The public’s introduction to the pesticide debate came in 1962, with the publishing of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring. In it, she raised some serious and thought-provoking arguments against chemical use in the natural world and how it could kill, alter and forever change the natural habitat. DiGiovanni remembers the book well. In fact, it was the first book he read on the pesticide issue when he was still in school. “She (Carson) was the first to pay attention to the effects of these chemicals, especially DDT, and because of this book, DDT was essentially banned,” he says. It was because of Carson that the environmental movement began.
The movement grew steadily over the years, and, says DiGiovanni, the environmental groups evolved a demonizing, generalized and sensationalized view of all pesticides, ignoring the benefits of responsible use.
The second wave came in the mid- to late-90s when municipalities began looking at restricting or banning the use of pesticides on its own lands (public properties). Ottawa was first, with Guelph, Toronto, Oakville, Mississauga and Waterloo all developing partial or complete bans on public property between 1996 and 1998.
In 2000, the anti-pesticide movement gained a new mentor in Charles Caccia, a long-standing MP for the Davenport area in Toronto and once Environment Minister in Trudeau’s cabinet. As chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, Caccia was responsible for the creation of a report to the federal government, entitled “Pesticides: Making the right choice” in May, 2000. The result Caccia wanted – the ban of pesticides on public and private lands – was not forthcoming. Instead, the government’s answer was the “Healthy Lawns” initiative, promoting IPM – the balanced view the horticulture industry continues to support today (see www.healthylawns.net).
Then came Hudson, Quebec. This municipality had passed a bylaw restricting the use of pesticides not only on public land, but also on private property. The basis: the precautionary principle. Spraytech, a Quebec-based lawn care company, challenged the position, taking it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in 2001 that municipalities had jurisdiction to pass bylaws based on the precautionary principle – erring on the side of caution when faced with public health concerns, even in the absence of scientific proof.
It was a definite win for the environmental groups, in a political arena that supported campaigns based more on emotion than scientific evidence. “These groups tried to pass legislation at the provincial and federal levels but could not because those levels had experts with good, sound information and advice,” says DiGiovanni. This was not the case at the municipal level, and with direct access to the homeowner and concerned council members, these groups met little resistance, allowing them to wage emotionally charged campaigns and hand out sample bylaws demanding that councils take action.
Municipality by municipality, bylaws are being considered, with some passing bylaws restricting the use of pesticides and others taking a more IPM-based approach – looking at total plant health care as a solution and using pesticides in extreme infestations. Others still look to organize committees to further discuss the viability of a ban – a practice that DiGiovanni sees as a duplication of efforts and a huge waste of resources. “This has been done over and over again in many municipalities. The province should take leadership of this issue and preempt the municipalities,” he says. “Then there would be one set of rules for all.”
What has come from these discussions is a recognized need for sound horticultural practices to control insects and diseases, thereby decreasing the reliance on pesticides. Chemical control would be used only in cases of infestation or potential infestation within a framework of optimal horticultural practices. It’s a position that LO has been touting all along, and is the main theme of the IPM Accreditation process established for the lawn care and grounds maintenance sectors. It’s also the premise of the new City of Toronto bylaw, looking to use IPM practices. “It’s amazing the battles waged over pesticide use, especially considering that the horticulture industry uses only two per cent of total pesticides. The rest falls to the agriculture sector,” says DiGiovanni.
Education is very important, not only for the homeowner but also the municipalities. Industry representatives will continue to be present at the municipal level, and will continue to promote IPM and Plant Health Care as the “responsible use” solution. We will also appeal to the federal government to allow products with ultra-low toxicity already approved for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in the Canadian market, says DiGiovanni.
The ultimate solution, and one the industry continues to promote, is to take control out of the hands of the municipalities and deal with the pesticide issue on a provincial level. “If we can pre-empt the municipalities from being involved, then hopefully the decisions will be based on science and not on emotion,” explains DiGiovanni. On the retail front, increased education efforts aimed at the consumer will look at the horticultural steps needed to ensure healthy plants. This is the first step in pest prevention, with control products used only when needed.
DiGiovanni has been involved in the pesticide debate for a number of years and finds it ironic that the two sides are closer in opinion than they think. “ If you listen very carefully to all sides, you will find there is a great deal of common ground. All sides agree that a focus on horticulture will reduce reliance on pesticides. All sides agree it is desirable to reduce pesticide risk. Would it not be better to stop the fighting and achieve true results by promoting good horticulture?”
Click here for an article by Wes Porter that appeared in the Toronto Free Press.
Click here for an article by Judi McLeod, Toronto Free Press.
- Toronto IPM bylaw a major victory for lawn care sector
Roger Mongeon of Weed Man shares his view of the City of Toronto IPM bylaw. - What to expect in the bylaw aftermath
Ken Pavely, LO’s IPM Turfgrass Specialist suggests education is key in bylaw aftermath.
