On Earth Day, Manitoba’s government announced it would restrict the use of
certain pesticides that pose serious health and environmental risks. But did you know that you played a role?
In June, the bill passed its third and final reading in the Legislature, paving the way for a ban on cosmetic pesticides — chemicals used on lawns and gardens to improve their appearance — to take effect in 2015.
I work at Ecojustice because I want to protect humans, animals and the environment they need to survive. As a lawyer, I work to strengthen environmental laws and governments’ enforcement of those laws. And for the past several years, your support means I've been able to help groups campaigning for a cosmetic pesticide ban in Manitoba.
I live in Toronto, but I grew up in Manitoba. As a kid, I spent a lot of time gardening, climbing trees and playing with my friends on lawns and in parks. Unfortunately, the chemical industry has convinced many people that that we need to spray pesticides to rid our green spaces of weeds.
The cost of using many of these pesticides for cosmetic purposes is too high. Research says that some pesticides may harm animals or humans, especially children. Risks include cancer, as well as reproductive and respiratory problems.
In 2011, I discovered that Manitoba’s government was considering a ban. I started working with local groups and national organizations. Together, we called for a precautionary approach to cosmetic pesticide use in Manitoba.
Since then, we’ve dispelled myths surrounding cosmetic pesticide bans. And we’ve shown the Manitoba government how bans in other provinces have succeeded. [Kaitlyn, You have Dispelled Nothing, You are just Misinformed.]
That’s why I felt a great sense of pride on Earth Day. I was proud of what you and I achieved together.
Manitoba will now join seven other Canadian provinces that have banned or restricted the use of cosmetic pesticides. But our work isn’t done. I’ll continue working with our partners and the Manitoba government. And I’ll look forward to that day in 2015 when the ban is law.
Thank you for making that possible.
Kaitlyn Mitchell
https://www.ecojustice.ca/publications/summer-2014-newsletter/attachment
Some Organic Lawn Facts from Connecticut, they actually document the failures in their communities, not like Ontario where senior officials with the Ministry of Environment and Top Universities are more concerned about their pensionable income than documenting the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Failure in Ontario, while Homeowners continue to buy pesticides from their farms supply store or from the USA to circumvent the current Pesticide Ban Laws.
Saving the World Like Kaitlyn Mitchel claims she is proud to be part of is just a fantansy playing out in her own mind. There is not 1 verifiable fact that the Ontario Cosmetic Pesticide Ban has benifited the Environment or Human Health. It sure didn't help the Bees in Ontario did it.
Get a real Job Kaitlyn and stop wasting taxpayers money to line your own pocket as a selfish lawyer concerned about nothing more than generating an income for yourself at the Taxpayers Expense.
Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents: School officials have used more expensive and labor-intensive organic treatments, which have proven ineffective. Many fields have been extensively damaged or are even unplayable, compromising student safety. Additionally the ban has led to problems with pests, diseases and invasives like poison ivy.
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM): Since the ban on pesticide use on K-8 school grounds, towns and cities have faced increasing expenses and “rapidly deteriorating” fields. The town of Hebron, for example, found that maintaining an elementary school field went from $10,212 to $17,310 and yet found the approach less successful than an Integrated Pest Management approach.
Connecticut Council of Small Towns: Many towns throughout the state have had numerous problems maintaining fields since the ban went in to effect. Extending it will result in even more fields that suffer from disrepair and create potentially hazardous situations. The use of an Integrated Pest Management approach and the creating of an advisory council would be a better way to develop policies and disseminate best practices.
Connecticut Recreation and Parks Association: Greg Foran states the bill does not protect fields and ignores advice from professionals about the problems with the current ban. Association members know what works and do not benefit from the sale of any product, and Foran states that it is “ridiculous” to argue that the Association members are unfamiliar with safe and effective practices. This bill needs to be rejected for the safety of children, play areas and the environment.
Connecticut School Buildings and Ground Association: This bill would only expand an unfunded mandate that has led to unsafe and unplayable fields.
