Yesterday, Calgary city council decided (8-7) to ask the city bureaucracy to put together a plan to ban chemical pesticides. They not only directed that the bylaw ban pesticides, herbicide and fungicides for residential use, but even commerical use by firms that have a permit from the province or federal government. It also removes any exemption allowing their use for agriculture, forestry and health and safety considerations.
But the problem is that there is little to no scientific evidence that these chemicals are harmful to human health and normal concentrations. This is no different than banning DDT – it’s not harmful to people or animals at normal concentrations yet it is still illegal (even though it would save millions of lives from malaria around the world).
Quoting from the CBC website:
Ald. Joe Connelly said council wasted its time getting involved in an area that is beyond its jurisdiction and mandate. He said that the city should rely on Health Canada’s science to determine the safety of pesticides for cosmetic use.
“I am looking for science. I am looking for someone to say there is a definitive link here,” he said, arguing that the city should follow the lead of Health Canada, which has found most pesticides can be used safety.
He is absolutely right. Why are we banning something Health Canada said is safe?
On the other hand, we have cities, towns and provinces falling all over themselves to regulate where people can smoke cigarettes. First it was offices and schools, then restaurants and bars, and now in cars with children present. All in the name of public health, particularly the fear of second hand smoke. Now I will admit that tobacco smoke is hazardous. That is obvious. I’m not sure that second hand smoke is as scary as some play it up to be, and I thought it should be an adult’s choice to enter a smoke-filled bar if they so chose. Then we ban the advertising of tobacco products and force retailers to hide tobacco products behind doors so people can’t see the labels in the store…
But the issue here is that we are banning one set of chemicals completely, even though there is limited data indicating that pesticides are dangerous, and Health Canada says they are safe to use. But we are not banning the other set of chemicals (tobacco), but trying to regulate where you can use it, even though Health Canada says it is highly dangerous to human health.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to ban the dangerous chemical completely?
2 pings
Calgary council makes good decision… « Musings of the Technical Bard says:
3 December 2009 at 8:29 (UTC -7 )
[...] include a ban on cosmetic pesticides. As I’ve written previously on two occasions (here and here), we don’t need a ban on cosmetic pesticides because they aren’t considered [...]
Environmentalists accused of fraud? Can’t be! « Musings of the Technical Bard says:
31 January 2010 at 11:05 (UTC -7 )
[...] wonder if this has been happening in Calgary too? I’ve written on this subject previously (here and here) – and while Calgary’s city council avoided such a ban (here), there are still [...]