Pros and Cons of different pesticide bylaw choices

NOTIFICATION ONLY Pros Cons

BUFFER ZONES AROUND THE PESTICIDE SENSITIVE ONLY Pros Cons

TOTAL PHASE OUT OF LANDSCAPE PESTICIDES Pros Cons

 

NOTIFICATION ONLY

 

PROS

Advance warning of a toxic exposure is provided for some individuals.

Businesses selling pesticides would need to make no changes in the pesticide products being applied.

CONS

People will be forced to move out of their homes.

There is no place for pesticide sensitive people to retreat to (30 to 60 days per year).

Children would be exposed to pesticides at school, on the way to school, and playing outdoors.

It is impossible to keep pesticides confined to the place they are applied; each use of pesticides can affect up to 40 other homes.

Costs are too high for those that have to evacuate ($3000-$5000 per year for some). Some citizens would require professional healthcare workers to assist them evacuate. Compensation issues would arise.

Any policy that would routinely require people to leave their homes, in the absence of natural disasters, is an unusual regulatory measure.

Costs are too high for the community (e.g., health care costs).

"Notification only" does not address the real issue, it grants permission to constantly put people our of their homes, and it still allows tons of pesticides to be used in HRM.

"Notification only" hasn’t worked in other places, and is extremely stressful to communities.

Landscapers would not be encouraged to learn more about gardening beyond chemical application.

Pesticides are not been proved to be safe. They have the potential to negatively affect future generations.

The right of access to public areas (bus stops, mailboxes, etc) would still be compromised when others use toxic lawn products.

Due to a municipal policy, some residents would be paying taxes on property unavailable to them for 10 -15% of the year. Tax reductions would need to be considered

Although Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment recognizes that pesticides are poorly evaluated and regulated, they would still be released into our community.

Return to top of page

 

BUFFER ZONES AROUND THE PESTICIDE SENSITIVE ONLY

PROS

Has potential for some relief.

This is within HRM’s ability to administer and enforce.

It involves HRM as registrar, so introduces an element of neutrality.

CONS

The population as a whole is not protected, and more children and adults can become ill.

Pesticide vapours would still travel several thousand metres from treated sites.

The right of access to public places, such as bus stops and mailboxes, would still be compromised.

Children would be unavoidably exposed to pesticides throughout their community. All children are especially vulnerable to toxic exposures.

The Buffer Zone system would effectively restrict or "trap" sensitive individuals in their homes.

A broad range of pesticide products, which are biological poisons and can have hormone disrupting effects, would still be released into our communities.

Mistakes involving locations or unknown ingredients, are much more likely to occur than with a ban.

Does not follow Precautionary Principle. This system would fail to remove non-essential toxic materials from our municipality that are within our ability to control.

Costs to the municipality for registration, administration, and enforcement are greater than for a ban.

Drinking water wells could still be contaminated.

There is no mechanism to protect a workplace.

Return to top of page

 

TOTAL PHASE OUT OF LANDSCAPE PESTICIDES

PROS

This is recommended by the medical community.

Alternatives to chemicals are readily available.

Best for the environment.

An economic opportunity for those business switching to safer non-toxic methods.

A total phase out is more in line with other common restrictions placed on individual behaviours to protect the public good (i.e., controls on noise and use of firearms).

Administration for a total ban would cost the least.

No citizen complaints over any requirement for a medical letter.

Money spent on lawn care would stay in the community.

Would protect all residents uneducated about pesticide dangers from getting ill.

All people would have full enjoyment of their property.

Residents would not have to put up with the strong smell of chemicals on every sunny spring day.

Wells would be completely protected.

Residents will learn beautiful properties are possible with uncomplicated lawn care methods that are cheap and effective.

Our pristine community would be a drawing point for tourists and new families.

CONS

Landscape companies (that have not already done so) will need to change.

Public education would be needed to smooth the transition to non-toxic lawn care methods, and to prevent a backlash.

Need to dispose of chemicals would be balanced off against the benefits of a total ban.

Return to top of page