Each month we pose a question to garden centre members via e-mail, and print the responses. In the wake of the provincial government’s announcement about its proposed pesticide ban, we thought we’d look at consumer attitudes to alternative pest control products. This month’s question was: What are your customers saying about the proposed pesticide ban? Are you finding customers receptive to alternative products?
Ken Parker, Sweet Grass Gardens, Hagersville: Sweet Grass Gardens specializes in local native and North American species only. We have provided ecological solutions for the past 15 years. Education has been a focus: selecting correct and appropriate plants specifically for project sites and soils.
The majority of our customer base are already looking for alternatives to pesticide uses in the landscape. Many are shopping for a more natural and organic approach to gardening. I get the feeling that many clients want a manicured turfgrass. Without the use of chemicals for lawn care – I can’t see how they will manage. I am not familiar, nor confident in all the claims made by “Organic Lawn Care Companies.” Bottom line – small yards should eliminate lawn and covert to gardens or patio.
Many customers are glad about the proposed pesticide ban. Several have commented on the “double standard” of allowing certain industries the use of chemicals and pesticides.
Are our customers receptive to alternative products? Perhaps willing to try alternatives. Again, our customer base is already sold on the idea of the ban and non-chemical approach to gardening.
Anonymous: Consumers don’t yet realize what is going to be affected by the ban. They still think that when there is a problem, there will BE a solution.
If they haven’t used a pesticide in the past, they likely won’t in the future. The fallout from the electorate when those who have invested thousands in their properties in the past only to have it be ravaged by disease and pests will be considerable, of that I am certain. Certainly those clients of ours that are of that type will be enraged when it comes time to deal with the problem.
It’s not a question of being receptive to alternative products. It’s a question of the efficacy of the alternatives that they have no clue about. Just because they have a soap-based insecticide available will not mean that it will kill grubs on the lawn. They will try. They will be disappointed. They will then be faced with an even more expensive solution to the problem (replacement, alternative plantings, whatever). And if no measure has been made for newer products in the law, then what’s the point?
Man, have they ever opened a major can of worms with this. Good luck to them in enforcing it. Many I’ve talked to will apply what they have, regardless.
John Ballast, Stonepath Greenhouses & Landscaping, Tweed: While many people are becoming more receptive to alternative controls, there is still a strong contingent that is doubtful of the effectiveness compared to traditional methods. Also, many people have paid extra money for alternatives and feel that the result has not been worth the investment (from an efficacy standpoint, not an environmental friendliness one).
Bottom line here is that we all want to be earth friendly but results and price are still at the forefront of many people’s purchase decisions.
Anonymous: Customers are receptive to alternate products for next year if the ban is in place. They won’t have a choice and they are aware of that. We have many customers who use alternative products now.
Customers do resent government interference (e.g.: no clotheslines — now you can have a clothesline).
Anonymous: Most of my customers are elated at the proposed pesticide ban. While well intentioned, however, I fear the province and various cities will be embroiled in costly lawsuits for years over this issue. The problem as I see it is this: many toxic products should be de-registered and be superceded by safer materials. With a broad sweeping pesticide ban, all pesticides may be seen equally in new legislation which will then open the door to massive legal challenges. Lawyers are usually more crafty than politicians are smart. Under both federal and provincial existing legislation, a pesticide is any substance or device which kills or controls a pest. Chlorine, or salt, when used as an algacide in a swimming pool would be a pesticide. Rubbing alcohol, when used to control scale on an oleander is considered a pesticide under strict definitions. Even Ed Lawrence’s remedy for life, of forty parts water to one part dish soap is a pesticide recomendation.
Thus, it is likely that the noble intent of saving the earth from the most toxic products, will get mired in definitions under existing law… such a pity.
