It exempts golf, trees and agriculture. Apparently theproducts are safe to use on the golf course, trees and food, but noton
• It allows IPM Accredited golf operations to use products, yetIPM Accredited Lawn and Landscape companies can not. This isparticularly maddening, because Landscape Ontario invented andinvested thousands of dollars in developing a credible, risk-reducingprogram, only to be told that it is good enough for golf but not forlawn care and landscape use.
• The banned products list does not appear to have any criteria.They have banned glyphosate (except for health and safety use) buthave allowed vinegar products. Glyphosate is less toxic than vinegar.They have banned some retail starter fertilizers, simply because theywere registered, yet the same product that is not registered isallowed. At the very least, solid scientific criteria should beused for banning products. Any product on the Health Canada reducedrisk list should be allowed for use by licensed accreditedtechnicians.
• It takes away most effective tools and leaves us withalternatives that just are not as effective. Even if they were,companies may not be able to supply the potential market.
• It will severely impact the lives and livelihood of many of ourmembers, their employees and families. There are approximately 1,300companies that currently hold operator’s licenses. They employapproximately 15,000 licensed exterminators. There are 5,000 pesticidetechnicians. These are real numbers that represent real people. Thegovernment and activists would do well to show some empathy. How wouldyou feel if your ability to put food on the table was taken away bypolitically-driven legislation that reflects minority publicopinion?
What can be done?
Environmental activists, please show your humanity and empathy, andcall for fairer legislation with an appropriate phase-in. A ban oncosmetic use of pesticides is fine, however, a ban on essential usefor infestations is not. Care of our green infrastructure is not acosmetic endeavour. Limited use of low-risk products by licensed IPMAccredited technicians should be allowed until effective alternativesare discovered. The industry and activists are really not far apart.
All of us want a safe, prosperous world. All of us want a clean andhealthy environment. Most green industry members believe inenvironmental activism and improve and enhance the environment everyday through their occupation.
Industry members, you must become engaged politically. Please take thetime to read the legislation. Determine how it will affect youroperations, your livelihood and your employees and then go visit yourregional MPP and tell your story. The power to decide resides withyour Member of Provincial Parliament. Ask for fairer legislation basedon sound and clear criteria. Show your support of reducing pesticiderisk, but ask for limited use of low-risk products based on IPMAccreditation. We should not be afraid of raising the bar of trustwith the public and government. We are not against regulations.
We are against extreme, insensitive and illogical regulations. We areasking for very few low-risk products, while at the same timepromoting IPM principles of risk reduction.
Tony DiGiovanni can be reached firstname.lastname@example.org
Gavin Dawson, Chair, 2007-2008 Lawn Care Commodity Group, LandscapeOntario"The year began with a promise from the provincial government to bringforward the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act (Bill 64), an Act to amend thecurrent Pesticides Act. It was passed in June. Since then, thegovernment has been working to develop the regulations that will serveunder this Act. This activity has consumed much of our lawn caregroup’s efforts. While opinions of this government initiative varygreatly among the Ontario public, and even within the green industry,there is no doubt about the regulatory direction our lawn care grouphas faced for several years."
(Source: Landscape Ontario Annual Report 2008, Lawn Care CommodityGroup, http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=wrtsqp#/page30/)
Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario"Cosmetic and non-essential pesticide use should be banned as a matterof principle. In the past there has been rampant unnecessary use.Treatments were made when no weeds or insects were present. The oldpractice of spraying on schedule (regardless of infestations) wasnever scientifically or environmentally sound. We have always beenagainst this approach and were at the fore-front of providingeducation and professional development for applicators for almost 40years."
(Source: July 15, 2008, Horticulture Review, Pesticide issue polarizesindustry, byTony DiGiovanni, http://viewer.zmags.com/showmag.php?mid=gfqpp#/page6/)
Lawn & Landscape Magazine - July 2006COVER STORY COMPANION: Canada's Changing Landscape
By Nicole Wisniewskinwisniewski@gie.net
This is what you’re up against, U.S. lawn care operators (LCOs).Though all may seem quiet on the home front, “activists are engaged inU.S. politics as well as in Canada, and they talk to each other –there are no borders when it comes to activists,” explains TonyDiGiovanni, executive director, Landscape Ontario, a Canadian greenindustry association. “The Internet has enabled their communication tobecome rapid and effective. I have no doubt that the fight will cometo the U.S. – it’s only a matter of time.”
TOO FAST, TOO FURIOUS. In Canada, activists have been pushing an anti-pesticide message for years – DiGiovanni takes it all the way back tothe 1960s release of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring that examinedpesticides and their assumed effects on declining songbird populationsin the United States. “It’s a powerful book, and it inspired someactivists groups, particularly coalitions against pesticides, to getstarted,” he says.
June 26, 2003
Playing a role in pesticide theatre
The ultimate solution, and one the industry continues to promote, isto take control out of the hands of the municipalities and deal withthe pesticide issue on a provincial level. "If we can pre-empt themunicipalities from being involved, then hopefully the decisions willbe based on science and not on emotion," explains DiGiovanni.
Industry supports a strong, province-wide pesticide law (but not aban)
"The professional lawncare industry in Ontario supports the concept ofa strong, province-wide pesticide law, to replace a patchwork ofcontradictory municipal bylaws," said Gavin Dawson, Chair of theLandscape Ontario, Lawncare Commodity Group. "While we recognize thereis more work to be done on the details of this initiative, theMcGuinty government has delivered on its promise with a Bill thatensures consistent standards everywhere, which apply equally toprofessionals servicing our green infrastructure and the do-it-yourself market."
(Source: April 22, 2008, Landscape Ontario, 'Landscape OntarioSupports New Provincial Pesticide Legislation' http://tinyurl.com/5y4gwm)
June 19, 2008
The Globe and Mail
PESTICIDE BANLobbyists are the worm in legislator's apple
What is it about the pesticide industry that attracts such sterlingpolitical talent? I had barely absorbed the news that former pesticidelobbyist Guy Giornio was off to Ottawa to head up Prime MinisterStephen Harper's office. Now we learn that current pesticide lobbyistPhilip Dewan, former chief of staff to Premier Dalton McGuinty, isback pulling strings at Queen's Park.
Mr. Dewan and his client, Landscape Ontario, got most everything theyasked for when the McGuinty government's new pesticide ban passedthird reading yesterday. It was quite a feat - maybe not as flamboyantas Mr. Giorno's dalliance with the risible "Toronto EnvironmentalCoalition," but certainly more successful.
With dozens of municipal bylaws already banning lawn-care companiesfrom using pesticides in Ontario, the industry group offered noresistance to the inevitable provincial ban. It won't change anythingfor many, if not most of them. But the group did identify two"critical needs" with respect to the bill, according to a publishedbriefing note, the first of which was "a prohibition on municipalitiesimposing standards beyond the provincial law."
Check that. The corresponding clause in Bill 64 is Draconian in theforce with which it sweeps aside all existing municipal bylawsregulating pesticides in favour of a proposed provincial ban thatcould be - and in some cases already is - weaker than the existingmeasures. Its existence has inspired environmentalists, physicians,opposition and municipal politicians to denounce the allegedly toughnew ban as a sneaky sellout.
"The province just slapped the municipalities across the face forprotecting their populations," Markham Councillor Erin Shapero saidyesterday. "We've said all along that the province should set thefloor, and if municipalities want to provide stronger protection theyshould have the opportunity."
Environment Minister John Gerretsen dismissed criticism of his bill'sbylaw-quashing clause as a "side issue." Unlike the municipal bylaws,he pointed out, Bill 64 bans the retail sale as well as the use ofpotentially harmful pesticides.
"We feel we have a bill that is much stronger than we ever anticipatedon the campaign," he said.
But the minister had trouble explaining why the bill contains whatlandscape Ontario hailed as "an explicit prohibition on municipalitiesimposing standards that go beyond the provincial law," dodging thequestion before declaring that such a law would be easier for theprovince to enforce and citizens to understand.
No such considerations applied when the province banned pit bulls andindoor smoking with new laws that explicitly allowed tougher municipalstandards, where they existed, to prevail. But with respect topesticides, according to Mr. Gerretsen, strict provincewide uniformitywas the goal from the get-go.
The minister would sound more credible on that matter today had hespoken up when he and the Premier introduced the bill on Earth Day,and he stood by quietly while Mr. McGuinty warmly assured all skepticsthere was nothing in the proposed law that prevented municipalitiesfrom enforcing higher standards should they wish.
"The Premier got it right when he got it wrong," Ms. Shapero remarked.
Much embarrassment ensued then - and continues today, thanks to theindefatigable work of well-connected lobbyists.
Landscape Ontario Hire Former McGuinty Staffer To Lobby on Province-wide Pesticide Ban
Philip DewanCounsel Public Affairs Inc.Client: Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades AssociationIssue: "Proposed province-wide ban on cosmetic use of pesticides"Initial Filing Date: Mon Nov 19, 2007http://oico.on.ca/Integrity/RegistrationGeneral.nsf/PublicFramesWeb?OpenPage
Toronto Star - October 11, 1999by Ian UrquhartAfter a search that lasted several months, Liberal Leader DaltonMcGuinty has finally named a new chief of staff - Philip Dewan - toreplace Monique Smith, who left after the election.http://www.ontariotenants.ca/articles/1999/ts-99j11.phtmlhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/election2k3/news/five.html
Philip Dewan - Zoom Profilehttp://www.zoominfo.com/people/Dewan_Philip_9072391.aspx
Philip Dewan is a founding principal of Counsel Public Affairs Inc.,having merged his previous successful consulting practice, TheExcelsior Consulting Group Inc., with Suasion Public AffairsManagement Inc. to form Counsel in November 2004.
Philip is one of the leading public policy practitioners in Ontario.He brings to his clients more than 20 years of experience ingovernment, politics and issue advocacy.
Phil has helped to affect major policy change in the province frominside and outside government. During two highly successful stints atQueen�s Park, he played critical roles in the elections of the onlytwo Liberal Premiers of the post-WWII era. His balanced consensus-based approached gained him wide respect from senior bureaucrats, nonpartisan industry and NGO observers and key strategists for the otherparties.
As Chief of Staff for the Leader of the Official Opposition, DaltonMcGuinty, from the fall of 1999 through the successful Liberalelection in October 2003, Phil was the most senior political advisorto the Leader. As organizational head of the Liberal Caucus ServiceBureau, he managed a staff of more than 50 political professionals.
Phil played a leading role in the development of the Liberal brandidentity and campaign strategy for the 2003 election and led thepolicy team which crafted the election platform.
Following his departure to form Excelsior, Phil was retained asSpecial Advisor to the Premier regarding strategic and operationalissues for the Liberal government�s transition. Premier McGuintystated publicly that �Phil has played an invaluable role in developingthe team and the plan that has been embraced so vigorously by thepeople of Ontario. He will always have my thanks and trust.�
Phil offers clients a unique combination of private sector advocacysuccess with public policy experience. During his nine-year term asPresident and CEO of a major Ontario industry association, he achievedpositive results in very different environments under Liberal, NDP andPC governments.
And as Director of Policy in the Office of the Premier of Ontario anda key policy advisor in Opposition, Phil was an important part of thesuccesses of the David Peterson administration from 1982-89. Amongother accomplishments, he played a formative role with the Premier�sCouncil on Science and Technology and served on Council missions toJapan and Germany. He was intimately involved in the development ofnumerous Throne Speeches, Budgets and major policy statements, and wasPolicy Director for the Ontario Liberal Party�s highly successful 1987election campaign.
From 1989 to 1990, Phil served on secondment to the Ontario PublicService as Acting Director of the Technology Policy Branch of the then-Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, gaining valuable insightinto the workings of the civil service.
In addition to his wide-ranging experience in politics and the privatesector, Phil holds a Master�s degree in Political Science,specializing in Public Policy, from the University of Hawaii, and aBachelor�s degree from the University of Waterloo.
Work Experience Prior to Counsel:
* Founder of Excelsior Consulting Group Inc.: December 2003 * Special Advisor to the Premier of Ontario: October � December2003 * Chief of Staff, Office of the Leader of the Opposition: Oct.1999 � Oct. 2003 * President & CEO of Fair Rental Policy Organization: 1990 � 1999 * Acting Director, Technology Policy Branch, Ministry of Industry,Trade and Technology: 1989 � 1990 * Director of Policy, Office of the Premier of Ontario: 1986 �1989 * Assistant Director of Policy, Office of the Premier of Ontario:1985 � 1986 * Policy Advisor, Liberal Policy Research Office, Queen�s Park:1982 � 1985 * Regulated Industries Analyst, Consumer�s Association of Canada:1981 � 1982 * Policy Intern, Federal Ministry of State for Science andTechnology: 1981
The Summer 2008 Issue
by Gregg Wartgow
Healthy RootsLawn Care
While the design/build segment of the landscape industry has absorbedthe majority of punishment the recent housing and economic slumps havedished out, lawn maintenance has suffered far less. The same holdstrue for the lawn care sector, which, by some estimates, accounts forroughly 17% of the $67 billion green industry.
Jennifer Lemcke, COO of Weed Man (weedmanusa.com), says lawn care hasbeen impacted some, but continues to grow as an industry about $3billion a year, which includes both do-it-yourselfers and professionalcontractors. The primary factors driving demand are retiring babyboomers with substantial disposable income, the growing green movementamong consumers, and the average person’s desire to add value to theirhome.
ACTUALLY, IT'S PRETTY INEXPENSIVE
Lemcke says a common misconception about lawn care services is thatthey are very expensive. In reality, the are a relatively inexpensiveway to add value to one’s home—sometimes up to 15%—due to thatprecious “curb appeal.” In a time when real estate prices have sharplydeclined, this can be an alluring sales hook for both realtors andhomeowners alike.
But because maintenance contractors are on a property so often duringthe growing season, some consumers are left with the impression thatapplication specialists will be there just as often, resulting in anenormous bill. That’s rarely, if ever, the case.
“Our typical service in the northern part of the U.S. runs $300-$350 ayear, which includes four fertilizer applications, two weed controls,and sometimes one insect control,” Lemcke explains. Cost is usuallyhigher in the South, due to the longer season. “We also offer upsalesof grub and/or disease control, lime and aeration,” Lemcke adds.
RIDE THE BOOM, BABY
Baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, are also helping fueldemand. They are beginning to retire in great numbers—with asubstantial amount of disposable income. Plus, they still want to leadactive lifestyles, making them a hot prospect for service providerssuch as lawn care contractors.
“The service industry in general is trending higher because of babyboomers,” Lemcke adds. “Many own houses that are paid off, so they’rewilling and able to spend money on making those houses look as nice aspossible, which includes a nice lawn.”
Similarly, the growing consumer segment of dual-income families alsocreates opportunity for lawn care operators. They, too, lead veryactive lifestyles and are looking to outsource things like lawn care.Furthermore, curb appeal means a lot to these homeowners as well.
THE GREEN MOVEMENT
The “green movement” is having its effect on several industries,including lawn care. “It’s completely changed us in Canada,” Lemckepoints out. “The country is now looking at a provincial bylaw to banthe use of pesticides at both the retail and service levels.” Lemckesays Weed Man is actually in favor of that happening. Dealing with avariety of ordinances on a municipality by municipality basis createsconfusion and an uneven playing field for operators.
Regardless, the green movement has forced companies like Weed Man tocreate new products. “For example, we’ve been at the forefront ofdeveloping a weed control product that’s biological,” Lemcke pointsout.
What has happened in Canada is good news for the U.S., Lemcke says,because the U.S. now has a chance to come together as an industry andbe proactive on this issue. And it already is.
“In Canada, the activists were playing on emotion, not science,”Lemcke says. “We were faced with a lot of sudden challenges whichforced us to change the way we do business. But now we’re able tooffer customers traditional products that are safe and EPA-registered,while also offering biological products for customers who want thenatural approach.”
Companies such as NaturaLawn of America (nl-amer.com) are banking onthat notion as the green movement continues to build up steam. TheNaturaLawn of America System is a natural organic-based systemconsisting of an exclusive, organic-based fertilization program usedin conjunction with a specially designed Integrated Pest Managementprogram (IPM).
IPM uses biological, cultural and chemical tactics to achieve ahealthy lawn. An IPM program requires proper mowing and wateringpractices, lawn aeration, lawn density enhancement procedures,fertilization, pH balancing treatments and regular inspections forpests. NaturaLawn says its specially designed IPM program does notinvolve the indiscriminate application of pesticides.
PUTTING IT TO THE TEST
According to Doug Wood of Grassroots Environmental Education, toreally understand the natural lawn care business, you must first cometo understand the broader “natural paradigm,” which has beendeveloping for the past 10-15 years. The biggest force behind it isthe parents of young children. “There’s no point in arguing withthem,” Wood says. “All that matters is what they want, which is thesafety of their children and, in many cases, a pesticide-free lawn.”
Still, not all lawn care operators are being met with piping hotdemand for a natural approach. Phil Fogarty, a Weed Man franchisee inthe Cleveland area, is one such contractor. “There are plenty ofconsumers who want to be good environmental stewards and are lookingfor an alternative to chemicals,” Fogarty says. “But whenever wedecide to offer an alternative, people first tend to say that if it’smuch more expensive, it’s not that important. And if it’s lesseffective, they aren’t interested at all. Less than 1% of the peoplewe offer organic services to actually take us up on it.”
Herein lies the debate: Is organic lawn care as cost-effective aschemical lawn care? Natural advocates such as Wood argue that it is.
“Natural lawn care products can be more expensive, but natural lawncare programs can be less expensive once a property is converted,”Wood explains. “Chemical programs often require more and moreproducts, while natural programs require fewer and fewer. Studies onthis phenomenon are hard to find, but the anecdotal evidence fromhundreds of landscapers has convinced me that this is true.”
Don Myers, Ph.D. and product development manager – herbicides andplant growth regulators for Bayer Environmental Science, points outthat chemical companies such as Bayer don’t necessarily add additionalproducts, but rather, replace existing products with more effectiveproducts. “Furthermore, we’ve always recommended our products to beused in an Integrated Pest Management program,” Myers adds.
“It’s even more important to Bayer that its products are compatiblewith the environment,” Myers continues. “Our products go through arigorous EPA evaluation process in order to be registered forresidential use. We invest millions of dollars in this testing. Ithink organic products should be subject to the same rigors. Somepeople think a product labeled organic is automatically safe. Butconsumers have a right to know that what you’re putting on their lawnis low-risk and effective.”
Wood says one more thing lawn care operators have to consider whencomparing organic products vs. chemicals is coverage areas andapplication rates. Water-soluble fertilizers may break down quickly,whereas water-insoluble organic products break down with soil biology,staying on the lawn longer. “Don’t just compare the price on the bag,”Wood advises.
When you do, Lemcke adds, chemical fertilizers will typically win,though she’s almost certain that will start to change. “We’re findingvery effective organic products that are still in the developmentphase,” she points out. “Soon we’ll have a product that’s registeredfor the U.S. And as market demand increases, prices will naturally godown.”
In the meantime, the natural lawn care industry—and lawn care industryin general—remains healthy and growing. Success in this service sectorcomes down to honing in on the right customers and educating them.Facilitating a healthier lawn in a safe manner is everyone’s goal, nomatter which method you choose.
From lawn maintenance to lawn care
Lawn care accounts for roughly 17% of the $67 billion green industry.While recent economic and housing concerns have impacted this businessto some degree, it continues to grow about $3 billion a year. Moremaintenance contractors are getting in on the action as well.
Jennifer Lemcke, COO of Weed Man, says 80% of their franchisees haveanother division, such as maintenance or irrigation. If your company’sgrowth has stagnated or the volume potential is limited, branchinginto lawn care may be a sound strategic move.
“In landscaping, you can sell a large contract, but it’s gone thefollowing year,” Lemcke points out. “In lawn care, 80% of yourbusiness is renewable, and 25-30% of customers pre-pay for services,creating an ideal cash flow situation. Also, the cross-marketingpotential with your maintenance division is outstanding.”
The two services share other similarities as well. Estimating andbidding are done on a square-footage basis. Efficient scheduling androuting are essential. And communication with customers is key.“Be there when you say you will, make sure the tech interacts with thecustomer on the lawn, take notes and proactively works to resolve anyproblems,” Lemcke advises. “What we do is not a complicated business.”
What can be a bit more complicated is going out and getting business.“The big difference between lawn maintenance and lawn care ismarketing,” says Weed Man franchisee Phil Fogarty. “You need to gofrom a neighborhood mentality to a city-wide mentality. In lawn care,you generally need more customers because most will only spend $300 or$400 a year, as opposed to a typical maintenance customer who mightspend upwards of $2,000 a year. The ‘per visit’ charge might be thesame, but the frequency is less in lawn care.”
However, if you’re a maintenance contractor with an existing customerbase, getting started is a whole lot easier. Perhaps all you’relooking to initially do is upsell current maintenance customers.That’s fine. Develop a business plan that outlines your objectives.Companies like Weed Man can help. “Then constantly rework your planand processes to make it better,” Lemcke adds.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Project EverGreen Makes Impact with Green Spaces Program
A major shift in consumer awareness about the value of green spaces inAkron, Ohio, is the primary finding of an independent survey conductedfor Project EverGreen. The national non-profit organization launchedits first "EverGreen Zone" in spring 2008, a pilot consumer educationprogram with the objective of building the public's awareness of theeconomic, environmental and lifestyle benefits of green spaces inAkron. The study was conducted by DataCore Marketing, Kansas City, Mo.
From April through September, Project EverGreen blanketed the citywith positive messages about the importance of responsibly managinggreen spaces. Street teams passed out educational literature, seedpackets and green space IQ quizzes at more than sixty public events.Hundreds of yard signs and posters covered city parks and bus signsand billboards dotted the city. From sponsorship of a minor leaguebaseball game to signage at a major amphitheater, consumers wereprovided with messages about green that resonated with the public.
"The numbers tell a very positive story," says Den Gardner, executivedirector of Project EverGreen. "The data backs up our gut reaction andthe public feedback we received. From the blighted area renovation ofa downtown park to the Art of Green Spaces competition with localyouth groups, we know we made a lasting difference in Akron and wecannot wait to get started on our 2009 EverGreen Zones in Akron andexpansion into Milwaukee."
In a survey with a significantly higher response than normally seen,Akron consumers revealed their priorities. For example, in answer tothe question, "How important are these benefits of a healthy lawn andwell-planned trees and shrubs to you?" consumers rank economic reasonsfirst (84 percent "increasing home value"), lifestyle enjoyment second(81 percent "contributing to a more enjoyable lifestyle"), andenvironmental priorities third (61 percent "contributing to ahealthier environment)."
Project EverGreen's focus is consumer awareness about theenvironmental, economic and lifestyle benefits of green spaces,"Gardner adds. "Fulfilling our new mission statement: 'To preserve andenhance green space in our communities for today and futuregenerations,' is our highest priority as we enter the new year and ourtwo EverGreen Zone initiatives."
Urban Fertilizer Council
-----Original Message-----From: Ford WestSent: March 24, 2006 8:16 AMTo: Clyde GrahamCc: Bill HerzSubject: FW: Fertilizer Pesticide Ban
Ford B. West
The Fertilizer Institute
From: John Ladds [mailto:email@example.com]Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:41 PMTo: 'Josette Lopes'; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;Tom.Bruulsema@ppi-ppic.org; AJohnston@ppi-ppic.org;firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Ford West; email@example.com;firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.comCc: 'Tony DiGiovanni'Subject: Fertilizer Pesticide Ban
I wanted to forward a very concerning bylaw passed in the small areaof northern Ontario known as the Township of Georgian Bay. Thisconcerns the lawn care industry obviously because it is yet anotherarea restricting or eliminating or ability to control pest problems inour customers’ lawns.
However, this bylaw also BANS ALL FERTILIZERS CONTAINING NITROGEN ANDPHOSPHORUS. As an industry we’ll do our best to get in front of thedecision makers to amend this uninformed bylaw that seems to have beenpassed in a vacuum. But, lawn care operators will not be enough toconvince these people. The councilors needs assurances that slowrelease fertilizers will not leach N into waterways and Phosphoruswill not cause algae issues.
This bylaw sets a potentially damaging precedent given the carteblanche authority already granted by the courts to Canadianmunicipalities. Any assistance any of you can provide would not onlybe appreciated by the lawn care industry, but I would think would be aprudent and proactive step on the part of fertilizer producers.
Turf Management Systems Inc.
(905) 823-8550 ext. 26
THE CORPORATION OF
THE TOWNSHIP OF GEORGIAN BAY
Being a By-law to Regulate and Control the use of Pesticide andFertilizer within the Township of Georgian Bay.
WHEREAS section 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O., c.25, asamended, enables a municipality to regulate matters not specificallyprovided for in the Municipal Act, for purposes related to the health,safety and well being of the inhabitants of the municipality;
AND WHEREAS Council has determined that pesticide and fertilizer usehas potential negative health and environmental effects on the waterquality within the municipality and should be regulated to mitigatethe impacts of pesticides and fertilizer on health and environment;
AND WHEREAS the nutrient loading from fertilizer and pesticide hasbeen identified as a significant factor contributing to algae growthand low dissolved oxygen conditions;
AND WHEREAS these conditions can lead to a loss of enjoyment of thewater quality and may lead to health effects and decline in propertyvalue;
AND WHEREAS the municipality’s proposed regulation of pesticide andfertilizer use by by-law will enhance and will not conflict with thePest Control Products Act, R.S. 1985, c. P-9; Pesticides Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.11 and the Nutrient Management Act, 2002, S.O., c. 4;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OFGEORGIAN BAY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
For the purposes of this by-law, the following words and phrasesshall have the following meanings:
a) Farmer: means a farm producer or horticulturist.
b) Fertilizer: means a substance that containsphosphorous or nitrogen used o enrich soils or plants with minerals ornutrients.
c) Pesticide: means a product, an organism or asubstance that is a registered control product under the Federal PestControl Products Act which is used as a means for directly orindirectly controlling, destroying, attracting or repelling a pest orfor mitigating or preventing its injurious, noxious or troublesomeeffects.
A pesticide does not include:
a) A soap;
b) A mineral oil, also called dormant orhorticultural oil;
c) Silicon dioxide, also called diatomaceous earth;
d) Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), nematodes and otherbiological control organisms;
e) Borax, also called boracic acid;
f) Ferrous phosphate; or
g) Pyrethrum or pyrethrins.
The spreading and use of a pesticide or fertilizer is prohibitedthroughout the Township of Georgian Bay except as exempt herein.
3.1 Notwithstanding Section 2, it is permitted to use apesticide in the following cases:
a) In a public or private swimming pool, whirlpools,spas or wading pools;
b) To purify water intended for the use of humanbeings or animals;
c) Within an enclosed building;
d) To control or destroy a health hazard;
e) As a wood preservative;
f) As an insect repellent;
g) To control or destroy plants which constitute adanger for human beings who are allergic thereto; or
h) To control forest pests and diseases.
3.2 Notwithstanding Section 2, it is permitted to use abiological pesticide to control or destroy insects that constitute adanger for human beings.
3.3 Notwithstanding Section 2, a farmer is excluded formthe restrictions imposed by this By-law.
3.4 Notwithstanding Section 2, a golf course is exemptedfrom this By-law provided that the Township of Georgian Bay hasapproved a Storm Water Management Plan that is designed to control,manage and mitigate the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Suchexemption shall only apply to the area of the approved Storm WaterManagement Plan described herein.
Any person, corporation or individual in contravention of thisBy-law shall be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000.00.
5. By-law Application:
5.1 Where a Court of competent jurisdiction declares anypart of this By-law invalid, that part shall be severed and theremainder of the By-law shall continue in force.
5.2 That this By-law takes force and effect on March 20th,2006.
READ and finally passed this 20th day of March, 2006
Mike Kennedy – Mayor
Bonnie Munro – C.A.O.-Clerk/Treasurer
============================== Blog Gadgets
St. John's Daily Spray Advisory
My Past Articles
More enforcement needed for pesticide spray regulations
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 413 words
Karen Griffin - Judie Squires says someone needs to patrol the companies that spray residential areas for pesticides because she's observed nine violations of the Environmental Protection Act in her Paradise neighborhood alone…
Spray woes: Province falling down on monitoring pesticides
The Telegram (
Judie Squires - environment to become poisoned? A temporary ban on all residential pesticides has to be put into place, to protect us, our wildlife and our environment as a whole. Judie Squires
Government lax on cosmetic pesticide regulation: advocate
The Telegram (
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of
Woman doesn't expect cosmetic pesticide ban any time soon
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - 08-30-2004 - 712 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic that the province will ban the…
Province lagging behind in pesticide control
The Telegram (
Squires, Judie - it to do is to prohibit the cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides altogether in order to protect our citizens and the environment. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's…
The two sides to pesticide use
The Telegram (
Judie Squires - health of your families. When
Inquiry implicates BTk
The Telegram (
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - of trees. The live spores can be inhaled by humans and animals exposed to BT. Judie Squires, secretary of the Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, says despite claims that…
Delayed pesticide laws 'disappointing'
The Telegram (
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - at the end of this year. These products will only be sold to certified dealers. Judie Squires, secretary of the newly formed Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, isn't…
Above Articles available through Trancontinental Newsnet
Time for provincial lawn pesticide regulation
The Telegram (
pesticides. Please join me in lobbying our province for a pesticide ban Judie Squires Portugal Cove...