Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/50980
Continued From Previous Page provincial ban is the only way to protect our vulnerable children, our pets and the environment from exposure to harmful cosmetic pesticides." "I'm personally organizing the information along the lines of perspectives," said Committee Chair Bennett. "There is a perspective out there that pesticides are harmful to human health. There's a perspective that pesticides may be harmful to the natural environment and that the risk is too high on both counts, natural environment and even health, to allow the continued use of pesticides." Others believe the current approach is working well, he said. "There's another perspective out there, one that I guess would be founded in the work Health Canada does, and which is supported by the provincial ministry of environment and toxicologists like Dr. Ritter and Dr. Solomon from the University of Guelph, that in fact the pesticides available, cosmetic pesticides available for purchase by consumers, is in fact safe for use." Then there's the question of what the public would like to see happen, Bennett said. "There is the general public, which may or may not be fully informed on the topic. They still have a right to an opinion. That's another perspective, it's a show of hands kind of, it's like a referendum, 'Do you want to ban it or not ban it?' That's another perspective the committee's going to have to look at." Within that, there are those who argue that if there's doubt about pesticide's safety, we should take a cautious approach. "There I think will be an issue around the application or not application of the precautionary principle," said Bennett. "I think that's something the committee is going to have to wrestle with." And then there are the arguments the committee heard from people whose businesses use the chemicals. "Finally, there's a perspective from the point of view of the economy and business. What impact to the economy, to jobs, will there be from any level of restriction on the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides?" Bennett summed up, indicating where the committee will have to go: "Those are all I think valid perspectives that we are somehow going to have to use in fashioning a decision- making matrix and make some recommendations from that." "There's a lot of information that we're going to have to get through," said Rob Fleming, the NDP environment critic and vice- chair of the committee. "All the committee members are learning new things from hearing new perspectives." There's been excellent testimony, thousands of survey responses and hundreds of written submissions, he said. "I think we clearly heard from everyone there are risks, serious risks, associated with pesticide use." There were industry groups that argued that their use of pesticides are not for cosmetic purposes, but even they acknowledged there are risks, Fleming said. "Most industry groups, the main point they've tried to make, is how dramatically they're reducing their pesticide use, so there's an acknowledgement that getting pesticides out of the environment is good for everyone." Asked about the conflicting views of different witnesses citing scientific evidence, Fleming said, "The science is obviously important, but it's not the only consideration for the committee as lawmakers to consider." There is evidence emerging, particularly from Europe, that pesticides harm both human health and the natural environment, he said. "We've heard concerns about risks, and the risks are real," he said. "And we've heard a variety of perspectives about the need to take precautions. In the absence of knowing for certain, it's really better to be safe than sorry." While some argue Health Canada is sufficiently rigorous, Fleming noted others have raised questions about the federal agency's capacity. "They have pulled a lot of products off the shelves in recent decades that were previously assured to be safe," he said. He also pointed out that just this week, the Federal Court of Canada ordered Health Canada to conduct a formal review of Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Vision, Roundup and other herbicides. Asked whether the committee's work will likely lead to a legislated ban on cosmetic pesticide use, Fleming said, "I think that's one option that's certainly a strong one." NDP leader Adrian Dix introduced just such a private member's bill in the spring, which did not pass but led to the formation of the committee after Premier Christy Clark said she also favours a ban. Liberals hold the majority on the committee. "If it is something that's on her agenda, I would expect we would come out with some very clear recommendations that are specific," said Fleming. The prevalance of toxins in the environment is a larger problem, but starting with a ban on cosmetic pesticides is a reasonable place to start, he said. "This is an area where there's an opportunity where they're clearly unnecessary." Different members of the committee will likely give differing weights to the testimonies they heard from the presenters, said Bennett. "Each member is going to approach this differently and we're going to have to find some way of applying this decision making matrix and rating things the way we think makes the most sense," he said. "Hopefully it can be something the committee agrees on and arrives at consensus on, but I can't guarantee that will happen." He said it's too soon to speculate on whether or not the committee will recommend cosmetic pesticide legislation. Article by Andrew Macleod, reprinted from the www.TheTyee.Ca