Blue Like You

There are a number of causes where I can understand why you get upset, like, say, the Health tax. I don’t get the opposition here though.

Some points:
Many municipalities have already banned pesticides — or are in the process.

A good number of lawn care companies have switched to organic products and practices.

There are plenty of inexpensive and effective organic lawn care products and practices readily available to people.

Finally, there’s a reason so many jurisdictions are banning pesticides: they’re harmful to our health. This is exactly the kind of thing I’d hope a responsible government would do.

How did you avoid the temptation to title your post “Lawn & Order”?

Joanne, are you arguing that availability guarantees safety?

Did the availability of asbestos and thalidomide guarantee their safety?

Joanne: “I’m saying, if they’re so dangerous, they should be pulled off the shelves.”

Agreed, for sure.

I thought you were offering the availability of the pesticides in stores as proof that they are safe. Obviously not, and the same goes for the availability (under doctor’s orders) of prescription drugs.

The problem of availability relates to the fact that most of these initiatives to date have been municipal in nature and they don’t have the legislative authority to prohibit sale of the banned substances. Besides, if one was determined, it would be quite easy to slip into another local jurisdiction that didn’t have a pesticide ban and purchase the goods in question.

The products are allowed for infestations. It is only the “cosmetic” use that is banned.

Therefore banning the product can’t really be done, without reclassifying them so that you need a license to apply them. That’s not municipal law, there are both provincial and federal laws involved. There are six different schedules, depending on hazardousness Link

However the ban would require lawn care companies to use acceptable alternatives. There are a lot fewer of them than individuals, and they would be the major “emitters” subject to any enforcement. Stopping routine (cosmetic) use by lawn care companies is the main result at this point.

Question of the day: why do the same folks who want to ban pesticides which have to go through rigorous safety tests adamantly oppose any tests for “health supplements?”

I dunno who Swift is talking about but it brought to mind a “type” I encounter frequently, namely those who would be whole hog behind a pesticide ban, and yet will fill their bodies with ginseng this, St. John’s Wort that, and anti-oxidizing-omega-acids the other. In other words, pesticide chemicals are clearly “bad” (and they are), but those other chemicals are good, especially since they are not endorsed by the Big Pharma associated evil medical “establishment”.

Those people drive me nuts.

I see a few of you have been paying attention to things other than soap operas and hockey games.

The reason pesticides can’t be banned outright is because their is no scientific evidence that they are harmful to peoples health. On the contrary all testing to date has indicated the contrary. All municipal bans have been perpetrated by activists who love the nanny state.

Leave pesticides to the professionals (lawn care companies) and take them off the store shelves. This would reduce improper pesticide use greatly. The people who know pesticides (University of Guelph) say they are safe if used properly. Let’s trust them (we have to believe someone) and not the fanatics who use junk science in thier arguement against good products.