I would first like to comment on the deadline for feedback of March 7, 2008. Given the specialized and technical nature of the material presented, a 2 week response period is not long enough.
Secondly, from the posting in the City News section of the Guelph Tribune, it was not clear what the discussion of thresholds related to. It was evident only after reading the bylaw and the minutes of the May 22, 2007 council meeting, that staff was directed to more accurately define “infestation” as referred to in section 3 (Exceptions) subsection “m” of bylaw (2007)18308.
Feedback on the proposed weed and insect thresholds:
This section of the bylaw reads:
3. “Notwithstanding Section 2, it is permitted to apply or use pesticide in the following cases: (m) To control or destroy Pests which have caused an infestation to property.”
The original purpose of this exception was to provide for those extenuating and rare circumstances when damage to property was so severe as to cause a significant loss of investment. It was never intended to be used a determinant of minimum levels above which the application of pesticides would be allowed.
Infestation thresholds for Weeds:
The definition of pests should not include weeds. To do so, sanctions the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, which is in direct contravention with the purpose of this bylaw.
The column “where” includes sports fields, general parkland and other public areas. The inclusion of public spaces in the list of exceptions unnecessarily complicates the issue. For example, if a poison ivy infestation were to occur in a naturalized city owned area, this situation would be covered by section 3 i) , “To control, destroy or repel, directly or indirectly, an animal, plant or other organism which is harmful to human health.”
The inclusion of sports fields, parkland and naturalized areas in the infestation guidelines appears to indicate a desire by the operations department to resume spraying of Guelph’s public spaces. If this is the case, the matter should be brought up for separate discussion and should not be included within the contents of this bylaw.
Infestation thresholds for Insects:
It is under this category that the objective of providing a means of remedy for severe cases of turf loss is addressed. That being acknowledged, I question the existence of this exemption from a health perspective.
Council adopted a pesticide by-law because it acknowledged and accepted the statements made by the medical community and countless others that pesticide exposure is a human health risk. Since scientific data shows that insecticides are even a more potent risk, it doesn’t make sense to allow their continued use if certain thresholds are reached. The only time they should be used is if there is a health issue as specified by section 3 i).
To allow the use of insecticides for aesthetic (cosmetic) purposes is in conflict with council’s objective of providing the public with protection from pesticide exposure.
Conclusion:
The topic of infestation resulted in a contentious year long debate in Toronto. Peterborough, on the other hand, passed a bylaw with no infestation exemptions; that bylaw appears to be working quite well.
I certainly hope that we are not heading down the same path as Toronto. The citizens of Guelph have waited long enough for a pesticide bylaw. More discussions about thresholds will only delay implementation of this very important bylaw and we will be forced to endure yet another year of exposure to harmful lawn-care chemicals.
The list of exceptions without section 3(m) provides all the tools necessary to ensure human health and safety is protected in our community. The continued inclusion of section 3 (m) only serves to weaken the bylaw.
It is therefore my recommendation that bylaw (2007)18308 be amended so as to remove all references to infestation exemptions. OA