Council adopts a new bylaw that discourages chemical use, but doesn't ban it outright

by Joe Belanger, London Free Press

There will be no ban on pesticides in London.

In a narrow 10-8 vote, city council last night passed a bylaw that only encourages people not to use pesticides and promotes so-called integrated pest management.

"I think it was a smart move by council," Henry Valkenburg of Great Lakes Lawn Care said. "Council looked at the facts, looked at the evidence and they made the right decision."

Sean Hurley, spokesperson for the London Coalition Against Pesticides, vowed to continue the battle for a ban.

"I think we've been getting a song and dance from council all along and we actually expected this," Hurley said.

"I think it's dishonest to say they're going to do something and then do nothing. I think it's going to be an election issue. This is not over, not by a long shot."

Council debated the issue for more than 90 minutes as a packed gallery of lawn-care workers on one side and pro-ban supporters on the other looked on, occasionally applauding.

Other options discussed included a total ban on pesticide use, with exemptions for bug and fungi infestations or for health reasons.

Pro-ban council members tried several tactics to delay the vote until Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco returns from vacation in Italy.

Coun. Fred Tranquilli, chairperson of the environment and transportation committee, said, "It's a good bylaw."

"I am disappointed that the people who support this bylaw had their integrity challenged and were accused of not having the interest in people's health," Tranquilli said. "There seems to be an inability to focus on the issue separate from personalities."

Several council members, led by Coun. Bill Armstrong, accused others of reneging on a promise to ban pesticides and of misleading the public.

"Obviously, council is split on this issue," a disappointed Armstrong said. "But it's a bylaw with no restrictions on pesticides, so it's not a bylaw at all. It's what we already have."

Coun. David Winninger and others gave impassioned arguments supporting a ban.

Winninger said the reason there's no scientific proof pesticides pose a health threat is because they may be tested only on animals.

He argued Dr. Graham Pollett, the city's medical office of health, along with various medical organizations support a ban on pesticides.

"We don't have all the answers, that's quite clear," Winninger said. "But that hasn't stopped other municipalities from passing bold legislation. If we really care about the people of London and our children and grandchildren, then every one of us ought to be voting against this bylaw."

Controller Gord Hume argued the bylaw accomplishes what council set out to do -- reduce the use of pesticides in the city.

"Homeowners have been lost in this debate," Hume said. "I have a lot of faith in their common sense, judgment and ability to make decisions and I believe education is the strongest weapon."

Several cities across the country, including Toronto, have approved or are developing bylaws banning the cosmetic use of pesticides. Other municipalities are exploring bylaws similar to London's.

Proponents of a ban argue pesticides harm the environment and pose a health threat.

The lawn-care industry says a ban is unnecessary, pointing to Health Canada reports and other studies that conclude pesticides are safe if used properly.

The industry also says a ban would jeopardize as many as 250 jobs in the area.

Hurley said integrated pest management is "too complicated, cumbersome and ultimately unenforceable."

Integrated pest management (IPM) is a system that uses a variety of methods -- natural or biological -- to eliminate pests, such as weeds, insect and fungi, but still allows for the use of pesticides.

City legal staff are reviewing a clause that would have made it mandatory that only IPM-accredited companies be included in a city registry.