“Value health over pretty lawns” Pesticide Bylaw

Neil Arya

The Record

June 20, 2003 p A 11

I write in support of a bylaw banning cosmetic use of pesticides in Waterloo Region.

I have been a full time family doctor in Waterloo for more than a decade. I am also an Adjunct Professor in Environment and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo, a member of the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP) Environmental Health Committee and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). I have served as President of Physicians for Global Survival and President of St. Mary’s Hospital Medical Staff and was a member of the Waterloo Citizen’s Environmental Advisory Committee. I have spoken about the effect of pesticide use to Family Physicians in academic settings and to community groups in the Region.

In the past the Region of Waterloo has seen itself as an environmental leader, in the early 1990’s with its recycling programme and in the late 1990’s with one of the first comprehensive smoking bylaws. Recently when faced the challenge of poor air quality the community has mobilized to actively seek solutions. Such issues are of vital importance to my patients and to people and businesses considering moves to the area.

On the pesticide issue at one time the City of Waterloo was a leader in stopping the use of pesticides on city lands and used as an example throughout North America. Sadly we have fallen behind recently, having been overtaken by the province of Quebec and many other municipalities throughout the country including Halifax and most recently Toronto.

Pesticides, by their very nature are killers-that is how they work and why they are called ‘cides’. Various pesticides have been used as weapons of war, as for example with Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. Designed to kill selectively fungi, plants, parasites, insects, rodents and other creatures that we would prefer not being around, unfortunately they are not so selective in their effects in the real world. Though $30 billion (US) of pesticides are applied around the world each year, 95% do not reach their target.

Acute, well-recognized effects include convulsions, tremors, headaches, nausea, vomiting, asthma exacerbations, skin rashes and heart block. They are known to poison 3,000,000 people worldwide annually and according to the World Health Organization and CAPE to kill 20,000-200,000 people per year. In subgroups most exposed such as golf course superintendents, pesticide applicators and farmers, they have been associated with such cancers as leukemias, non- Hodgkin’s lymphomas and sarcomas as well as neurological, behavioural, reproductive, hormonal and other end organ damage.

As was the case with the smoking bylaw we are being told by those with a vested interest in the issue, that the evidence for harm is questionable that individual freedoms are being violated, that health is only one part of the equation, and that we will not be able to manage such diseases as West Nile with a ban on cosmetic use of pesticides. Each of these assertions is grossly misleading. Moreover, the liberal use of such chemicals threatens the rights of individuals to lead healthy lives. The primary responsibility of any government is to protect the safety and security of its citizens.

Some have cited the fact that pesticides are currently legal and argued that they are safe when used as directed. Unfortunately this is not always true of government-approved chemicals, as we have found out to our sorrow in the last few decades. Lead, mercury, PCBs and asbestos to name just a few substances, have resulted in tremendous ecosystem damage, severe health problems, massive cleanup operations and sizeable legal bills.

Monitoring by the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency is unfortunately hampered by limited resources. Industry often conducts its own studies, applying safety margins that do not adequately address unpredictable local conditions, additive or multiplicative effects of combination pesticides, or the effects of formulants. Further, vulnerable populations such as infants, who will not be able to read instructions, may lack vital detoxifying enzymes and are often close to the ground where the spraying occurs may not be safeguarded by such a ‘safety’ factor. The elderly, joggers, pregnant women and their fetuses are also especially vulnerable. Over the years, pesticides have regularly been removed from the market because of unacceptably toxic effects. Some of the pesticides used today will undoubtedly share the same fate.

Alternatives to pesticide use include seeding, proper plant selection for local conditions, erecting physical barriers to pest movement, the use of natural predators and improved basic lawn and garden practices. Application of common soaps, oils and other household products can be very effective at getting rid of undesirable species.

Useful sources of information include the websites of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, www.ocfp.on.ca The Pesticide Action Network North America www.panna.org, Physicians for Social Responsibility www.psr.org and Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment www.cape.ca , all of which back municipal efforts to ban pesticides and have useful documentation of adverse health effects. If such information is not persuasive and the actions of other municipalities do not convince you, the Reports of the federal government’s Standing Committee on the Environment http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/04-toc-e.html and the Toronto Board of Health http://www.toronto.ca/health/hphe/pesticides/healtheffects.htm hopefully will be able to do so.

I just returned from a trip to Cuba and Costa Rica. Cuba moved away from pesticide use in the early 1990s for internal economic reasons and because of the US blockade. Physicians and farmers cite the many health advantages which have accrued to the local population and to the farmer community. The organic agriculture movement is strong and growing with Canadian farmers traveling regularly to Cuba to learn from the Cuban experience. In Costa Rica, a country dedicated to protecting the rainforest and ecologically-sound tourism, I visited a reserve created by a Canadian physician to secure a sustainable future for his children where pesticides are forbidden and sound environmental practices are entrenched.

As physicians the first rule that we are taught is Primum non nocere: first of all, do no harm. Environmentalists seek the same basic protection for the ecosystems on which we depend for survival: respect for the precautionary principle, a reasonable demonstration of safety buttressed by the principle of ‘reverse onus’ on those selling a product and closed, clean production processes with zero discharge of foreign noxious substances. None of these principles are met by the cosmetic application of pesticides.

Please do not ignore the growing body of scientific evidence, the wishes of your constituents, the risks to health for my patients and for your children and grandchildren and the aspirations of people who wish to relocate to our Region expecting ecologically friendly policies.

Responding to all of these considerations, please enact legislation to eliminate the cosmetic use of pesticides.

Sincerely

Neil Arya MD