Government Warning - Proposal to Expose you to non-essential pesticides; DEADLIN

[Guest guest]

Government Warning - Proposal to Expose you to non-essential pesticides;

DEADLINE for RESPONSE,

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

The deadline to submit Objections is May 22nd. on the following electronic

submission. We all accumalate toxins, to a point of Total Body Burden.

Needless use of these poisons, only thickens the wallets of the Chemical

Industry ,and the Contractors who apply them. $$$ is their only focus. At

untold

injury to people & pets. Some one recently told me their neighbors pet died

3 days after the neighbour sprayed their lawn.

Urgency is needed to write your MPP and use the e-link below.

 

The change too your life this insiduos toxicity can bring is far ranging,

from

hypersensitivity to pesticides on fruit & veggies, to Neurological

disorders. Dietary restrictions, new allergies & reactions to Consumer goods &

synthetic, rubber and plastic materials. Car interors etc...

 

With Urgency, Gerry Landry

 

 

 

__

Tue, 20 May 2008 08:50:11 -0400

tdborg

Fw: Government Warning - Proposal to Expose you to non-essential

pesticides

glandryredrock

 

send a letter.

 

-

_Cody Smith_ (liberals.green.washed.us.again)

Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:28 AM

Government Warning - Proposal to Expose you to non-essential

pesticides

 

 

 

Letter to the Editor

May 16, 2008

 

We should all be worried about why the Pesticide industry supports Bill 64

re Intentional Exposures to Toxic Pesticides.

 

The public has until May 22, 2008 to comment on the Ontario Environmental

Registry (_www.ebr.gov.on.ca_ (http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/) ) on Proposal #

010-3348 regarding the Liberal government's pesticide exposure legislation

announced on Earth Day. It is crucial that every family comment on this Bill,

or risk

having it passed into law as it stands. It seems, that once again, the

Liberal government has " green washed " us with their campaign promises that

Ontario would lead the country in protecting its citizens from the harmful

effects

of chemical pesticides.

 

Instead, Bill 64 calls for a number of major departures from lessons learned

in our sister province Quebec. Notably, municipalities would NOT be

entitled to enact pesticide bylaws stricter than the provincial law in order to

protect the health of their citizens, exactly the opposite of what Premier

McGuinty has told the public. Cities like Toronto, with functioning bylaws,

would

now be forced to allow the sale of commonly used cosmetic chemical

herbicides, such as RoundUp, which are not on the prohibited substances list.

 

The broad exemptions to a ban on non-essential pesticides are also

concerning. Despite the fact that Quebec has banned chemical herbicides in

their

forestry program since 2001, and Scandinavia far before that, Ontario proposes

to

continue spraying. What about source water protection? What about

Aboriginal Rights? How can the government justify sacrificing the health of

northern

residents in light of known and effective non-chemical alternatives?

 

In Bill 64 golf courses are exempt from the ban despite the fact that these

chemicals are clearly used for cosmetic purposes. There is also an open-ended

exemption in which the Minister can allow " other prescribed uses " . Why

has there been no mention of non-essential chemical herbicide usage along

highways and railways, or under power lines. It is assumed that they will also

be

exempted by the Liberal government.

 

Should we not be concerned with the use of these chemicals on our food by

the agricultural industry or asking ourselves if there are alternative methods?

 

The public has until May 22, 2008 to demand a true pesticide reduction

strategy. There is no reason not to at least meet the minimum standards

which

Quebec has set. Make your vote count at _www.ebr.gov.on.ca_

(http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/) Proposal # 010-3348 because SILENCE = ACCEPTANCE

of Bill 64 =

CONTINUED EXPOSURE TO NON-ESSENTIAL CHEMICAL PESTICIDES ….

 

 

Alan Simard

STRONG president

_www.thestrongroup.org_ (http://www.thestrongroup.org/)

RR#2, Lot 3, Con 9

Kapuskasing ON

P5N 2X8

705-337-1580

 

 

 

More on Pesticide Ban

by Dianne Saxe

(http://envirolaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/pesticide_sign.gif)

Ontario's planned ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides will be implemented

through amendments to the Pesticides Act. The amending statute, the Cosmetic

Pesticides Ban Act, had first reading on April 22. It will:

1. Prohibit the use of pesticides on a proposed list (_List of active

ingredients that may be used for cosmetic purposes and considered to be

prohibited for use_

(http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/land/pesticides/pesticides-activeIngredients.pdf)

);

2. Give exceptions for agriculture, forestry, and the promotion of

public health or safety;

3. Give a conditional exception for golf courses, which must take

precautions to minimize adverse effects; and

4. Prohibit the sale of pesticides on a second list (_List of products

that may be used for cosmetic purposes and considered to be prohibited for

sale_ (http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/land/pesticides/pesticides-products.pdf) ).

5. Define " cosmetic " to mean non-essential (which will still leave

plenty of room for argument).

The Bill will override, and rendered inoperative, all municipal bylaws on

the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides, with minor exceptions. This includes

the City of Toronto Bylaw, which paved the way for the ban, and which the city

expensively and successfully defended in Croplife v. Toronto. The lawn care

industry, which ferociously fought the Toronto By-law, now says it supports

the new statute.

In addition to making the pesticide ban uniform across the province, the

Bill will transfer responsibility for enforcement from municipalities to the

province.

Comments may be made until May 22, 2008 at EBR registry number _010-3348_

(http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTAz\

M

jgx & statusId=MTU0MzIy & language=en) .

 

_http://envirolaw.com/2008/04/29/more-on-pesticide-ban/_

(http://envirolaw.com/2008/04/29/more-on-pesticide-ban/)

May 13, 2008

 

Canadian Press

 

McGuinty says he won't change pesticide ban to keep tougher laws

 

TORONTO — Premier Dalton McGuinty is dismissing calls to change Ontario's

proposed pesticide ban to allow municipalities to keep tougher laws, despite

concerns that the new standard will weaken local bylaws that are protecting

people's health.

 

McGuinty, who admitted he " screwed up " when he said municipalities could

enact stronger anti-pesticide bylaws, said Tuesday he's determined to bring in

a

" single, solid, safe and effective " provincial standard.

 

" We're banning both the sale and use (of pesticides), " he said.

 

" I think that takes us considerably further than any municipal pesticide

bylaw. But we'll sit down and we'll talk to the cities and make sure we're

getting it right. "

 

Ontario's proposed ban on the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides, which is

expected to take effect next spring, was heralded as the toughest such

legislation in North America when McGuinty announced it on Earth Day last

month.

 

But supporters are now concerned the bill will water down stronger

protections that municipalities already have in place.

 

Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's medical officer of health, is urging the

province to change the bill to allow the city's restrictions to stand if they

differ from Ontario's proposed ban.

 

He warns that if the wording isn't changed, some residents may end up

receiving less protection from pesticides under the provincial ban than under

city

bylaws.

 

" This does take away the opportunity for local jurisdictions to enact

restrictions on pesticide use that make sense, " McKeown said.

 

The weed-killer glyphosate, which is sold under the brand name Roundup, has

been banned by Toronto, Markham and Peterborough, said Gideon Forman,

executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the

Environment.

 

But the herbicide isn't included in the province's draft list of more than

300 banned products, he said..

 

" If a municipality wants to go beyond the provincial ban and do something

extra to protect its citizens, we think that they should be allowed to do

that, " Forman said.

 

Some municipalities would also like to restrict the use of pesticides on

golf courses, which are excluded from the province's ban under certain

conditions, Forman said.

 

Another exception in the bill allows pesticides for " other prescribed uses, "

which could permit the use of pesticides to control weeds, he said.

 

" Overall, the thrust of the legislation is great, " Forman said. " There are

some loopholes, the municipal powers one being the biggest. "

 

McGuinty, who initially said municipalities could impose tougher standards

than the province, has since admitted he was wrong. But he spread the blame to

Environment Minister John Gerretsen for being " unduly deferential " and not

correcting the mistake immediately, instead of days later when the error came

to light.

 

Opposition parties say McGuinty should make his gaffe part of the

legislation and give municipalities the power to decide what's best for them.

 

" He's made a huge deal about this pesticide act, " said NDP critic Peter

Tabuns.

 

" His representatives and ministers present it as the best thing since sliced

bread - almost a millennial achievement. And yet, he's actually going to be

rolling back standards in cities like Toronto. It makes no sense to me. "

 

Under the legislation, pesticides will still be allowed for use in farming,

forestry or health and safety, such as controlling mosquitoes that can carry

diseases like the West Nile virus.

 

Quebec, the only other province to have banned pesticides, was considered to

have the toughest standards on the continent. The final phase of its

Pesticide Management Code, first introduced in March 2003, went into effect in

2006.

 

Copyright © 2008 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

 

_http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hr7ISHnl6Gjy9v2BYn1J6cz0OveA_

(http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hr7ISHnl6Gjy9v2BYn1J6cz0OveA)

 

=======================

Tue 13 May 2008

 

The Toronto Sun

 

Watered down pesticide ban?;

Doc wants T.O.'s strong bylaw to trump Ontario's

 

BY SARAH GREEN, CITY HALL BUREAU

 

Toronto's medical officer of health wants to weed out potential problems

with Ontario's planned pesticide ban.

 

Dr. David McKeown, in a report to be given to the health board next week,

said the proposed provincial bill could leave Toronto with a watered-down

version of its own strict pesticide ban.

 

Toronto's pesticide bylaw, which came into effect in April 2004, restricts

the cosmetic use of pesticides on public and private property.

 

" If the act passes with its current wording, situations might arise in which

residents receive less protection from pesticide exposure than they do under

the current Toronto bylaw, " McKeown said in the report. Under the province's

proposed ban, the list of restricted pesticides does not include the common

weed killer glyphosate, sold as Roundup, which is currently banned in Toronto.

 

PRAISED LEGISLATION

 

The provincial bill would allow the use of pesticides to control weeds,

which is also banned in Toronto.

 

McKeown is calling on the province's environment minister to allow Toronto's

tougher restrictions to stand if they differ from those in the proposed

Ontario ban.

 

The medical officer of health did praise the Ontario legislation because it

would restrict the sale of many pesticides.

 

" Despite a four-year Toronto Public Health education program ... many

residents continue to indicate that they assume that pesticides for sale are

permitted for use under our bylaw, " McKeown said in the report.

 

Franz Hartmann, executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance,

said he supports the provincial legislation as long as it doesn't weaken bans

already in some municipalities.

 

" Municipalities should have the right to have better environmental laws, "

said Hartmann, whose group spent 10 years trying to get Toronto's ban.

 

© 2008 Sun Media Corporation. All rights reserved.

 

_http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/05/13/pf-5548071.html_

(http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/05/13/pf-5548071.html)

 

==================================

 

Mon 12 May 2008

 

Brockville Recorder and Times

 

Exemption to pesticides ban could be fatal flaw

 

A new bill banning pesticides, while well intentioned, is fundamentally

flawed and may threaten local bylaws across Ontario.

 

The provincial government has finally tabled a bill intended to ban the

cosmetic use and sale of pesticides throughout Ontario.

 

Bill 64, the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act, was introduced on Earth Day and the

government is promoting it as a strong measure " that would make Ontario's

pesticide rules among the toughest in North America. "

 

The bill is overdue and much needed, and it is good to see the government

finally moving on pesticides. Unfortunately, the bill contains two fundamental

flaws.

 

The first is the broad exceptions to the ban contained in the bill. The

first four exceptions (pertaining to golf courses, agriculture, forestry and

the

protection of health and safety) are typical exemptions and were to be

expected. But there is also a fifth, open-ended exemption for " other prescribed

uses " and the minister is delegated the authority to prescribe these " other

prescribed uses.. "

 

But just what does " other prescribed uses " mean? This provision is a gaping

loophole, which will open the door for multiple exceptions which could

frustrate the purpose of the ban.

 

The minister could, for example, add exemptions for weed infestations. Even

if the current government does not intend to do this, the door is open for

future governments to add exemptions of an unlimited nature without amending

the act.

 

The second problem is that the text of the bill expressly supersedes

municipal measures, such as those in London. It says, " A municipal bylaw is

inoperative if it addresses the use, sale, offer for sale or transfer of a

pesticide

that may be used for a cosmetic purpose. "

 

This pre-emption of local bylaws is neither necessary nor sensible, and it

is contrary to recent trends in Canadian municipal law where cities are given

progressively greater regulatory authority.

 

Municipalities should retain the ability to provide greater protections than

the provincial minimum standard, as local bylaws can legally co-exist with

provincial measures so long as there is no direct conflict.

 

Further, it is desirable to have local bylaws supplementing a provincial ban

because the city is in a better position to monitor and enforce compliance.

While the premier has told the press that cities will retain the ability to

pass laws exceeding the provincial standard, that's not what the bill says.

 

The extension of a provincewide ban should not be taken as an opportunity to

weaken or invalidate measures already in place in many cities.

 

In 2006, the province amended the Municipal Act to give municipalities broad

regulatory powers in areas of protecting the environment and health and

safety.

 

These new legislative powers that Ontario cities worked so hard to obtain

should not be clawed back.

 

It is crucial that exemptions to the ban be precisely and narrowly defined,

that overall policy decisions be made by the elected legislature, and that the

autonomy promised to municipalities be respected.

 

Bill 64 as drafted fails to meet these criteria.

 

Matt Casselman

 

Leeds-Grenville Green Party CEO,

 

Brockville

 

==================================

 

BackGrounder

Quebec's world leading Pesticide Management Code is not a pre-emptive

measure but a complementary to and supportive of local bylaws which exploded

from

35 to over 90 when the new law came into effect.

 

Ontario's _Bill 64_

(http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/39_Parliament/Session1/b064.pdf) , the

Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act introduced on Earth Day

as currently proposed is pre-emption law on local pesticide bylaws. No

wonder pesticide industry activists are supporting the Bill. Bill 64 says, " A

municipal by-law is inoperative if it addresses the use, sale, offer for sale

or

transfer of a pesticide that may be used for a cosmetic purpose. " This

clause MUST be changed

 

 

 

Pesticide Pre-emption Backgrounder

 

What does State/Provincial pre-emption mean for local pesticide bylaws?

 

Pre-emption means that local authorities are prohibited from implementing

environmental or health regulations that are stricter than state or federal

laws. (See Beyond Pesticides List of pre-emption laws by state). While local

governments once had the ability to restrict the use, sales and distribution of

pesticides, pressure from the chemical industry led many states to pass

legislation prohibiting municipalities from passing local pesticide ordinances

that are stricter than state policy. These laws, called state preemption laws,

effectively deny local residents and decision makers their democratic right to

better protection when the community decides that minimum standards set by

state law are insufficient to protect local public and environmental health.

 

Source:

(http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/Preemption%20Factsheet.pdf)

What is State pre-emption? (Beyond Pesticides)

_http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/Preemption%20Factsheet.pdf_

(http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/factsheets/Preemption%20Factsheet.pdf) .

 

=====================

 

Lawn-care industry pressured legislators to insert a " preemption " clause

 

A few years ago, the lawn-care industry pressured legislators to insert a

" preemption " clause in the existing law that " effectively den[ies] local

residents and decision makers their democratic right to better protection when

the

community decides that minimum standards set by state law are insufficient

to protect local public and environmental health, " according to

_www.protectlocalcontrol.org_ (http://www.protectlocalcontrol.org/) , an

activist website

that instructs local groups how to remove such clauses once they've been

inserted into legislation.

 

Preemption clauses gained popularity in the 1990s when tobacco companies

discovered that they could operate more effectively at the state level. Since

then, they've been used to win control over everything from gun control

restrictions to pesticide usage.

 

Preemption clauses have become such a standard industry ploy, that activists

have devoted a website to them, detailing everything from why industry likes

them (they slow down legislation and decrease enforcement of existing laws)

to describing " preemptive language " to offering help in combating them- both

before and after they've been inserted.

 

Industry prefers that control remain with the higher levels of government

because they have easier access to state legislators.

 

One day you're protected by a law--the next day you're not. And, because the

process is not open to public scrutiny, legislators don't have to bear the

responsibility for changing a law's original intent. The other disadvantage is

that once such clauses are inserted, they're almost impossible to remove. A

fact that Connecticut environmental activists and state Sen. Meyer say

they're learning the hard way.

 

(Source: May 5, 2005, _fairfieldweekly.com_ (http://fairfieldweekly.com/) ,

'The Health Risks of a Green Lawn' by LuAnne Roy)

 

=====================

 

Top-5 Reasons Why the Pesticide Industry Support Pre-Emption Rules

 

#1. Pesticide bans thwarted by industry-sponsored " preemption " legislation

 

Ahead of their Canadian counterparts, U.S. cities won the right to pass

local ordinances restricting pesticide use as far back as the 1980s, says Jay

Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, an environmental group.

However, the widespread embrace of pesticide bans was subsequently thwarted by

industry-sponsored " preemption " legislation, adopted in 40 states, forbidding

localities to make laws more stringent than those of the state, he says.

 

As a result, U.S. activists have focused on banning pesticide use on land

managed by public institutions such as schools, hospitals, and county

governments, Feldman says. At the same time, local governments in California

and New

York have begun to test the strength of the preemption laws, and

Canadian-style citywide pesticide bans may soon make a U.S. debut, he adds.

 

In response to growing challenges to preemption laws, the pesticide industry

is engaging more heavily in grassroots action to help consumers speak up in

favor of pesticide use, says Allen James, president of Responsible Industry

for a Sound Environment, a trade association.

 

(Source: Jan. 18, 2006, Environmental Science & Technology (American

Chemical Society), 'Canadian cities successfully by-pass industry's legal

challenge

to laws that keep pesticides off lawns and gardens, by Janet Pelley)

 

---------

 

#2. Preemption laws override local pesticide bans

 

" We are watching the entire United States, but particularly the border

states of New York, Connecticut, Maine, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Washington

for

any activity relative to banning pesticides, especially for outdoor lawn care

and parks, " James stated. " I would like to remind industry associates that

fortunately for those of us in the United States, most states have state

preemption laws that override local bans. However, there is a growing effort

among

activists to overturn state preemption, and in some cases, to secure bans in

violation of state law in hopes that state legislators will change the law. "

 

(Source: Jan. 18, 2005, Lawn and Landscape Magazine , 'RISE President Shares

Industry Outlook for 2005'

_http://www.lawnandlandscape.com/news/news.asp?ID=3044_

(http://www.lawnandlandscape.com/news/news.asp?ID=3044)

 

---------

 

# 3. Train moves much more slowly " at the state level.

The picture in the United States is more complicated. Over the past several

years, the pesticide industry has successfully lobbied state legislatures to

pass what are known as " pre-emption laws. " These give states responsibility

for pesticide regulation and prevent cities and towns from enacting their own

laws. So far, 30 states have adopted pre-emption laws.

" Local communities generally do not have the expertise on issues about

pesticides to make responsible decisions, " said Allen James, president of

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, a pesticide-industry lobbying

group.

" Decisions are made much more carefully and the train moves much more slowly "

at the state level.

(Source: Thursday, February 24, 2005, Detroit News, 'Lawn care industry in

the U.S. fears pesticide bans will grow. Fearing Canada's move to outlaw toxic

chemicals, green businesses launch ad campaign to fight back.

_http://tinyurl.com/65lxoo_ (http://tinyurl.com/65lxoo) )

---------

# 4. Pesticide issue a political nightmare

 

Worst of times? From the industry's standpoint the regulatory contagion

infecting local governments across Canada can hardly become more challenging.

" Every local council in Canada has at some point looked at or has considered

a pesticide bylaw, " said Jennifer Lemcke, COO for Turf Holdings, Inc.,

Toronto. " The activists have made the pesticide issue a political nightmare for

city councils and most municipal councilors just want it to go away. "

 

" We're faced with many obstacles when trying to service our customers

because each municipality has the right to restrict or ban products, " she

added.

" There are times when we are servicing one side of the street that has one

bylaw and on the other side of the street we are faced with another bylaw.

 

" It has been an extremely costly and frustrating process. Our company alone

has devoted thousands of hours to attend council and committee meetings to

help educate local government officials, " she added.

 

(Source: Sep 1, 2006, Landscape Management, 'Lawn care — it's all grassroots

by Ron Hall, _MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at

" tinyurl.com " . Do not trust this website: http://tinyurl.com/l33wk_

(http://tinyurl.com/l33wk) )

 

---------

 

# 5. Fight these local issues before we're stuck with municipalities banning

pesticides.

 

Karen Reardon, director of communications and public relations, told nearly

500 attendees here at the combined Responsible Industry for a Sound

Environment (RISE)/CropLife America meeting that, " We're not Canada, " " We must

fight

these local issues before we're stuck with municipalities banning pesticides

the way so many cities in our northern neighbor has. "

 

(Source: Sep 25, 2006, Landscape Management, 'Field Report: Grassroots

efforts build momentum at RISE conference' , by Frank H. Andorka Jr.

_MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at " tinyurl.com " . Do

not trust this website: http://tinyurl.com/gd3mp)_

(http://tinyurl.com/gd3mp)

 

 

=====================

 

Top Quotes from Pesticide Industry Activists on Ontario's Pesticide Ban

 

 

# 1. Industry supports a strong, province-wide pesticide law (but not a ban)

 

 

" The professional lawncare industry in Ontario supports the concept of a

strong, province-wide pesticide law, to replace a patchwork of contradictory

municipal bylaws, " said Gavin Dawson, Chair of the Landscape Ontario, Lawncare

Commodity Group. " While we recognize there is more work to be done on the

details of this initiative, the McGuinty government has delivered on its

promise

with a Bill that ensures consistent standards everywhere, which apply

equally to professionals servicing our green infrastructure and the

do-it-yourself market. "

 

(Source: April 22, 2008, Landscape Ontario, 'Landscape Ontario Supports New

Provincial Pesticide Legislation' _http://tinyurl.com/5y4gwm_

(http://tinyurl..com/5y4gwm) )

 

---------

 

#2. Law would override any municipal by-laws

 

In addition, the law would override any municipal by-laws regarding cosmetic

pesticide use. White welcomes the simplicity this will promote.

" The municipal bylaws were different in every city, " he says. " It was

becoming impossible to operate a business and keep the regulations consistent.

You

could be treating one side of the street one way but because the person on

the other side lived in another township, you couldn't do anything for them. In

a lot of ways this levels the playing field so when it moves forward we are

dealing with one government and one rule. "

(Source: April 24, 2008, Lawn & Landscape Magazine, 'Ontario Proposes

Pesticide Ban', by Heather Wood _http://tinyurl.com/4vol6q_

(http://tinyurl.com/4vol6q) )

 

---------

 

#3. Important details to be worked out

 

Dawson noted that there are many important details to be worked out in

the Regulations and guidelines to follow.

 

" We will be diligent in ensuring that the intent is reflected in the final

package of rules, " he said. " We look forward to working with Minister

Gerretsen to address more detailed issues in Regulation, including the defined

list

of active ingredients and products to be banned, sign posting standards and

reasonable approaches to treat potentially damaging pest infestations, from

grub outbreaks to emerald ash borer for the protection of our lawns,landscapes

and a greener planet. "

 

(Source: April 22, 2008, Landscape Ontario, 'Landscape Ontario Supports New

Provincial Pesticide Legislation' _http://tinyurl.com/5y4gwm_

(http://tinyurl.com/5y4gwm) )

 

---------

 

# 4. I see this as a starting point

 

While some contractors say they'll be doomed if the law is enacted, Alan

White says this is an opportunity for the industry to come together.

 

" I see this as a starting point, " says the owner of Burlington-based

lawn-care company Turf Systems. " Part of the test over time is to see how we

adjust

and how well we can learn from those experiences and move in a positive

direction. "

 

White expects the law will pass through the legislature and be enacted

fairly quickly – the government has indicated it could take effect next

spring.

When it does, his company will look further into the integrated plant

management (IPM) system it uses to try to control the variables that create

weeds in

the first place. The company already is IPM accredited.

 

" My hope is that we come out as truly a green industry so business isn't

under constant attack from environmentalists, and at the end of the day take

its

right place as the true green leader. "

 

(Source: April 24, 2008, Lawn & Landscape Magazine, 'Ontario Proposes

Pesticide Ban', by Heather Wood _http://tinyurl.com/4vol6q_

(http://tinyurl.com/4vol6q) )

 

---------

 

#5. Ontario represents about 40 per cent of the national market for lawn and

garden pesticides.

 

Peter MacLeod, vice president of CropLife Canada, said banning the sale and

use of the listed pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer products in Ontario

would still have a huge impact on pesticide manufacturers. " Essentially, the

Canadian market would no longer be viable, " Mr. MacLeod said. " It won't be

financially feasible anymore. It's a de-facto Canadian ban. " He said Ontario

represents about 40 per cent of the national market for lawn and garden

pesticides.

 

(Source: May 02, 2008, Dundas Star News, 'Legislation won't regulate

manufacture of banned pesticides' by Craig Campbell)

 

---------

 

#6. Focusing on consumer access and changing behaviour

 

Environment Ministry spokesperson Jennifer Hall acknowledged the proposed

legislation is not intended to close loopholes in the regulation of pesticide

manufacturers, or reformulators. " We're focusing on consumer access and

changing behaviour, " Ms. Hall said. She said the province wants to encourage

residents to move towards the use of products that pose less risk to the

environment and human health. According to Ms. Hall, the list of products was

specifically designed to include " higher risk " cosmetic products that have

" potential

alternatives " . Manufacturers are exempt from Ontario's pesticide act, which

sets conditions, regulations and licensing requirements for the sale, use and

storage of pesticides.

 

(Source: May 02, 2008, Dundas Star News, 'Legislation won't regulate

manufacture of banned pesticides' by Craig Campbell)

 

---------

 

#7. Farm lobby looking to eliminate irresponsible pesticide use

 

To celebrate earth day, AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned about

Resources and the Environment) is calling on the McGuinty government to

implement

regulations that will eliminate irresponsible and non-essential pesticide use.

 

(Source: April 22, 2008,

_http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2008/22/c8103.html_

(http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2008/22/c8103.html) )

 

=====================

May 5, 2008

 

GuelphMercury.com

 

Pesticide ban has bugs

Despite what premier said, new law won't allow tougher local rules

 

by Robert Benzie

Mercury news services

 

TORONTO

 

Ontario's cities and towns will be forbidden from enacting tougher bylaws

than the province's new ban on cosmetic pesticides for gardening, the Liberal

government now admits.

 

In the wake of Premier Dalton McGuinty's Earth Day assertion to the

contrary, Environment Minister John Gerretsen has acknowledged that the

Liberals

screwed up.

 

On April 22, McGuinty boasted " nobody will be able to have standards lower

than ours. "

 

" If you're asking if municipalities can exceed the provincial standard we

put in place, yes they can when it comes to use, " the premier claimed.

 

But after the fine print in the legislation was studied, it turns out

McGuinty had misspoken.

 

" I don't think there was any attempt to mislead at all, " Gerretsen told

reporters last week.

 

" We all learn from these issues and we'll see that these kind of things

don't happen in the future, " said the minister.

 

Progressive Conservative MPP Tim Hudak (Niagara West-Glanbrook) said the

Liberals have some explaining to do.

 

" The premier either lied to the media or was mistaken and then the minister,

who was standing beside him, didn't correct the record, so he's guilty of

covering up that lie.

 

" Then they let it string out there for (more than a week) before correcting

the record, " he said.

 

Hudak said when the House resumes this morning, McGuinty or Gerretsen should

explain to MPPs why Ontarians have been misled on such an important piece of

legislation.

 

New Democrat MPP Peter Tabuns (Toronto Danforth) urged the government to

improve the bill to ensure municipalities can have more stringent bylaws - and

make McGuinty's statement truthful.

 

" It looks like the minister or staff are trying to pull a fast one. They

need to correct this bill quickly so that what the premier said is what's

really

reflected in the bill, " said Tabuns.

 

The new law, which does not apply to farms, managed forests or golf courses,

should ban the sale or use of more than 300 different toxic products

currently available.

 

Nearly half of all Ontarians already live in municipalities that have banned

the use of cosmetic pesticides, including Toronto, Markham, Oakville and

Vaughan.

 

_http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/324353_

(http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/324353)