Ontario to ban cosmetic pesticides

http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/416766

McGuinty to announce province-wide ban on cosmetic use of pesticides

Apr 21, 2008 05:54 PM
Keith Leslie
THE CANADIAN PRESS

 

But not on golf courses. Why make an exception?

 

I hope that was a rhetorical question riddled with sarcasm?

An elected government always watches where their votes come from. I would venture that the majority of the faction looking for a pesticide ban are not the golfing set, most suburbanites wouldn't vote out a government for this, & that everyone conceeds that the majority of farmers need to use pesticides to remain competitive....so a safe government choice all-round.

 

Just another way to shut the environmental bullies up! People who think that their way is the only way and the rest of the world must live by their rules. It is too bad I have never met one yet that actually knew a darn thing about what they demanding!

Quote: "The Ontario College of Family Physicians has said the long-term effects of exposure to pesticides can be devastating, especially to pregnant women and children, leading to learning disabilities, birth defects and miscarriages."

Well there are 3000 pesticide products in this world, but you notice no one will pin point one particular product. They just keep using the word pesticide, like they're all the same? Whatever! And it is because the majority of the products they are banning have never been proved to have any of these ill effects on humans. But, that statement won't please the bullies or get votes.

There are many extremely toxic pesticides and many non toxic pesticides.

For instance I have personally read thousands of pages of research on 2,4-D completed by many Universities, Health Organizations, and the American Cancer Society. With all of the conclusions being the same. " 2,4-D is considered to be of absolute no risk to human health when mixed and applied properly for the use in lawn care. There has never been a documented case of 2,4-D related to cancer.

I would give just about anything to read the documented research that warrants the banning of 2,4-D.

Copper, Sulphur, and Iron, these pesticides are considered to be organic products used in tree spraying and for moss control. As long as the bullies say they're Ok our governments will likely permit to use them. These heavy metals have been proven over and over to be very toxic to humans.

I just wish pesticide bylaws were actually well thought out. Vancouver City has a pesticide bylaw, now if you actually reversed it and (banned what is permitted -- and -- permitted what is banned), you may then have a bylaw which can protect the public from toxic pesticides. It is a complete joke, but that is what Sam Sullivan and a $50 budget gets you. Maybe the Ontario Government will budget $100 towards there research before banning.

 

Technically, Iron, Sulphur, and Copper, aren't heavy metals and not very toxic, especially in the forms and concentrations used in agriculture. Anything in excess can be toxic, but you need a lot of those three to be a problem.

Pesticides & Herbicides that mimic hormones or target the nervous system can be pretty dangerous when not used properly as their toxic effect occurs at a much lower exposure thresehold.

 

Not true!

The whole point about pesticides is that they are designed to be lethally toxic to various species which various people designate as pests. A non-toxic pesticide wouldn't kill anything.

When Ontario bans cosmetic pesticide use, and good on them for doing so, they are in effect stopping the designation of species as being pests merely for frivolous reasons like human vanity. We don't need to kill off vast swathes of wildlife just to have garden flowers that don't have spots or holes in their leaves, or to have lawns with nothing but one species of grass in.

 

I wonder what Ontario will use to control EAB and ALHB if they ban pesticides. A complete ban to me on the issue is silly, I still beleive responsible use by licensed professionals is the best method. A reduced selection of products to remove the proven most hazardous makes sense but the blanket, knee jerk bans are not the right thing.

 

The systemic pesticides that have been approved for use in the US for EAB & ALHB aren't approved for use in Canada anyway. Tree removal is the control of choice right now.

 

Ah! For the good old days when we use to use 'Paris Green' to suppress the colorado potato beetle. Ignorance was bliss.

It is not only damage to humans that is of concern.

Herbicides on crops in Manitoba have wiped out most birds. 2-4-D absolutely kills earthworms. I only know a few from personal experience, but the kill rate from the variety of chemicals used is probably unimaginable.

Now if only the fat and well fed generation could click on a menu on their computer labelled, 'Bugs be gone', and 'Weeds be gone', they would be happy. No effort required.

 

So what does the game of golf come under then, considering the amount of money some clubs charge for membership?

I ask because it's not banned on golf courses.

 

2,4-D couldn't even give an earthworm a sniffle, more less kill them. The only way you could even kill an ant with 2,4-D would be to drown it. Insecticides could have ill effects on birds, but herbicides? I am not in tune with all the herbicides used in agriculture in Manitoba, but please don't tell me Round Up is killing all these birds.

I have no idea how spraying a few weeds in your lawn with a product that does not leach more the 2 inches deep and breaks down fully in 7 days, could possibly be killing off swathes of wildlife. When in fact even in agriculture 2,4-D is the main active ingredient in a product called "Grazon" meaning your livestock can graze on fields right after spraying. After 100's of tests, for many years, by dozens of countries world wide cannot find any ill effects or even trace elements of 2,4-D in livestock after grazing on 2,4-D treated fields. This is not the problem.

I am not against the banning of various insecticides and fungicides being sprayed around residential areas. I personally hate the use of these and do not offer many services for insect control with my pesticide business. Insects need a home too, to make the world work. But,,, there does need to be some sort uses allowed. For instance the European Chaffer (grub) that has been the direct cause of massive damage to turf lawns here in Vancouver area. I was at a private site last week where the quotes were over $18,000 to repair the turf. He will have this repaired just in time for the damage to start all over again. When a single treatment of a granular insecticide for under $1000 will rid these pests. This is only one of about 5000 homes effected. This particular insecticide is not severely threating to the environment and only effects insects that chew the turf. These tax paying people want nice lawns, not dirt piles or whatever type of ground cover the bullies (who drive fat SUV's and toss 3 bags of garbage a week into the landfill) tell them they have to use now, as any product available that controls these grubs is banned in the City of Vancouver. And Nemetoads are not effective.

Well thought out pesticide management is best. It is not hard to work together to solve any issue when all parties want to. Pesticides can have a place in this world. We don't live in a bubble yet. Although we don't start addressing more serious issues like air pollution we just might be.

 

Controlling serious invasive aliens which have major adverse effects on native species presumably wouldn't count as 'cosmetic' use.

No idea! That isn't an exception I would support!

 

Thats one of the 'grey' areas I would worry about. I certainly dont encourage the availability etc of nasty products to the regular public but I still maintain that licenced, professional people should have access to a reasonable amount of choices for control of pests.

Why cant we begin to install a system like personal medicine? Doctors must prescribe after thorough diagnosis, a medication. if we as pesticide applicators or dispensers had that ability, perhaps we could curtail the silliness of mass application?

 

Imagine this: Anecdotal evidence I present only.

Kingston, Ontario 1967. My lawn waw coversd with earthworms every night. I had many dandelions, and sprayed with 2-4 D. I never had an earthworm on the lawn for five years. To me this was cause and effect. Now I physically dig the dandelions as required.

Botany U of M. About 1990 told to me by a Prof.
A grad student student working in the fields of grain in Manitoba to ascertain the effectiveness of pesticides and herbicides. (I call them 'cides', possibly sucicides). He asked his boss, "What gives? The fields are full of dead birds". This after crop spraying.

Saskatchewan. The gulls use to cover a field while plowing in the Spring. All were killed off. (I think by mercury treated grain about 1948).

I was raised on a homestead (virgin land full of wildlife) in Northern Saskatchewan. My Father visited after a thirty year absence, and an old timer said, " George, there is something wrong, the birds don't sing anymore". This after the ubiquitious use of 'cides'.

I remember when DDT was introduced about 1944. This was touted to be absolutely harmless to humans. The world knows the disasterous consequences of its use.

I also remember pundits defending tobacco with as much ardor as the 'cides' are being defended by interested parties today.

I muse at the propaganda being propagated by a Fertilizer plant in Medicine Hat. They have a pipe going into the S. Sakatchewan River, and I was told one could drink the water from the discharge pipe. Now I am Irish , and actually don't believe in leapreachauns.

No thinking person will ever put any confidence in any reports from interested parties about the 'cides'.

A microbiologist at Queens told me. If a product kills or damages cells, it is harmful, often with unforseen consequences.

The shelves of hardware stores are filled with 'cides', and they for all intents and purposes are death in a container to some degree. These items are often used simply as an expedient, since people now demand instant gratification with little physical effort.

Bugs,weed, and humans are loved by God. He loved them so much that he always insures that they are in constant association. We must learn to live with these 'creatures' without destroying all, and the 'cide' are not the answer.

Wake up people! Open thine eyes and let the light shine in.

 

You don't believe in leapreachauns? Oh dear, my best mate Patrick back home who hails from just outside Dublin, will argue the toss with you till the cows come home :-)

 

Roundup and other herbicides kill birds indirectly, by destroying their food resources. The birds then die of starvation.

 

>2,4-D is safe<

That's what they said about DDT.

 

From what I hear there are less and less bees and other pollinators and perhaps I am being simplistic but surely if we kill off flowering "weeds" we are also removing a very valuable source of biodiversity which may prove to be crucial to our food supply. We seem to be more and more caught up in quick fixes and a pursuit of what we are told is ideal only to then be redirected to the next fix and ideal.
Margaret

 

Right on Margaret!

Personally, I figure that cosmetic weed control is best done by just yanking the weeds out. I don't use anything stronger than soap, or in bad cases a live chicken let loose in my garden, against pest species (generally bugs), and while I may occasionally complain that St. John's Wort and Blue Clover are taking over my grassy areas, I actually like seeing some non-green colour there so I'm content to just pull out the ones in my garden beds.

Dandilions, ie, are a great pollen and nectar source for bees and other pollinating insects - the kind we want in our gardens certainly, if there are to be fruits and veggies on our plants. They're also useful medicinally, as are a number of other "weed" species.

The whole preoccupation with aesthetics and monoculture in North America and Europe seems to me to be limiting in terms of a diverse garden. I like me a few Dandilions, Thistles, and Clovers in my lawn. It adds visual interest. In terms of agricultural production, what the "weed" species are taking away from the cultivated ones is negligible; sometimes, "weed" species are actually beneficial to the crops. Certainly here in Ecuador it's quite common to see "weedy" fields, but since harvesting is generally done by hand rather than by big machines that poses no problem to the farmers. They just let the cows loose on the fields once the cultivated crop has been taken off.

As for the golf courses, I can't imagine a worse use of space. Notwithstanding, I can see why the politicians have exempted them - they are exemplary of the monocultured grass aesthetic, which has become a symbol of affluence in North America. Imagine the furor if there were dandilions on the greens! Somebody might think we were *gasp* poor! However, the people who have golf club memberships are generally the same people who give financial backing to the politicians, and woe unto the politician who ignores his funders.

 

There's a guidebook to pesticides and their human health effects where 2,4-D etc. could be looked up. I ordered a copy after it was mentioned in the HortIdeas newsletter but whoever I loaned it to never returned it.

http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Toxicology-Agricultural-Chemicals-Sheldon/dp/0815509308

 

This old explanation has been propagated from day one. Funny how the birds are piled up in a field that has just been sprayed. One would think birds were smart enough to look for food elsewhere if nothing was available. I thought the explanation was silly at the time, but it seems to satisfy the scientists, who are probably financed by the pesticide manufacturer.

When you are dead from the direct effect of the 'cide' or starvation brought on by its ues. Guess what? You are still dead before your time.

All this 'cide' nonsense started after WWII. I remind all, it will be a pretty lonely world if all that is left is man, on his bicycle blowing hot air at windmills for power , as he rides off to work.

 

Have just read the article on Integrated Pest Management and am surprised that this method is not more widely spoken about. It does perhaps require more thought and resources but what a payoff for the effort. What about having someone from the UBC Garden on CBC etc as this would, at least in this country, extend the discussion beyond the "one size fits all"?
Margaret

 

Certainly it would, but I doubt that the CBC will ever be that progressive. Unless you can somehow get Daniel Mosquin on the Hour with Strombo.

 

I am not too sure which birds eat lawn weeds. And possibly would die of starvation if I decided I was to spray my lawn to rid clover. Although I do worry about my sons friend who comes over to play baseball and could possibly die if he is stung by a bee roaming across the clover flowers.

We have come along way in science since the 1944 and the days of DDT. Research done today by the World health Organization, Health Canada, EPA, European Health Commission, American Cancer Society, will all concur that 2,4-D mixed and applied properly for the use in lawn care is not a health concern. If you don't believe me then read their scientific reports. Like most people I wouldn't believe anything Monsanto tells me any more then what my Government tells me.

"Glyphosate (Round-up, or Vision in forestry),
>N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, is the most widely used herbicide in
>North America. It consists of the amino acid glycine with a
>phosphate group attached. This amino acid is found free and as a
>component of peptides and proteins in humans and other animals, as
>well as in plants. Phosphate groups are also very common in all
>living organisms. Although glyphosate itself is not found in
>organisms, there is no reason to expect that it would be toxic or
>carcinogenic."
This is a phrase from the Biosciences dept. at a local University. I just pasted this one paragraph regarding the active ingredient in Round Up. You have the components of Round Up in your body right now keeping you alive. It is the weed eaters replacing Round Up that cause as much air pollution as a running 8 cylinder auto engine that will damage the environment.

5 million people living in Ontario, over the past 20 years has there been even 1 person documented anywhere that has been seriously poisoned or died from the use of 2,4-D or Round Up? I have yet to read any evidence.

I have 10 acres, I don't spray my property with any chemicals, regardless of the clover and my friends son's allergies. I love all plants, weeds or not. I am not saying anything good about pesticides, I just do not believe some herbicides are as toxic as people like to tall tell stories that they are. After 22 years in the plant health business, I studied at the University of Guelph and UCFV here in Abbotsford (although I was a drop out), I read plenty of research, and the conclusions are all the same: 2,4-D and Round Up don't pose any serious health concerns. At least not enough to call for an all out banning

You are right Smivies, Copper, Sulphur, and Iron don't pose much of a threat when used in properly applied doses. It is the long term applicator's who have suffered the grunt of physical damage. As you mentioned: Pesticides & Herbicides that mimic hormones or target the nervous system can be pretty dangerous when not used properly as their toxic effect occurs at a much lower exposure thresehold. My body has small twitches from time to time. I'm somewhat convinced it is from the mass use of Diazinon in the 80's and early 90's effecting my nervous system.

 

Thought there was a chemical in the Roundup, not the glyphosate, that is detrimental to spiders and insects. Believe it is not used in France for this reason, but maybe things have changed from a few years ago.