Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/50980
THEY ARE SAYING IT ... ABOUT THE PESTICIDE BAN ISSUE Letter To The Editor submitted by Catherine Eiswert via email Monday to WCTA, November 14, 2011 Dear Editor: I am a consultant who works in the sports and recreation industry. My involvement is with the engineering design of natural grass (and synthetic turf) sports fields, but I have very little technical knowledge of pesticide use. However, I am concerned about my clients' ability to maintain their grass turf fields and golf courses in an acceptable condition and would very much like to support the turf grass industry by completing the online survey. However, I am really confused by the government's use in the survey of the term 'cosmetic' when it comes to the use of pesticides. I would consider myself to be an educated layperson in that I have knowledge about why pesticides are needed, that many safe guards are already in place with respect to their regulation/use and so on, but I don't have any detailed expertise or knowledge. In reading the survey, I am inclined to support the ban on cosmetic use of pesticides, but this is ONLY because I don't consider the use of pesticides on golf courses and sports fields to be 'cosmetic' at all. These pesticides are used to keep our turf healthy and disease free. Cosmetic is a not term I would use to describe a product that is used to maintain health and prevent disease. The cosmetics I personally apply each morning do little to maintain the good health of my own skin, nor are they doing a very good job of keeping me from getting sick! Am I missing something? Is the survey been designed to mislead the general public (such as myself), or is 'cosmetic pesticide use' an appropriate term for the application of the type of products used in the turf grass industry? I did read through the recent email material provided by the WCTA on this topic and could not find any reference to this specific issue (namely 'cosmetic'). If you have a chance to respond my question I would very much appreciate it. I will hold off on completing the survey until I hear back. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the industry. TL Catherine Eiswerth AScT (Sports & Recreation Division Manager ( (R.F. Binnie & Associates Ltd. (205-4946 Canada Way, Burnaby, BC 18 WESTERN CANADA TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION This was an open letter dated April, 15th, 2010 to BC'S MLAs from Carolyn C. Gotay, Professor and Canadian Cancer Society Chair in Cancer Primary Prevention at the School Population and Public Health at UBC stating her position with respect to the use of pesticides... Dear British Columbia Members of the Legislative Assembly: I am writing in support of the need for strong pesticide legislation in British Columbia. As Professor and Canadian Cancer Society Chair in Cancer Primary Prevention, my role includes evaluating the research evidence regarding factors that increase the risk of cancer. Cosmetic pesticides are among these risks. Considerable evidence supports a link between pesticides, including agents in cosmetic pesticides, and cancer incidence (that is, new cases of cancer). According to Dr. John Spinelli of the BC Cancer Research Centre,"...there is now sufficient evidence to conclude that there is likely a causal relationship between pesticide use and lymphatic Local MLA Weighs In On Cosmetic Pesticides Kootenay East MLA Bill Bennett has his hands full. Back in July, he was appointed to the Special Committee on Cosmetic Pesticides, a legislative committee made up of Liberal and NDP MLAs. Then in September, Premier Christy Clark asked Bennett to chair the committee after Margaret McDiarmid stepped down to take a cabinet position. Since then, the committee has met six times and been given 21 presentations on cosmetic pesticides. Speakers have ranged from career-long toxicologists, to environmental groups. Bennett said he's heard from Health Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association of Western Canada, and Toxic Free Canada. Some want cosmetic pesticides banned altogether, others suggest banning their retail sale. Still others say there's no need for a ban at all. Now, Bennett said, the only thing that's clear is the committee has a tricky job on their hands. "I think there is a paradox for the committee that we're going to "As is the case with most population-based research, not every study has the same findings. And the specific question of whether a ban of cosmetic pesticide use will lead to decreases in BC's cancer rates cannot be answered conclusively" malignancies"(1). Many studies have been based on the experiences of individuals who have high occupational exposures, such as farmers, with accumulating evidence that cancers in addition to lymphomas are also caused by pesticide exposure, such as prostate and brain cancers (2). Recent evidence from Saskatchewan indicates that family history and pesticide exposure may interact to greatly increase the risk of multiple myeloma; as Continued On Facing Page have to come to grips with," he said. "On one hand, you have a society that is largely scientifically illiterate and afraid of all chemicals. "On the other hand, we have 350 toxicologists who work for Health Canada. "In the case of the very readily available pesticides, they have been determined by Health Canada to be safe to use." Last week, Bennett said, the Director of the Centre of Toxicology at the University of Guelph, Dr. Keith Solomon, gave the committee his point of view. "This man has studied cosmetic pesticides his whole career. His statement to the committee was, 'If you ban these pesticides, at least be honest enough to admit that you're doing so for political reasons and not for scientific reasons.'" Trying to make a report to the legislature based on so much information, and so many vastly differing opinions, is one of the hardest things he's done in his career, Bennett suggested. "It's the most technical exercise that I have encountered since I've been an MLA. It's going to be very difficult from a political perspective. I think society is very suspicious about any chemical and we're not very well informed about these things." Making the task even more difficult is the fact that the committee's members are not scientific experts themselves. "We're not scientists and we're not capable of assessing the different scientific points of view. However, I think we are capable of standing back at the end of this process and looking at which groups and individuals have the most credibility when it comes to an opinion on the risk from chemical pesticides. I frankly think that a toxicologist is an expert in the field," said Bennett. Still, the committee will need to balance scientific opinion with public perception, he pointed out. "In that context of this public suspicion of chemicals, we are going to have to make a recommendation that is science- based but which also meets the expectations of the public." The public consultation stage for the committee finishes on December 16. A final report should be submitted to the legislature by the first week of February. TL For more information, visit leg.bc.ca/pesticidescommittee. Reprinted with permission from the Cranbrook Daily Townsman. Article By Sally Macdonald; Nov 16, 2011