Our presentation to Craik Town Council as outlined in the post below received a mixed response by Craik Town Council and the community at large. What we failed to take into account was the entrenched support for, and use of chemical pesticides in farming communities such as Craik. We should have done a much better job in delineating the use of pesticides for agriculture and those used for cosmetic purposes in towns and cities.
At any rate, we better understand now that many of our neighbors and their families have used agricultural chemicals for decades. Taken together with the realization that the health and environmental impacts of some chemicals do not become apparent or widely understood for decades too, (largely because of industry dominated science and influence over public policy) it is perfectly understandable for people here to feel the way they do.
Some of the research we provided to the Town Council is linked at the end of this post. Granted, it is a thick stack of information to process and we recommend that you also look at alternatives to pesticides so that no one experiences negative information overload. Combining this information with the fact that exposures to various toxic chemicals actually makes us feel ill, has helped solidify our opinion that pesticides pose health and environmental risks of varying degrees. Presenting it to Council, or the public at large is for educational purposes and we regret any bad feelings the reception of new and/or opposing information has caused.
It seems apparent that the majority of people in Craik would not support a by-law to ban cosmetic use of pesticides. Further, if Council and Mayor did pass such a by-law they would face the possibility of being voted out of office at the next election as a result. Therefore, the possibility of Craik leading the way in Saskatchewan with the first by-law prohibiting the application of ‘ornamental’ or ‘cosmetic’ pesticides is a move that needs support from citizens of this town.
We got stuck on this pesticide issue and have heard through the grapevine that it was felt we weren’t completely appreciating all the other green initiatives that have already been implemented here. Moreover, we hadn’t taken the time to fully understand the manner in which they were accomplished. We would like to acknowledge the hard work and determination of many locals. Namely CSLP (Craik Sustainable Living Project) Steering Committee members, with leadership by the Mayor, Reeve and their Councils has resulted in great progress in a relatively short period of time.
The Eco-centre is the most obvious with adjacent eco-village and Audubon Society certified golf course complimenting it nicely. Composting and mulching are taking hold and helping to reduce the use of pesticides. A new, chemical free water treatment plant is now being built and many people have made Craik their home recently because of these green, eco-friendly initiatives. There are a number of other positive off shoots from the work of the CSLP and the Town of
Also to their credit, the Town has asked citizens ‘to please inform their neighbors if they are planning to spray’. This clearly demonstrates the Town’s concern for those in the community who are prone to allergic (acute) reactions when exposed to chemicals. In addition the Town will now post signs in areas being treated with herbicides by town employees. At no time in the past has the Town sprayed in residents’ yards, nor will it do so in the future.
According to the Town, ‘they only apply herbicides on weeds that have first been cut and only in areas such as drainage ditches, power poles, sidewalk cracks, street cracks and vacant lots over run with noxious weeds.’ There is some chemical ‘residue (remaining from such applications) for a short time… but at no time do we (the Town of
We must respectfully disagree with the Town Council on this matter as these chemicals do enter the soil, water and air upon application and do not just disappear but build up over time in various locations including our bodies. In addition to asking residents to be courteous to their neighbours, and agreeing to post signs where and when the Town sprays, they feel that further ‘education may be the way to approach this subject.’ We wholeheartedly agree.
The Town Council encouraged the CSLP to take the lead and the CSLP answered the call, recently forming a Health Committee to deal with health related issues including, but not solely, the cosmetic use of pesticides. The CSLP Health Committee has begun its education campaign and started distributing some flyers around town that were provided by The Saskatchewan Environmental Network and the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS). The CCS has recently met with members of the CSLP explaining their position for a province wide ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides and offering up some assistance for our community efforts.
In response to our desire to not have pesticides applied adjacent to our home and property the Town ‘will discuss a process for residents that don’t want chemicals applied… providing an alternative is found that does not increase the workload of its employees.’
We’re happy to explore and offer up any alternatives we may find. The Town may also find assistance from one of 130 communities in Canada that have legislated restrictions on pesticide use, likely having already explored and tested many alternatives available.
In the meantime, we shall write council and propose we care for the sidewalk cracks, power poles, etc. immediately adjacent to our property using hand weeding, snipping, mowing and mulch. We shall do this at our own expense and hope that any savings the Town realizes (in both time and money) are applied towards non-toxic alternatives to pesticides.
Finally, we ask those who consider our approach thus far hasty to please consider that most people react very quickly when they perceive a danger. Our perception of pesticides are very different to most people that have grown used to the idea of pesticides being an essential part of gardening. We believe that powerful corporations have convinced society with glitzy advertising campaigns that pesticides are indispensible meanwhile smothering the voices of traditional knowledge that use non-toxic methods for their gardens.
*Although ‘round-up’ is a brand name, it is often used as a generic term for similar chemicals, especially those with the main active ingredient being glyphosate.
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7728/abstract.html
Common Weed Killer (Roundup) Shows Evidence of Environmental and Health Problems
http://www.chem-tox.com/pesticides/#roundup
…recent independent research indicates that glyphosate may not be as safe as previously thought.
http://www.ecochem.com/ENN_glyphosate.html
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment Position Statement on Synthetic Pesticides
http://www.cape.ca/toxics/pesticidesps.html
Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GTARW.php
Monsanto's Roundup Linked to Pregnancy & Reproductive Problems & Endocrine Disruption http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/pregnancy060305.cfm http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7728/7728.html
Ornamental use of pesticides on lawns and gardens The Canadian Cancer Society http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3702_335143__langId-en,00.html http://www.snapinfo.ca/
http://www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/pesticides/pesthumanhealth.pdf http://www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/pesticides/pestlawncare.pdf http://www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/pesticides/healthygardenfactsheet.pdf http://www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/pesticides/pestgardencare.pdf
National Pesticides Telecommunications Network http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphogen.pdf Saskatchewan eco-network http://www.econet.sk.ca/issues/pesticides/index.html