Pesticide battle ready to explode

Sun, May 7, 2006

Frustration mounts as opposing lobbies do battle and council appears no closer to finding a solution.

By JOE BELANGER, FREE PRESS CITY HALL REPORTER




While London's debate over a ban on cosmetic pesticide use rages, boulevards, lawns and parks across the city are covered in a blanket of flowering dandelions. (DAVE CHIDLEY, LFP)
The heat's set on high and the pressure cooker is about to blow on the pesticide issue in London, a veteran city councillor warns.

"Both sides should be talking, but, no, they're still butting heads," said Bernie MacDonald, who so far has opposed a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides when the issue has come before council.

"They've got to find some common ground and, if they don't, they're going to be looking at a complete ban, just like the smoking issue."

MacDonald's patience is running thin and his support for the lawn-care industry is wavering.

"I'm fed up with it," he said of the debate that has gone on for five years.


"They (pesticide ban supporters) aren't lying. I've seen it with my own eyes. There's got to be a way to get this thing settled."

MacDonald's frustration bubbled to the surface Monday when council spent two hours debating the issue, each councillor restating his or her position.

The issue on the table? Deciding the date for a public meeting and what information the public needs.

At the meeting, city solicitor James Barber urged councillors to draft a bylaw based on those passed in Toronto and Peterborough.

Barber said such a proposed bylaw would keep the debate and issues tightly focused.

Instead, council approved a motion to give the public as many sample bylaws as possible, along with reports on the various options and issues raised since 2001.

Council's motion effectively restarts the entire debate, putting everything back on the table.

In response, supporters of a pesticide ban stepped up the pressure, even leaning on council members who support a ban.

Coun. Sandy White was criticized by the pro-ban lobby and accused of "climbing into bed with the chemical lobby" on the website www.altlondon.org for supporting the motion to widen debate.

"If you remember, when we dealt with governance, we were criticized for shutting down the debate," White said, referring to a decision by council last year not to debate a petition calling for doubling the number of wards.

"Now, I'm being criticized for not shutting down the debate."

As well, White said the plight of lawn-care industry workers is being ignored.

"I support a ban, but I can't just cold-heartedly support one when there are people who may become unemployed," she said.

"These people have families, children to feed and clothe, mortgages to pay and if we're going to impose a ban, then we've also got to negotiate some sort of support program."

The closest council came to banning pesticides was a compromise bylaw voted on last November.

The bylaw would have allowed spraying of pesticides on up to a maximum of 20 per cent of a property owner's lawn, with the amount reduced to 10 per cent by 2010.

Supporters on both sides of the issue rejected the bylaw, claiming it either didn't go far enough or went too far.

Meanwhile, several members of council who oppose a ban on pesticides, including Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell, Controller Bud Polhill and Coun. Roger Caranci, have said repeatedly the issue isn't on the minds of Londoners.

Council should concentrate on other issues, such as taxes, roads and job creation, they say.

But those who want to ban pesticides point to a poll sponsored by the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

Released in February, the poll found 74 per cent of Londoners surveyed favour phasing out pesticides.

Their voices joined a long list of medical groups, representing family physicians, nurses, cancer specialists and others, raising the alarm about the suspected health effects of pesticides.

Not surprisingly, in late March, council resurrected the issue with a 16-3 vote in favour of a pesticide bylaw.

Finally, on April 25, the pressure reached the boiling point. That's when the lawn-care lobby turned up the heat with the launch of a letter, e-mail and phone-in campaign.

The industry's message was simple: If pesticides are banned, residents can't use weed and feed -- a government-approved retail product -- on their lawns.

Council members were swamped with hundreds of letters, faxes, e-mails and phone calls from residents, mostly lawn-care customers, outraged a ban would violate property rights.

Council seems determined to resolve the issue.

They overwhelmingly rejected a motion by Coun. Fred Tranquilli to table the issue until after the Nov. 13 municipal election.

"We can continue to fuel the fire all we like, but at the end of the day, there is no clear consensus," Tranquilli said.

Caranci, who is leading opposition to a ban, said there's "no question" pesticides will be a major election issue, easily the biggest source of pressure on council.

"Those who continue to want to gather more and more information are going to look like they don't want to make a decision," he said. "It says they're scared of the outcome and what taxpayers think. One way or the other, decide or leave it alone and let the voters decide. There are many more issues . . . to deal with."

HAVE YOUR SAY

TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN

What: Public meeting about a proposed pesticide bylaw for London

When: May 24 at 7 p.m. at Centennial Hall

What will happen: Citizens can tell members of council's environment and transportation committee what the city should do about pesticide use.

If you want to speak: Mail a letter to the city's clerk's office or e-mail hlysynsk@london.ca

More information: Pesticide bylaws for other municipalities, a proposed bylaw for London that was voted down last year and a series of questions are on the city website at www.london.ca