Who Sue Whom?

The Province of Ontario is finally on the cusp of enacting its promised legislation banning pesticide use. About time. Overdue, in fact, to take substantial steps to reduce the toxic substances that overwhelm our environment, and in turn, our health and that of all living things as well. The Take Charge on Toxics campaign, representing a coalition of health, environmental and labour groups breathes a sigh of relief.

"Assuming it has strong regulations (the legislation) will improve Ontarians' health by phasing out the toxic chemicals that make people sick", according to the executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "It will also help Ontario businesses compete in a world market where people are increasingly demanding non-toxic products", Gideon Forman stressed.

Bill 167, the Toxics Reduction Act, will require regulated facilities to track and evaluate the use and release of toxic substances to develop a strategy for reduction. It will also halt the stubborn insistence of home-owners in their green-lawning tracks, those lawn-proud individuals heedless of the harm their use of lawn pesticides wreak on the environment and their neighbours.

Scientists at the Indiana University School of Medicine have released findings from a study closely linking birth defect risks associated with season of conception. Indicating that women who conceive in the spring or summer when pesticide exposure is high may run a higher risk of giving birth to a baby with a birth defect. Chemical exposure has been linked to all manner of human diseases.

But the companies that provide lawn treatments, along with the producers of those pesticides and herbicides keep lobbying against legislation meant to control their use. Insisting that there is safety in their use. Citing the fact that Canada's Health Canada pest-management regulatory agency had declared 2,4-D safe if used as directed. That is a caveat.

The Province of Quebec was the first in Canada to outlaw pesticide use. Once that precedent was set, municipalities elsewhere in Canada began to take charge of the situation, one after another enacting municipal legislation against their use. That speaks of responsible government, despite the hordes of nay-sayers. Use of pesticides has been linked to various types of cancers, reproductive and neurological problems.

We know next to nothing about the cumulative effects of pesticides in the human body. We do know how harmful pesticides are to wildlife, from insects to birds to larger mammals, inclusive of household pets. Children exposed to pesticide use are
vulnerable to neurological-behavioural impairment and have a higher risk of developing childhood leukemia.

We should celebrate our freedom from the use of pesticides, where neighbours insist on their right to spray chemicals that waft over to lawns not their own; that waft into houses through open windows; that are carried by pets' paws and children's shoes into the homes of those sensitive to the presence of those chemicals. The run-off of the chemicals penetrate ground-water and flow into streams and rivers, killing fish.

And here comes U.S. Dow AgroSciences, slapping the Government of Canada with a suit under the North American Free Trade Agreement, insisting that Quebec's ban on lawn pesticides containing 2,4-D be repealed. And oh, by the way, they'd also appreciate an additional little gesture of legal chastening: $2-million in damages - U.S. funds, of course.

Dow's suit claims the pesticide ban represents an "expropriation" of Dow investments. Accusing Canada of breaching "basic due process, transparency, good faith and natural justice". Isn't that enough to make you hysterical? Laugh and cry, simultaneously. Transparency, good faith and natural justice?

Dow feels it has the right to expropriate the good health of our environment, impacting deleteriously on our health, that of our pets, and our wildlife. Reminding one somewhat of the maliciously deliberate steps by tobacco manufacturers to entice people into habitual chemical slavery to their cancer-causing products. Weren't they sued by government?

While Dow accuses Canada of breach of NAFTA obligations, seeking damages "without limitation", covering loss of sales, profits, goodwill, investment and other product-related costs, would it not be sensible for Canada to set in motion a class action suit charging Dow with loss of life, costs of health care, and ill will against Canadians?