Defining ban benefits
Thank you for your March 2 editorial Pesticide ban needs test period, but one point requires correction. You suggest the benefits of a pesticide ban are "poorly defined." But this is not true.
As you say, physician-scientists have found that people exposed to toxic lawn products are at greater risk for cancer, reproductive problems and neurological illness. What are the benefits of a province-wide prohibition on non-essential pesticides? Healthier Manitobans.
GIDEON FORMAN
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Toronto
ñü
In the past year I have spoken to at least 50 fellow Manitobans about the pesticide ban and have found only one individual who supports it.
Those I have spoken with come from all areas of society, and my experience reflects the Free Press's own survey on this issue. The survey conducted by special interest groups should be scrutinized very carefully by the Free Press and the government before they start quoting their findings — especially, when general public opinion is obviously drastically pointing in the opposite direction.
The average Manitoban does not want a pesticide ban. It is only a vocal minority that seems to the have the ear of the government. It is time for the government officials to start listening to the majority.
As a friend in Ontario said to me, "If a political party ran on the platform promising to reverse the pesticide ban, they would be elected."
CLAYTON SKERRY
Winnipeg
via Have your say – Winnipeg Free Press.
