Time to reinstate Manitoba’s cosmetic pesticide ban

In the 2023 election campaign, the (now) Provincial Government pledged to bring back the ban on non-essential uses of pesticides. Let’s get it done.

March 19, 2024 – In the absence of restrictions on the sale and use of non-essential pesticides, Manitobans will be further exposed to unnecessary risks from these harmful chemicals this summer.

A previous provincial government had enacted a ban on cosmetic uses of pesticides in 2014, but the restrictions were subsequently repealed. During the provincial election campaign in October 2023, representatives of the current government committed to bring back the restrictions. To date, legislation to do so has not been tabled in the Manitoba Legislature.

Public opinion polling shows that a clear majority of Manitobans favour the ban. And a letter signed by more than 30 health and environmental groups (including the Manitoba College of Family Physicians, Manitoba Public Health Association, Manitoba Lung Association and the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg) expressed strong support for restrictions on cosmetic pesticides.

It is time to remind the new provincial government of its commitment to reinstate restrictions on the sale and use of non-essential pesticides.

A simple, effective way to take action

Send an e-mail message to the provincial government, addressed to –
Hon. Tracy Schmidt
Minister of Environment and Climate Change
minecc@manitoba.ca

If you would like to send a copy of your message to your own MLA, here is a list of Members of the Legislature. Click on their name to obtain an e-mail address.

Below is a short sample message that you can copy and paste into your e-mail. Or write your own thoughts on why you want the cosmetic pesticide ban to be reinstated.

Dear Minister Schmidt …

As you know, the previous provincial government rolled back the cosmetic pesticide regulations that were legislated in 2014, resulting in the resumption of widespread sale and use of toxic chemicals for turf care around the province. During the 2023 election campaign, representatives of your party (now government) pledged to reinstate restrictions on non-essential pesticides.

It is well-established that exposure to conventional pesticides puts human health at risk, especially children’s health. Pesticides are also linked to illnesses in pets that play on treated lawns. Pesticides are harmful to essential pollinators, and the chemical runoff contaminates our waterways. Experience demonstrates that weeds on lawns and green spaces can be successfully managed without resorting to toxic pesticides.

Please introduce legislation to restore cosmetic pesticide restrictions at your earliest opportunity. Thank you.

Fact Checking What Was Said

We take a closer look at claims about cosmetic uses of pesticides

June 12, 2023 – This month CPBM is launching a new Fact Check page, where we take a closer look at statements by government, industry and others concerning cosmetic uses and regulation of pesticides. We begin by examining a recent statement to news media by Manitoba’s Minister of Environment and Climate.

FACT CHECK is accessible from the menu in the blue box at the top of this web site.

Product safety claim by lawn company appears to contravene federal pesticide advertising guidelines

Broad, unqualified claims are “unacceptable” under Health Canada directive

April 24, 2023 – Members of Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba are objecting to the claim by a Winnipeg lawn care company that a weed control product used by the company is safe for children and pets. The claim appears to breach advertising guidelines set by the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency, say members of CPBM.

In brochures distributed to some Winnipeg households, Lawn Man is advertising the use of Par III herbicide for weed control on residential lawns, now that the provincial cosmetic pesticide ban has been lifted by the Manitoba government. The brochures indicate that the herbicide is “safe for children and pets.”

Section 3.3.3 of Health Canada’s Regulatory Directive 2016-01, Guidelines for the Advertising of Pest Control Products, states: “Broad unqualified claims such as “safe” or “safe for indoor use” are unacceptable.”

“Clearly, Lawn Man is misleading the public with its broad safety claim for this product with no qualifying information,” said Anne Lindsey, a coalition member. “Their campaign of direct mailing their sales brochure with the words “Par III weed control is back” followed by the deceptive “Safe for Children and Pets” message may lead to far greater use of this product in Winnipeg neighbourhoods and unnecessary, dangerous exposures for children and pets.”

A coalition member has filed formal complaints with Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency and with the Advertising Standards Council of Canada.

Par III is a mixture of three synthetic pesticides: 2,4-D, mecoprop-p and dicamba. Use of the product on residential lawns was prohibited under the former provincial cosmetic pesticide ban owing to concerns around risks to human health – particularly children’s health – and the environment. “Even though this product is registered for use by Health Canada, there are rules regarding advertising and strict adherence to the label provisions,” Lindsey noted.

A province-wide poll last fall found 57 per cent of Winnipeggers in favour of cosmetic pesticide restrictions. Only 30 per cent wanted the restrictions lifted.

FURTHER INFORMATION:

• Health Canada Directive: Guidelines for the Advertising of Pest Control Products
• Polling shows Manitobans want to keep cosmetic pesticide ban

Polling shows Manitobans want to keep cosmetic pesticide ban

By a wide margin, Manitobans say they want to maintain restrictions on non-essential uses of pesticides.

November 23, 2022 – A province-wide poll by Prairie Research Associates found 52 per cent of respondents in favour of keeping the ban on cosmetic pesticides, while just 34 per cent said they were opposed to the ban, and 14 percent expressed no opinion. The survey of 800 Manitobans was conducted between October 3 and November 7, 2022. Results are accurate within 3.5 percentage points.

In Winnipeg, support for pesticide restrictions was even stronger, with 57 per cent in favour of keeping the ban and only 30 per cent opposed. Thirteen per cent expressed no opinion.

Notably, across the province, in every demographic category (age, gender, income, education), the proportion of survey respondents favouring pesticide restrictions was higher than the proportion of those opposed. (See detailed poll results.) Among respondents who hold an opinion, the overall margin of 18 points (52-34) in favour of the ban is decisive.

PROVINCE NOT LISTENING

On November 3, 2022, the provincial government passed a bill rolling back Manitoba’s cosmetic pesticide restrictions, allowing lawn care companies, municipalities and homeowners to resume using previously banned pesticides.

Survey results indicate that the government is out of touch with the majority of Manitobans on this issue. People want to be protected from unnecessary exposure to pesticides. Repealing the ban increases risks to public health, especially children’s health.

No other province in Canada has taken such a backward step. Allowing the use of toxic lawn pesticides is going to increase chemical runoff into waterways, harm essential pollinators and increase risks for pets and other animals. Green spaces can be well-managed at reasonable cost without using the riskier pesticides.

Both public and expert opinion in Manitoba favour keeping cosmetic pesticide restrictions. In June, a coalition of more than 30 health and environmental organizations appealed to the province to maintain the cosmetic pesticide ban. The group included the Manitoba College of Family Physicians, Manitoba Health Coalition, Manitoba Public Health Association, Learning Disabilities Association of Manitoba, Canadian Environmental Law Association, David Suzuki Foundation, and Winnipeg Humane Society.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Now that the Province has revoked the cosmetic pesticide ban, Manitobans will have to turn to municipal councils to pass local bylaws to protect public health and the environment from unnecessary pesticide risks.

Health and environmental groups oppose roll-back of Manitoba cosmetic pesticide restrictions

Doctors, public health and environmental groups urge Manitoba Ministers to preserve non-essential pesticide ban

UPDATE: November 3, 2022 – Despite urgent requests by health and environmental groups, the Manitoba Government has enacted legislation weakening restrictions on non-essential uses of pesticides. The move will allow municipalities, lawn care companies and homeowners to resume using previously banned pesticides, increasing risks to public health (especially, children’s health).

—————————————

June 28, 2022 – More than thirty health and environmental organizations are appealing to the Manitoba Government to maintain the province’s restrictions on non-essential uses of pesticides.

The Manitoba College of Family Physicians, Manitoba Health Coalition, Manitoba Lung Association, Manitoba Public Health Association, Learning Disabilities Association of Manitoba, and Winnipeg Humane Society are among the organizations speaking out.

The groups have endorsed an open letter to Jeff Wharton, Minister of Environment, Climate and Parks, and Audrey Gordon, Minister of Health, warning that resuming the use of currently banned pesticides will increase health risks for Manitobans, particularly children.

Allowing the use of riskier lawn pesticides will also increase chemical runoff into waterways, harm essential pollinators and increase risks for pets that play on treated lawns, the groups note.

WHAT ORGANIZATIONS ARE SAYING

Manitoba College of Family Physicians: “Family doctors take the privilege and responsibility of caring for their patients and communities seriously, and this includes advocating for public policy that protects the fundamental right to health. Peer-reviewed studies have established that serious health risks are associated with human exposure to chemical pesticides; therefore, the Manitoba College of Family Physicians believes that there is a need for continued restrictions on non-essential use of pesticides.” – Dr. Joanna Lynch, President

Manitoba Health Coalition: “The Manitoba Health Coalition views human exposure to pesticides as a matter of public health. The overwhelming consensus of the available research tells us that children are most at risk from exposure to pesticides. Toxic lawn pesticides represent an unnecessary and avoidable threat to the health of children and others in our community. The pesticide ban can and should stay in place.” – Thomas Linner, Provincial Director

Learning Disabilities Association of Manitoba: “Significant research suggests a link between exposure to these chemicals and neurodevelopmental toxicity. Exposure to even small amounts of these pesticides carries a risk of impairing healthy brain development, ultimately leading to an increased risk of developing a neurodevelopmental disorder, learning disabilities, ADHD, IQ deficits, autism. We strongly encourage the Manitoba Government to keep the current pesticide legislation in place, for the sake of our children’s health and education.” – Karen Velthuys, Executive Director

Winnipeg Humane Society: “The Winnipeg Humane Society has supported restrictions on cosmetic uses of pesticides since regulations were first introduced in Manitoba. Animals are subject to many of the same health risks as humans when exposed to chemical pesticides on lawns and boulevards. Provincial restrictions on non-essential pesticides should remain in place to protect family pets and all animal species from these preventable health risks.” – Jessica Miller, CEO

Cosmetic pesticide ban should remain

Let’s continue the health and environmental benefits of pesticide-free green spaces

APRIL 7, 2022 – The following column by CPBM Coalition member Anne Lindsey was previously published in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Geese flying overhead. A warm sun. Puddles. For a winter-weary Manitoba, Spring is finally making an appearance. This year, it cannot come soon enough. Many of us long for sounds of kids playing outside, strolls around the neighbourhood, picnics and playdates in the park and getting back into the garden.

So what a nasty surprise that the provincial government wants to roll back the cosmetic pesticide ban. If this change to legislation is passed, those neighbourhood strolls will soon be accompanied by the distinct odor of weed-killing chemicals and signs warning us to “stay off the grass until dry”. As if chemicals are any safer once dry!

The ban on non-essential (cosmetic) pesticides – in other words, chemicals used to kill broadleaf weeds in grass – has provided 6 years of a cleaner environment in this province. Based on evidence that many common lawn care products pose risks to human, animal and environmental health, Manitoba joined Quebec, Ontario, and other jurisdictions in removing exposures to these products from our daily lives.

It’s been a breath of fresh air – literally, for those who live with asthma and other respiratory conditions. It has meant that pregnant people can spend time outside knowing that their unborn child is not being exposed to the unnecessary products that can trigger birth defects. And that parents can happily watch their kids rolling around on grass not treated with substances that can enter their still developing bodies and cause health problems later in life. Likewise, pet owners know their animals are safe outside from contamination by chemicals linked to cancers and other illnesses in animals.

But all this is about to change. When the ban was proposed in 2015, many municipalities objected, fearing a “dandelion apocalypse” if they weren’t allowed to use their chosen products. That voice was amplified by some farm groups, even though farm chemicals were not the subject of the legislation.

And there were people worried about their pristine lawns treated every year to create the weed-free green expanse often seen in advertising. Let’s remember – that advertising comes from powerful corporations, like Bayer (now owners of Monsanto), and Syngenta, with vested interests in selling their toxic products. Under the banner of Crop Life Canada, they funded a massive postcard campaign, conveniently delivered by lawn care companies to their clients just in time to lobby the government of the day against implementing the ban.

But as 2016 Probe Research polling showed, a majority of Manitobans, from all parts of the province and all walks of life, supported it. We had become cautious about these products and wanted them out of the environment and out of our bodies. The pesticide ban was the right thing to do.

Opponents have continued to agitate. Now today’s government cites its unscientific 2016 “consultation” to argue that most respondents want the ban lifted. Municipalities, they say, find the costs of battling dandelions without toxics are just too high.

Yet, a 2018 survey by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment of 6 cities across the country demonstrated these municipalities were not, in fact, spending more on greenspace management under cosmetic pesticide bans. They were maintaining publicly acceptable landscapes at reasonable cost, by applying sound horticultural practices like aeration and top dressing.

Here in Manitoba, local lawn care companies pivoted to use of less toxic products, and more important, to basic turf management practices to maintain their clients’ green spaces. An appreciation has sprung up for low maintenance ground covers in place of grass. People are becoming aware of threats to vital pollinators like bees posed by chemical products and turning to hardy native perennials as alternatives to mono-cultured, thirsty lawns.

It’s hard if not impossible to quantify improvements to health, waterways and pollinator populations that a cosmetic pesticide ban promotes because we are exposed to so many different chemicals in our air, food and water. But as the Ontario College of Family Physicians pointed out in their 2012 comprehensive review of research on links between pesticides and disease, a precautionary approach means avoiding any exposures that are not deemed necessary. Even Health Canada takes this view. Cosmetic pesticides, by definition, are not necessary. Their toxic impacts have not changed since the legislation was introduced here. They should be eliminated.

If Manitoba reverses the ban, we will be first province to do so. Truly, it will be a victory of the chemical corporations over human and environmental health and common sense.

Manitobans who object to this major backward step need to speak out.

Anne Lindsey is a member of the Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba Coalition, former Executive Director of the Manitoba Eco-Network, and a research associate with the Manitoba office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Municipalities don’t need toxic pesticides, study finds

Maintaining attractive, functional parks and sports fields doesn’t have to cost the earth

October 2018 – A report from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) refutes the myth that the cost of municipal weed control spirals upwards — and weeds run rampant in public parks and green spaces — when local governments are not allowed to use conventional toxic pesticides.

Some municipalities in Manitoba have expressed fears of skyrocketing costs and a virtual dandelion apocalypse, because of the province’s restrictions on non-essential uses of pesticides, which came into effect in 2015. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities has indicated that its members want the law changed to allow local governments to use currently banned products. But the study prepared by CAPE, based on information from practising weed program managers, found that the riskier pesticides are simply not needed.

City Hall, St. Catharines, Ontario

In the summer and fall of 2018, CAPE conducted interviews with parks managers in six municipalities across Canada — London, Guelph, St Catharines and Toronto in Ontario, Richmond, BC, and Cape Breton Regional Municipality in Nova Scotia. All cities that participated in the study are operating under either provincial or municipal restrictions on non-essential uses of pesticides on lawns and gardens. Some regulations have been in effect for more than 10 years.

The study found that satisfactory levels of weed control can be readily achieved at reasonable cost without the use of prohibited pesticides. How is this possible? Instead of relying on pesticides to suppress weeds, parks managers in these cities have adopted horticultural practices aimed at building and maintaining healthy turf to encourage desired plant growth and discourage weeds. These measures include mowing, aerating, fertilizing, overseeding and top-dressing.

In brief, parks managers who were interviewed for the study reported that:

• Alternative practices that focus on building healthy soil and turf are effective in controlling weeds, even on sports fields that require maintenance under demanding conditions of use.
• The cities’ weed control costs have not escalated, but have remained stable. Parks managers reported that priority green spaces of higher use and visibility can be maintained in well-groomed, attractive and functional condition within available budgets without using the banned pesticides.
• Community residents appear to be satisfied with methods of weed control that do not expose people to toxic pesticides in parks and on sports fields. Managers reported that complaints are minimal.

Cities and towns that are resisting bans on non-essential uses of pesticides, like some in Manitoba and Alberta, can take heart from the experiences of their peers in other municipalities, who are successfully controlling weeds without using the riskier pesticides. The complete report — Municipal Weed Control: Lessons from Ground Zero — is available on CAPE’s web site.

Health at risk: Pesticide regulators are failing Canadians

Regulation of pesticides in Canada lags far behind other countries

(Following are excerpts from a column by Dr. Trevor Hancock, a co-founder of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). Dr. Hancock reflects on the problems and consequences of Canada’s flawed system of pesticide regulation. Reprinted by permission of the author. Credit: Victoria Times-Colonist. The full text is on CAPE’s web site. A worthwhile read.)

March 11, 2019 – I cut my environmental-health teeth fighting the pesticide industry and Health Canada in the early 1980s, when I was an associate medical officer of health in the City of Toronto. We were recommending a ban on 2,4-D in the city, on the grounds that controlling dandelions in parks and gardens — known as cosmetic pesticide use — was not worth the potential health effects. I came to an early recognition that the Health Protection Branch of Health Canada functioned more like the industry-protection branch.

Dr. Trevor Hancock

I went on to co-found the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. For years, CAPE has fought to reduce or eliminate both cosmetic and in some cases agricultural pesticide use. It has done so based on evidence, the application of the precautionary principle, and its professional and public-interest concern in protecting health and the environment.

In its work, CAPE and its many community and environmentalist partners have tangled constantly with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, established within Health Canada in 1995. On its website, CAPE notes “gaps and flaws in this review process leave Canadians inadequately protected from health and environmental risks associated with the use of toxic pesticides.”

But CAPE is not alone in its criticism. The federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, part of the office of the auditor general, has undertaken three reviews of the agency since 2003, and they disclose some serious flaws. In 2003, the commissioner reported: “Overall, we conclude that the federal government is not managing pesticides effectively. We found weaknesses in many areas … [which] raises serious questions about the overall management of the health and environmental risks associated with pesticides.” But note, this comes after decades of criticism from health and environmental organizations acting in the public interest — and still the PMRA could not get it right.

In fact, for three of the most widely used pesticides in Canada — atrazine, glyphosate and neonicotinoids as a class — we have lower standards and are years, if not decades, behind Europe in protecting the health of Canadians.

Atrazine, a herbicide that is still registered and used in Canada, although declining, was banned in Europe in 2003. Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that is a probable human carcinogen, according to the World Health Organization — but not according to the PMRA, which seems to think it knows better. And neonicotinoids are widely used insecticides that are linked to harm to bees and other beneficial insects. The EU banned them for all outdoor agricultural use from the end of 2018, but the PMRA has taken only small steps to reduce their use.

In their blind pursuit of economic growth and their misplaced confidence in dodgy corporate science, governments turned a blind eye to all the warnings, while we all suffer the consequences.

(Read the complete column on the CAPE web site.)

Why it matters – lessons from the life and work of Sandra Madray

Honouring a committed advocate and researcher who campaigned on behalf of the most vulnerable

SEPTEMBER 2018 – In this heartfelt and personal reflection, Anne Lindsey, a member of Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Manitoba, remembers Sandra Madray as a dedicated activist who was resolutely committed to the protection of human health from pesticides and other toxic chemicals in our environment.

Sandra Madray (family photo)

I went to visit a friend and colleague recently — someone I hadn’t seen for a while. Sandra Madray was in the final stages of cancer. She was dying. I was shocked and deeply saddened to see the physical changes the disease had wrought on my beautiful friend. She was so thin, and in so much pain.

Cancer is horrific in every circumstance, but the cruel irony in Sandra’s situation is that she worked much of her adult life in a volunteer capacity to prevent cancer and other illnesses — in particular, those caused by, and associated with, environmental and industrial chemicals.

As a co-founder (with Margaret Friesen) of the local group Chemical Sensitivities Manitoba and an adviser to the national organization Prevent Cancer Now, she participated as a citizen/environmental representative in countless government consultations on laws and regulations regarding chemicals.She sat on the National Stakeholder Advisory Council for the Chemicals Management Plan, and on the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council. She served on the board of the Manitoba Eco-Network for several years, and was active in the Children’s Health and Environment Partnership.

Sandra’s back garden (family photo)

Sandra educated herself (and others) on the science and public policy of chemical exposure and what it means for human health. Studying reams of documents, she did the arduous and often thankless work for which many of us have neither the patience nor the appetite, as we trust hopefully that our governments will make the right decisions in the public interest.

Sandra’s garden (family photo)

Because she did that work, she knew that our hopeful trust is misplaced and that most regulatory decisions about chemicals are not taken with the utmost care to protect health or the environment, but rather lean heavily toward maximizing commercial profits and expedience. She knew that as a result, we inhabit a chemical soup of hazardous exposures to pesticides, cosmetics, plastics, vehicle and power plant emissions and other byproducts of the hydrocarbon society.

Sandra’s cancer may or may not have been attributable to environmental or workplace exposures, but many cancers are, and in all those cases, the pain and suffering, the unmitigated sadness and loss for family and friends are probably preventable.

Always kind, generous and with good humour and deep conviction, Sandra used her knowledge to advocate tirelessly for better solutions to society’s problems. She campaigned especially for the most vulnerable — for children, the elderly, the chemically sensitive (of which she was one) and the immune-compromised. A quiet warrior, she never sought special recognition for her work.

Sandra’s garden (family photo)

Some of the efforts she engaged in were successful — one recent example being the Manitoba law to prohibit many chemical pesticides in lawn care. With her own urban yard — an oasis of gorgeous native plants, buzzing and bright with butterflies and pollinators — as an example of better, healthful solutions for green space management, she worked with a coalition of groups to end unnecessary exposures to so-called “cosmetic” pesticides, some of which are linked in epidemiological studies to a variety of diseases, including cancer, respiratory and neurological/developmental problems.

When Manitoba joined numerous other provinces in legislating against lawn chemicals, it was a small but significant step forward in preventive medicine.

It is beyond sad that in Manitoba, it now seems destined to be reversed. Even though recent polling shows most Manitobans consider pesticide-free to be the best approach, powerful forces support chemical solutions for weed control, and they appear to have the ear of the current government behind the scenes. Possibly acting on inside knowledge, one lawn company owner was quoted in Home Décor and Renovations magazine as saying that the regulation would be amended for 2019, and that he was optimistic that it would allow “licensed lawn care professionals to resume the use of more effective weed control products.” We can only surmise that he was referring to substances such as 2,4-D, dicamba and mecoprop.

Sandra’s front garden (family photo)

As citizens, not only must we make every effort to avoid unnecessary products like cosmetic pesticides and scents, we must also continue to encourage our government not to take this terribly backward step. In fact, it would actually be more appropriate to strengthen the law by adding glyphosate-based compounds, such as Roundup, a weed-control product with links to cancer, to the list of prohibited substances. Roundup’s sordid history of coverups by its manufacturer, including the fact that its carcinogenic properties were long known about and hidden, is steadily being revealed in court challenges brought by cancer victims.

Sandra’s garden (family photo)

Sandra will not be with us to see a possible reversal of the policy that she contributed to, and once again, have to endure the impacts of lawn pesticides on her chemically sensitive body. But if this change of policy comes to pass, so many will be affected, including the children and all the other vulnerable people she worked so hard to protect.How many of them will have to get sick and perhaps die before a clean, common-sense and precautionary approach to green spaces is adopted once and for all in Manitoba? For Sandra Madray’s sake, let this number be zero.

Sandra passed away on August 17 at 68 with her husband, Winston, and family members at her side.

---

Anne Lindsey is a former executive director of the Manitoba Eco-Network, a long-time activist on health and environmental issues, and a research associate with the Manitoba office of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.