Weed killer 2,4-D on final list of banned pesticides in Ont.: minister
TORONTO — Ontario has released a final list of pesticides that will be
banned for cosmetic use and sale - including weed killer 2,4-D -
starting on Earth Day on April 22.
Environment Minister John Gerretsen says the new regulations will
prohibit the sale and use of 2,4-D in its concentrated form, despite a
NAFTA challenge from its manufacturer.
Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical, filed a $2-million notice of
action against the federal government last August.
It alleges that Quebec's ban on 2,4-D violates Canada's obligations
under NAFTA because it prohibits a product without any scientific
Gerretsen says he won't back down from a ban that protects the health
and safety of Ontario residents just because there's a threat of a
Ontario passed legislation last year banning the sale and use of
pesticides with few exceptions, such as golf courses and agricultural
The final list of substances that would fall under the ban - including
2,4-D - wasn't made public until Wednesday.
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
Ontario's province-wide pesticide ban
For details on Ontario's province-wide pesticide ban, go to
March 5, 2009
Provincewide pesticide ban takes effect April 22
Weed-killing pesticides can't be sold in stores or used on lawns and
gardens after April 22.
The Ontario government finalized its residential pesticide ban
yesterday, listing more than 250 products banned from sale.
"We're just extremely happy that the government has listened to the
health and environmental people and taken this really bold step," said
Susan Koswan of Pesticide Free Ontario. "That's the really big news on
this, that they will no longer be sold."
Retailers have been told products they can and can't sell. Many of the
banned products carry well-known names such as Wilson, CIL and Scotts.
Koswan has long campaigned against lawn-care pesticides but never
persuaded regional councillors to ban them year-round.
The Ontario ban replaces a patchwork of municipal restrictions,
including partial restrictions enacted by regional council.
The provincial government says the ban protects families and children
from unnecessary health risks. This is at odds with advice from the
federal government, which says lawn-care pesticides are acceptable if
The Ontario ban exempts agriculture, where pesticides are far more
widely applied. Also exempt are forestry, golf courses and public
health and safety applications.
Koswan wants the golf exemption lifted eventually.
Surveys have found that pesticides are applied to between 34 and 57
per cent of local lawns and gardens. Tips on caring for lawns without
them are at www.letscurbpesticides.ca.
Ontario’s pesticide ban a victory for health and the environment
March 4, 2009
OTTAWA – Ontario has set a new standard for protecting citizens and
the environment against harmful lawn and garden pesticides. Hundreds
of toxic chemicals will be pulled off store shelves by this spring
thanks to regulations announced today under the Cosmetic Pesticide
‘“We congratulate the Ontario government for raising the bar on
protecting people and the environment from needless pesticide
exposure,” says Dr. David Suzuki, co-founder of the David Suzuki
Foundation. “ Ontario should be commended for putting the health and
opinions of its citizen first and resisting the powerful lobbying of
chemical companies. I hope this action will stimulate a discussion
about the role of chemicals from all sources in our lives.”
Ontario’s new regulations surpass existing restrictions on pesticides
in Quebec – the only other province that bans lawn chemicals.
Today’s announcement will pull more than 250 toxic pesticides off
store shelves by the end of April. The Cosmetic Pesticide Act was
originally passed last June and recognizes that the ‘cosmetic’ use of
pesticides to improve the appearance of lawns and gardens presents
health and environmental risks. Today’s announcement specifies
exactly which pesticides will be pulled from store shelves and when
the ban will take effect.
“Now that the details of Ontario ’s ban have been finalized, the
province needs to follow through with a comprehensive public education
campaign,” says Lisa Gue, environmental health policy analyst for the
David Suzuki Foundation. “The government also needs to put in place a
robust and effective enforcement program to ensure its success.”
There are areas for improvement in the legislation. For instance,
golf courses are exempt from the ban and sale restrictions on certain
products will not take effect for two years.
The Suzuki Foundation challenges other provinces to “meet or beat”
Ontario ’s ban on cosmetic pesticides to ensure a high standard of
protection for human health and the environment across the country.
- END -
For more information, contact:
Environmental Health Policy Analyst
Office: (613) 594-5428
Cell: (613) 796-7699
March 4, 2009
For Immediate Release
Contact: Susan Koswan 519-578-8508
Pesticide Free Ontario a Reality!
The Spring 2009 implementation of Ontario ’s Cosmetic Pesticide Ban is
welcome news to all of Pesticide Free Ontario members and supporters.
This legislation reflects the successful combination of decades of
work by health and environmental organizations, grassroots advocates
and a proactive Premier.
“With this legislation, the Ontario Liberal government is showing that
it clearly understands the principles of a green economy – that you
can protect both health and the environment and create jobs,” said
Susan Koswan, Executive Director of PFO.
In communities where municipal pesticide bans have been in place, such
as Toronto and Halifax , the horticultural industries have shown
exponential growth, according to StatsCanada Business Patterns
As of April 22, 2009, close to one hundred pesticide ingredients will
no longer be for sale or be used on lawns for cosmetic purposes.
“By banning the sale of these products, this legislation raises the
bar beyond the most stringent municipal bylaws,” said Koswan.
Pesticide Free Ontario would like to take this opportunity to thank
Premier McGuinty, Minister Gerretsen and Ministry of Environment staff
for their commitment to a cleaner, greener Ontario .
Ontario Becomes Pesticide-Free Leader
“Nothing like this anywhere else on the continent”
For Immediate Release
March 4, 2009
TORONTO—A list of banned pesticides released today as part of
Ontario’s Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act makes the legislation the most
health-protective law of its kind in North America, says the Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE).
The list includes over 95 cosmetic pesticides - among them 2,4-D and
glyphosate - whose use and sale in the province will be prohibited
starting in April.
“ Ontario is a true leader. There is nothing like this anywhere else
on the continent,” says CAPE Executive Director Gideon Forman . “Up to
now, Quebec has had the best legislation but it only bans 20
pesticides. Ontario is banning five times that number. And the U.S.
can’t even agree on a ban on 2,4-D while Ontario is protecting us from
2,4-D and 95 other toxic chemicals as well!”
Scientific research has shown pesticides are linked to cancer,
neurological illness, and birth defects. Children are especially
“All the polling we’ve seen suggests these regulations will be hugely
popular across the province,” says Forman, whose association
represents over 4,000 doctors and concerned citizens. “Ontarians are
delighted that this spring they won’t have to worry about their kids
and pets getting sick after playing on the lawn.”
CAPE says the regulations will not only protect health but also boost
Ontario ’s lawn care industry and green jobs. “Non-toxic lawn care is
more labour-intensive so it’s a boon to employment. Statistics Canada
says communities which prohibit pesticides see their number of lawn
care firms grow substantially,” says Forman.
For More Information:
Gideon Forman, Executive Director (416) 306-2273 email@example.com
CELEBRATION! Decisive Precautionary Action in Ontario with
Proclamation of Law Banning Use and Sale of Cosmetic Pesticides
· Media Release
Mar 04 2009
Toronto - CELA today joins our colleagues in the environmental
movement, the child care sector, environmental health professionals,
and progressive public health officials in celebrating passage of
Ontario 's bold and visionary leadership in banning the use and sale
of pesticides for cosmetic purposes - those pesticides used simply to
maintain the appearance of lawns and gardens.
After more than a year of extensive public consultation and multiple
indications of overwhelming public support, the new law will be in
place for Spring 2009. "We salute the Ontario government for putting
in place the most health-protective cosmetic pesticide ban in North
America ," stated Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director of the
Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA).
The ban on use and sale extends to all the major toxic chemicals used
in lawn and garden pesticide formulations, over 80 chemicals in all,
and permits continued use only for low risk formulations. Additional
exemptions for so-called "mixed use" pesticides will ensure chemical
controls are available, if necessary, for public health reasons.
"We would have liked the final package to have ensured that all “mixed-
use” (cosmetic and non-cosmetic) products be put under immediate lock
and key by retailers and also that golf course pesticides be banned,"
stated Ms. McClenaghan. "We look to retailers to try and put such
measures in place this year in advance of requirements being in place
for the Spring of 2011."
"This new law is the culmination of twenty years of work across
Canada , often by mothers of young children, who have demanded that
needless pesticide use be prohibited in our communities," noted
McClenaghan. "Throughout these efforts, CELA and others working on
this issue, have considered it essential to investigate whether non-
chemical alternatives exist, which of course they do. Not only do
alternatives exist but a thriving industry has developed to meet this
need, including the conversion of companies from traditional users of
pesticides to those who provide a wide array of non-chemical
alternatives. We strongly agree that this ban is an excellent part of
Ontario 's efforts to move to the new green economy," she stated.
Widespread public support for this law exists because it is about
taking precautionary action. "People are concerned about pesticides
and how they are regulated by the federal government," noted Kathleen
Cooper, Senior Researcher with CELA. "Despite the fact that federal
regulation of pesticides has been improved, we must recognize that the
scientific evidence in support of registering pesticides is never
entirely complete. The assessments of pesticides, done by the federal
government, result in a determination of "acceptable risk," not a
determination of "safety." More important, it is essential to
recognize that the scientific evaluation of every pesticide occurs in
isolation from other evaluations," stated Cooper.
"Even with movement by regulatory agencies, including Health Canada 's
Pest Management Regulatory Agency, towards assessing groups of
pesticides with common toxic effects, the basic approach remains of
studying individual pesticides one at a time, applying margins of
safety that regulators hope will be sufficient, and ignoring the
reality of multiple chemical exposures. The entire exercise occurs
within a situation of incomplete information. At the same time there
is a rapidly expanding body of scientific literature looking into
troubling and, often completely unexpected, impacts of chemicals on
the environment and human health. Children and particularly the fetus
in utero are often at greatest risk," stated Cooper.
"This new law enjoys very strong public support. This support comes
directly from concern about the reality of multiple chemical exposures
in our daily lives and wanting to see a precautionary response -
eliminating exposures where and when we can. Getting rid of things
that are unnecessary simply makes sense to just about everyone,"
- 30 -
For more information:
Theresa McClenaghan, firstname.lastname@example.org 416-960-2284 ext. 219
Kathleen Cooper, email@example.com 705-341-2488 (cell)
Canadian Cancer Society congratulates Ontario government for passing
strong regulations supporting the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act
TORONTO , March 4 /CNW/ - The Canadian Cancer Society is pleased with
regulations passed by the Ontario government today to support
provincial legislation banning the sale and use of cosmetic
"We congratulate the Ontario government for passing regulations
provide all Ontarians with strong protection from the health risks
associated with the use of cosmetic pesticides," says Peter Goodhand,
CEO, Ontario Division, Canadian Cancer Society. "This is a significant
success in our efforts to further our mission to eradicate cancer."
As of April 22, all Ontarians, particularly children who are more
vulnerable than adults to exposure to pesticides, will be protected by
the strongest cosmetic pesticide legislation in North America , the
Pesticide Ban Act.
"We also congratulate our volunteers and staff who have worked
hard with municipal and provincial governments and community partners
across Ontario since 2002 to protect communities from exposure to
cosmetic pesticides," he said.
"We're particularly pleased the new legislation bans both the sale
and use of cosmetic pesticides," added Goodhand.
A 2007 Oracle Poll of 1,000 Ontario residents showed 71% of
Ontarians support province-wide restrictions on pesticides.
Exposure to cosmetic pesticides may increase the risk of
developing cancer. Most of the research to date, which has focused on
occupational exposure, has linked exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma,
leukemia, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, brain cancer and lung
cancer. There is also evidence that children may be especially
vulnerable to the harmful effects of these chemicals.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that some substances used in pesticides
are known, probable or possible carcinogens. The U.S. National
Toxicology Program (NTP) has classified a number of active ingredients
in pesticides as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen".
Studies show that children may be more vulnerable to pesticide
exposure than adults because of their rapidly growing and developing
bodies, as well as the unique ways they may be exposed, including:
- crawling and playing in grass or gardens that have been
treated with pesticides
- greater amounts may be absorbed directly through the skin,
inhaled, and ingested from placing their hands in their mouths
- children can also be exposed to pesticides through their
The Canadian Cancer Society is a national community-based
organization of volunteers whose mission is the eradication of cancer
and the improvement of the quality of life of people living with
cancer. When you want to know more about cancer, visit our website
www.cancer.ca or call our toll-free, bilingual Cancer Information
Service at 1 888 939-3333.
For further information: Christine Koserski, Ontario Provincial
Canadian Cancer Society: (416) 323-7030, ckoserski @ontario.cancer.ca
New Canadian Regulations Prohibit 85 Lawn and Garden Pesticides
(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2009) The Ontario government is set to
announce sweeping new regulations that will prohibit the use of 85
chemical substances, found in roughly 250 lawn and garden products,
from use on neighborhood lawns. Once approved, products containing
these chemicals would be barred from sale and use for cosmetic
On November 7, 2008, the Ontario government released a proposed new
regulation containing the specifics of the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban
Act, passed last June. Then, Ontario joined Quebec in restricting the
sale and cosmetic use of pesticides but environmental and public
health advocates said then that the new law preempted local by-laws
and actually weakens protections in some municipalities with stronger
local protections. There are over 55 municipalities in Canada where
the residential use, but not sale, of pesticides is banned. The
prohibition of these 85 substances is the latest step in this Act. The
• List of pesticides (ingredients in pesticide products) to be banned
for cosmetic use
• List of pesticide products to be banned for sale
• List of domestic pesticide products to be restricted for sale.
Restricted sale products include those with cosmetic and non-cosmetic
uses (i.e., a product that’s allowed to be used inside the house but
not for exterior cosmetic use), and would not be available self-serve.
The 85 chemicals to be prohibited are listed under “Proposed Class 9
Pesticides” of the Act. Among the 85 pesticides banned for cosmetic
use include commonly used lawn chemicals: 2,4-D (Later’s Weed-Stop
Lawn Weedkiller), clopyralid, glyphosate (Roundup Lawn & Weed Control
Concentrate), imidacloprid, permethrin (Later’s Multi-Purpose Yard &
Garden Insect Control), pyrethrins (Raid Caterpillar & Gypsy Moth
Killer), and triclopyr.
However, golf courses and sports fields remain exempt. The use of
pesticides for public health safety (e.g. mosquito control) is also
exempt. The proposed regulation would also allow for the use of new
‘notice’ signs to make the public aware when low risk alternatives to
conventional pesticides are used by licensed exterminators, such as
the use of corn gluten meal to suppress weed germination in lawns.
The prohibition, once passed, would likely take effect in mid-April.
Stores would be forced to remove banned products from their shelves or
inform customers that the use of others is restricted to certain
purposes. Residents must then dispose of banned products through
municipal hazardous waste collection, and use restricted products for
only prescribed purposes. Errant users would first receive a warning,
but fines would later be introduced. By 2011, stores will be required
to limit access to the pesticides, keeping them locked behind glass or
cages and ensuring that customers are aware of limitations on use
before taking them home.
In light on impeding legislation to restrict pesticide use, the
Canadian division of Home Depot announced on April 22, 2008 that it
will stop selling traditional pesticides in its stores across Canada
by the end of 2008 and will increase its selection of environmentally
friendly alternatives. Other garden supply and grocery stores have
already stopped selling certain pesticides in Ontario.
This proposed prohibition would have the most impact on 2,4-D, the
most popular and widely used lawn chemical. 2,4-D, which kills broad
leaf weeds like dandelions, is an endocrine disruptor with predicted
human health risks ranging from changes in estrogen and testosterone
levels, thyroid problems, prostate cancer and reproductive
abnormalities. A recent petition filed with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and supported by Beyond Pesticides calls for the
cancellation of 2,4-D, its products and its tolerances in the U.S.
Other lawn chemicals like glyphosate (Round-up) and permethrin have
also been linked to serious adverse chronic effects in humans.
Imidacloprid, another pesticide growing in popularity, has been
implicated in bee toxicity and the recent Colony Collapse Disorder
(CCD) phenomena. The health effects of the 30 most commonly used lawn
pesticides show that: 14 are probable or possible carcinogens, 15 are
linked with birth defects, 21 with reproductive effects, 24 with
neurotoxicity, 22 with liver or kidney damage, and 34 are sensitizers
Sources: The Star Ontario, The Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Pesticides in Combination Shown to Increase Endangered Salmon Threat
(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2009) A new study published in the March
2009 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives finds that pesticide
combinations cause more harm to endangered salmon than ndividual
pesticide exposure. This means that single-pesticide risk assessments
required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inadequately
Mixtures of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides are commonly
detected in freshwater habitats that support threatened and endangered
species of Pacific salmon. According to the researchers from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and
Washington State University, these pesticides inhibit the activity of
acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and thus have potential to interfere with
behaviors that may be essential for salmon survival.
The researchers measured brain AChE inhibition in juvenile coho salmon
exposed to sublethal concentrations of the organophosphates diazinon,
malathion, and chlorpyrifos, as well as the carbamates carbaryl and
carbofuran. The pesticides were tested individually and in
combination. They plotted AChE levels on a curve to determine whether
the toxicologic responses to binary mixtures were additive,
antagonistic (lesser than additive) effect, or synergistic (greater
The authors observed addition and synergism, with a greater degree of
synergism at higher exposure concentrations. Several combinations of
organophosphates were lethal at concentrations that were sublethal in
single-chemical trials. Combinations of diazinon and malathion, as
well as chlorpyrifos and malathion had the greatest impact (lowest
AChE activity). Previous studies have shown that many fish species die
after high rates of acute brain AChE inhibition.
The authors believe that their results have important implications for
ecological risk assessments, particularly those that focus on the
toxicity of individual chemicals as the basis for estimating impacts
to imperiled aquatic species.
“Salmon exposed to mixtures containing some of the most intensively
used insecticides in the western U.S. showed either concentration-
additive or synergistic neurotoxicity as well as unpredicted
mortality. This implies that single-chemical assessments will
systematically underestimate actual risks to ESA-listed species in
salmon-supporting watersheds where mixtures of OP and CB pesticides
occur,” the authors stated in their conclusion. “Moreover, mixtures of
pesticides that have been commonly reported in salmon habitats may
pose a more important challenge for species recovery than previously
On November 18, 2008, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
released a Biological Opinion that sets forth a plan for protecting
Pacific salmon and steelhead from three toxic organophosphate
pesticides. The decision comes after almost a decade of legal
wrangling between salmon advocates and the federal government.
In the biological opinion, federal wildlife scientists comprehensively
reviewed the science regarding the impacts of pesticides on salmon and
ultimately concluded that current uses of the insecticides
chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion jeopardize the existence of
these imperiled fish. The biological opinion prescribes measures
necessary to keep these pesticides out of water and to protect salmon
populations in Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho.
Learn more about pesticide and water contamination at Bridge to an
Organic Future, the 27th National Pesticide Forum, April 3-4, in
March 04, 2009
Keeping it green: naturally
By Keith Vass - Victoria News
Spring hasn’t quite sprung, but to avoid a possible $1,000 fine, it
might be time for some to re-think how they plan on keeping their
After an 11-month ‘education’ period, the City of Victoria’s pesticide
use reduction bylaw went into effect Jan. 11. The new rules limit
which chemicals can be applied to residential properties without first
obtaining a city permit.
The bylaw was passed out of a recognition “that short-term convenience
no longer outweighs long-term benefit,” said Coun. Sonya Chandler. The
goal was to protect both the environment and human health from risks
associated with non-essential use of chemical pesticides.
The rules come with a list of 46 allowable “reduced-risk” products
(available on the city’s website). Other products aren’t banned but
can only be used after a city bylaw enforcement officer has viewed a
property and issued a permit, if they agree a restricted pesticide is
the only option to control an infestation. All of the restricted
products will remain on store shelves, since the power to restrict
sales rests with the province.
While he has no objection to reducing pesticide use, the way the bylaw
is structured rankles one lawn care company owner.
Local Weed Man franchise owner Dave Carney said it’s unfair that
institutions such as schools, hospitals and the provincial government,
as well as industrial and commercial properties, have been left out,
despite accounting for a large part of the city’s land area.
He also points out that by basing the bylaw around a city-determined
list of safe products, it creates a situation where new products
approved by federal regulators won’t be allowed in the city, even if
they’re safer than anything currently on the city’s list.
“They don’t have the expertise that Health Canada has in determining
what products can be considered safe,” he said.
Chandler agrees with Carney on the first point and hopes to see
institutions included in a future revision of the bylaw. If the second
concern proves valid, she expects council would take a second look at
how to ease access to new products.
Not surprisingly given the early date, city bylaw officer Tim Weckans
said there have been no $25 permit applications for proscribed
products yet. And while the maximum fine for spraying without a permit
is $1,000, his office will be continuing an “educational approach”
Nadine Brodeur, executive director at the Greater Victoria Compost
Education Centre, said awareness about eco-friendly lawn care and
gardening is already pretty high in Victoria, regardless of the bylaw.
But she said more information needs to get out there, especially at
the retail level.
“(People) go into a store to buy pesticides and don’t necessarily
realize (there are alternatives),” she said. “And the store clerks
don’t necessarily have alternatives and don’t know how to communicate
that education to them.”
For those who need to make the jump to chemical-free gardening this
year, the compost education centre’s introductory class to composting
is a good start, Brodeur added.
“What you’re doing with compost is you’re building the soil
integrity,” she said. “And when the soil has not just the
macronutrients that are added when you add commercial fertilizer, but
all the micronutrients, you’re actually really strengthening the
Strong, healthy plants have less problems and strong, healthy soil
negates the need for pesticides and herbicides, she said.
Find this article at:
Québec activist wins pollution battle against City
by Dianne Saxe
sunbather by the waterEnvironmentalist Guy Drouin has won a long and
lonely battle against sewage pollution by the City of Sainte-Agathe-
des-Monts. On February 18, he obtained an injunction from the Superior
Court of Québec, requiring the City to significantly reduce sewage
bypasses from its sewage treatment plant. The City and the province
are also required to pay his legal and expert fees, and modest
The City argued that it had operated the plant to the satisfaction of
the provincial regulator. This was true; the City and the province had
both been inexcusably lax. Drouin proved that the City had operated
its sewage treatment plant without essential monitoring equipment for
more than 10 years. As a result, its regular reports to the Ministry
of Urban Affairs about the operation of the plants were false. In
addition, the City had failed to properly maintain the plant.
These sewage bypasses had caused significant deterioration in the
quality of Raymond Lake. According to Judge Cullen, “it is high time
for these authorities to finally take their responsibilities
Drouin did not win a complete victory. Many of his sample results were
rejected, on the grounds that he had not been properly trained in the
correct taking of samples, and on the ground that his passion for the
issue had made him biased. The court refused to order the province to
enforce its laws against the City, on the ground that this was beyond
Still, this was an extraordinary and rare success, and the public owes
Mr. Drouin a large debt of gratitude. Sometimes, you can and should
fight City Hall.
Headline News 3/4/2009
Florida County Considers Landscaping Ordinance
Polk County commissionerss will vote March 4 on the proposed ordinance
that promotes water conservation.
Commissioners in Polk County, Fla., will have much input from the
community to consider March 4 when deciding whether to approve a
proposed landscaping ordinance designed to promote water conservation.
Polk home builders don't want further restrictions placed on how they
landscape yards of new houses. The Sierra Club has asked the
commission to prohibit the use of cypress mulch. And sawmill owners
see no reason to restrict the use of cypress mulch from reputable
According to Chandra Frederick, the county's director of land
development, the proposed ordinance is one way the county is
addressing a decreasing water supply.
"By 2013, we have to come up with alternative water supply because our
county's groundwater will have reached capacity," Frederick said. "We
have to identify alternative sources. Conservation is a source because
you save instead of use."
The proposed ordinance requires a checklist or landscape and buffering
plan to be submitted during the permitting process for new irrigation
systems and site construction plans.
If passed, the ordinance will require:
50 percent of irrigation systems to be low volume or micro-irrigation.
All non-turf areas to be served by low-volume irrigation or not
irrigated at all.
The use of Florida-friendly plants.
No turf used in landscape areas less than 4 feet wide.
At least 3 inches of mulch used in planting beds and around trees,
with cypress mulch prohibited.
The addition of tree requirements, such as root barriers, plant grade
and sunlight/soil-sensitive placement.
The ordinance also will require parking lots to include canopy trees
and landscape islands that are large enough to support the trees in
Frederick said the ordinance applies to residential and commercial
"It's about using Florida-friendly principles in any landscaping we
do," she said.
But Scott Coulombe, executive director of the Polk County Builders
Association, said there is a better way to accomplish water
"We do support eco-friendly homes, but we'd rather educate than
legislate," Coulombe said. "I do not want an increase to the cost of a
He prefers to take the $24,000 grant the association received from the
Southwest Florida Water Management District and $5,000 received from
the county to provide written materials and live displays of Florida-
friendly landscaping to teach county residents how to save water
though proper landscaping.
"We already support water conservation and Florida-friendly
landscaping, and here comes the government to tell us how to do it,"
But Marian Ryan, conservation chairman for the Ancient Islands Group
of the Sierra Club, believes there aren't enough restrictions in the
"It's still not where it needs to be, but they will be addressing
(issues) in incremental stages," she said of the county staff. "They
need to have specifics about hard piping of the irrigation system."
She also wants to see a certification program put in place for those
who install irrigation systems. This, she said, will keep unqualified
individuals from putting in substandard and inefficient systems.
She is glad the county added the prohibition of cypress mulch.
Ryan sees the use of cypress mulch as detrimental to Florida cypress
swamps because harvesting the trees disrupts the delicate ecosystem.
"It's like everything else," Ryan said. "It's being overharvested
"Cypress swamps provide flood protection, water filtration, important
habitat for all sorts of species and storm protection for costal
areas," she added.
But Brian Meier, general manager of Kempfer Sawmill in St. Cloud, said
prohibiting cypress mulch takes business away from companies that
harvest trees responsibly. His company only works with cypress trees.
"We create cypress mulch as a byproduct," Meier said, adding that
Kempfer Sawmill's primary product is lumber.
"We have a vested interest in properly using our forest because that
is how we make our money. It is a valuable resource that we use to its
highest potential so there is a constant supply," Meier said.
Meier said cypress mulch is considered the Cadillac of mulch because
it has a natural oil that acts as an insect repellent and it also
retains moisture well. And because it is shredded, it doesn't float
out of a flower bed when it rains.
Warning Industry Propaganda Below
Attention News Editors:
McGuinty government ignores science, new regs likely to do more harm
OTTAWA, March 4 /CNW/ - Agricultural and landscaping groups, along
Canada's plant science industry, are disappointed with the Ontario
government's regulations banning the sale and use of pesticides for
gardens. They say the government has failed to develop a solid,
foundation for the new regulations and warn the decision will have
"Ontario farmers are disappointed that these regulations are not
science-based," said Bette Jean Crews, president of Ontario Federation
Agriculture. "The government is discouraging innovation with these
and that jeopardizes the ability of farmers to continue to produce a
affordable supply of healthy foods. Without access to the newest pest
innovations, Ontario farmers will soon find they are at a competitive
"These regulations send a negative - and inaccurate - message to
public about the adequacy of the federal regulatory system and at the
time increases the risk of Ontario farms being exposed to pest
from non-agricultural land," said Paul Wettlaufer, a farmer and vice-
Agricultural Groups Concerned about Resources and the Environment
"These regulations will have a negative impact on Ontario's 20,000
care professionals and Ontarians are soon going to notice the lack of
effective options available to control fungus on their roses, insects
grubs in their lawns, or weeds taking over their patios and turf,"
DiGiovanni, executive director of Landscape Ontario.
"The Ontario government has created an environment of uncertainty
makes it unlikely Canada will be seen as a place to invest as newer
effective pest control products are made available in other
Lorne Hepworth, president of
CropLife Canada. "The consequences of these
irrational decisions won't be felt immediately, but one day Ontarians
realize that the products this government is banning provided safe and
effective ways of dealing with pest problems that are detrimental to
health and safety, and which cause landscape and structural losses
real and significant financial costs."
In Canada, all pesticides, whether they are intended for
lawn and garden, golf, forestry, or structural pest control, must meet
standards set by Health Canada before they are approved for sale and
Under this rigorous regulatory system, Canadians have access to
that can be safely used and which are proven to be effective at
pests that can create a myriad of problems.
These four associations represent more than 40,000 Ontario farm
20,000 lawn care professionals and nursery
operations in Ontario, and the
manufacturers, developers and distributors of Canada's $1.4 billion
control products industry.
For further information: Neil Currie, Ontario Federation of
(519) 821-8883; Nadine Sisk, CropLife Canada, (613) 230-9881 Ext 3224;
Schaer, AGCare, (519) 837-1326; Gavin Dawson, Landscape Ontario, (905)
The MOE announced today they are siding with Dr. Gideon Forman of the
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE)
OTTAWA, March 4 /CNW Telbec/ - The MOE announced today they are
with Dr. Gideon Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians for
Environment (CAPE) and are banning thousands of jobs in Ontario's
industry. CAPE has been linked to fake medical reports and individuals
as medical doctors surrounding the support for Ontario's Cosmetic
Ban Act, 2008.
M-REP Communications on behalf of thousands of workers, whose jobs
now at risk, provided documents countering the government's stance on
lawncare industry. Jeffrey Lowes of M-REP stated "the Government
not exercise any discretion or due diligence on this file. Every
report or claim made by activists could not be supported by fact. In
cases fabricated information was used." Lowes went further to state
currently looking into the millions of dollars paid to activists
Trillium Foundation and we have our concerns over large sums of money
transferred directly to some groups and individuals with direct ties
Ontario's Lawncare Industry is over $1.26 billion a year, with
$577 million spent on equipment and wages
There are 21000 full time employees
whose jobs are now at risk.
Overall the act was not based on science and Ontario will lose
the Government's position. The Industry is left will little choice but
to exercise every possible legal option and take civil action against
groups who facilitated one of the largest frauds in Canadian history.
Given the questionable nature of information used by the Ontario
Government, we will be seeking an injunction against the Cosmetic
Pesticide Ban Act, 2008 (C-64) if the government goes through with the
injunction will only cover the sections of the Act that impede the
For further information: Jeffrey Lowes, Government Relations, (613)
483-7855, fax (514) 221-4176
March 3rd, 2009
Turf King Hamilton
Attention MLA's and others who should be aware of this issue
The McGuinty Government has leaked or given information to Gideon
from CAPE (Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment)
the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban implementation. See articles by Moira
lished today in the Star, Hamilton Spectator and others in
chain. (article follows)
Why is it that Activist groups were informed before any of
whose livelihoods are directly affected by these regulations.
(Gideon Forman is
in the know but not any of the professional applicators who are
Lawn professionals are OUTRAGED, and ANGRY. Is there a CONSPIRACY?
Do the Activists and the McGuinty Government have a secret agreement ?
CAPE Newsletter Summer 2008)
The article has reported an Implementation that talks about
a retail sale
phase–in (continuing until 2011) .
BUT WHAT ABOUT PROFESSIONAL APPLICATORS ????
WHAT HAPPENS TO the INDUSTRY ?
IF that is true, how is that a level playing field ?????
( ... certain pesticides will be allowable for limited public use
but not profes-
sionally licensed applicators ??)
According to an Ontario Turfgrass Research Foundation (see
21,000 JOBS and 1.2 BILLION in Revenue for Ontario Lawn Care Alone !
The Lawn care industry can keep jobs in Ontario without government
(unlike the auto industry) (jobs that are sustainable ! )
How is allowing the untrained consumers to still use products
only professionals FAIR ?
This clearly puts professionals at a major disadvantage and
Link to OTRF Reports on value of Ontario Lawn Care Jobs:
Industry Dismayed by Lack of Science Supporting Ontario's Decision to
Ban Pest Control Products
OTTAWA, March 4 /CNW Telbec/ - The Canadian Consumer Specialty
Association (CCSPA) is dismayed by the Government of Ontario's
today to ban over 250 federally registered pest control products and
approximately 95 active ingredients approved by Health Canada. The
says there has been a lack of willingness to include appropriate
criteria to justify the provincial government moving forward on this
"The regulation, guidance to stakeholders, lists of products and
ingredients plus the timelines are simply inconsistent and
believe that regulation was finalized hastily and will need revision,"
Shannon Coombs, CCSPA President. "As corporate stewards, we ensure the
of Ontario have the highest standard of safety and environmental
when using our products according to label directions. Through
development, environmental stewardship, and adherence to strict
provincial regulatory requirements, our members provide safe and
products to consumers".
The new Ontario regulation does not provide for a predictable or
transparent regulatory process or allow innovative products to come to
marketplace. Without any clear, science-based criteria or process,
manufacturers will be reluctant to invest in new technology and jobs
Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) evaluates
registered product and all of their ingredients, and examines any
for health (including cancer) or environmental impact before allowing
sale in Canada. PMRA also conducts extensive science-based
active ingredients and products currently in the marketplace. Health
science-based risk assessments are consistent with the U.S.
Protection Agency, European Commission and pesticide regulators in all
OECD countries around the world.
The Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association is a national
organization representing Canada's consumer, industrial and
specialty products industry.
For further information: Shannon Coombs, President, CCSPA, (613)
232-6616 ext. 18