All the controversy in Coquitlam over the use of cosmetic pesticides makes me glad to be a Port Moody resident where this issue was resolved back in 2003 thanks to the efforts of then-Coun. Cynthia van Ginkel who spearheaded the initiative to ban cosmetic pesticides. While I have never used such pesticides in my yard, this bylaw means I can draw comfort from the knowledge that no pesticides will waft into my lungs while strolling around the neighbourhood and the fish in Port Moody’s streams are unlikely to be harmed by run-off from pesticide-treated yards. When Port Moody adopted their bylaw in 2003, they were the first such community in western Canada. With two provinces and over 140 communities across Canada having now banned the use of cosmetic pesticides, this issue really seems like it should have become a no-brainer.

The term, cosmetic pesticide, refers to chemicals used only to improve the appearance of vegetation. It does not include the so-called structural pesticides, e.g., those used to exterminate insects which can damage buildings or ones used on food crops. In suburban yards, one of the five most commonly used cosmetic pesticides is 2, 4 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Otherwise known as 2, 4 D, it has been approved for use since the 1940s. Despite such long-term use, information remains incomplete regarding its harmful side effects. Nonetheless, this herbicide is known to cause skin rashes, chronic headaches and difficulties with breathing.  t is thought to be an endocrine-disrupter and a carcinogen. Studies have shown, when sprayed, as much as 90% of the chemical can end up in waterways where it can be highly toxic to fish. Denmark and Norway have wisely banned the use of 2, 4 D. In contrast, Canada has failed to show any leadership regarding the use of harmful pesticides — over 50 such chemicals banned elsewhere in the world are still permitted to be used in Canada.

Apart from the harmful side effects of several pesticides, pesticide formulations sold on the market typically contain so-called “inert” ingredients which manufacturers are not required to identify. Sometimes, these “inert” ingredients are more harmful that the pesticide itself. Some manufacturers have been known to take advantage of this labeling loophole to add chemicals they could otherwise only dispose of with difficulty. In 1981, the Canadian government finally set a limit on the allowable dioxin content of 2, 4 D products. Since dioxins are some of the most toxic chemicals ever created by mankind and exert carcinogenic effects at doses of parts per trillion, I have difficulty understanding why any level of dioxin should be permitted in a product designed to be applied to yards where children play. Because 2, 4 D affects the growth of broad-leaved plants but not grasses, it is a common ingredient in many chemicals designed to create a weed-free “green” lawn. Personally, I prefer a dioxin-free lawn even if it contains a few dandelions.

Garden pesticides designed to kill insects can have devastating environmental impacts. Beneficial insects are just as likely as the intended pests to be harmed by these pesticides. If the beneficial insects prey upon the pests, then an application of chemical pesticide can work to the benefit of the insect pest. This time of year, many birds are feeding their offspring caterpillars and other insects. Even the species of birds that typically consume berries seek out insects to feed their young because insects provide nutritious protein. Pesticides designed to kill insects usually have deleterious impacts on other animals— most especially on young birds fed a constant diet of them. The Burke Mountain Naturalists have installed nest boxes for swallows in several locations throughout the Tri-cities. Unfortunately, we often find a higher mortality rate in nest boxes close to agricultural areas than at a site such as Colony Farm Regional Park where all the agricultural activities are organic. We suspect the higher mortality in boxes close to blueberry fields could be associated with pesticide use in these fields.

Banning the use of cosmetic pesticides also helps to create healthier working conditions for the people who make gardening products and it reduces the use of fossil fuels from which such pesticides are derived. There are so many good reasons to not use cosmetic pesticides that it’s hard to fathom why there is such resistance to banning their use in some communities.