February 2002
By Bob Burrows
“I am an environmentalist who happens to work on a golf
course.” This is a typical opening remark made by superintendents
who are frequently called upon to address various city councils on the
issue of pesticides and possible by-law amendments related to their
use.
Increasingly, superintendents are being viewed as
professionals and the source of expert opinion on intense “green
space” management and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that we are witnessing a
growing uphill battle with the anti-pesticide activist lobby for the
hearts and minds of the general public on what some are calling the
“cosmetic use of pesticides.”
Is your golf course going to be able to provide good playing
conditions in the future, or will it be transformed into a
weed-infested, patchy, golf links without the help of plant protectants?
If the activists have their way, golf conditions as we know it will
change forever. The municipal pesticide by-law issue is one of the
Canadian Golf Superintendents Association’s (CGSA) top priorities,
both on a provincial and national basis (see sidebar). The association
has taken a lead role in the pesticide debate to ensure any changes in
legislation are made based on fact and not emotion.
The Hudson case
This past year was one of the most important relative to the
long-standing issue of pesticide usage on Canadian golf courses. The
current pesticide debate actually began taking shape several years ago
in the Town of Hudson, Quebec, and before that in Ile Bizard, Quebec,
and continues to gain momentum.
The Town of Hudson enacted by-law 270 restricting the use of
pesticides within its perimeter. This by-law, unlike previous municipal
by-laws, included privately owned as well as public lands. However, two
lawn care companies from Montreal decided to continue to offer lawn care
services to their Hudson clients and were fined by the town under the
new law. The two companies challenged the fine in court claiming the
town did not have the right to enact such laws since the companies were
using federally-approved products with provincially-licensed
staff.
The Superior Court of Quebec ruled in favour of the town. The
case was appealed and the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the original
court’s decision. The case was then taken to the Supreme Court of
Canada. Several interest groups intervened in the case on behalf of the
town including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). The
involvement of these groups only served to heighten the significance of
the court’s decision as the very legislative power of a
municipality now appeared to be on trial.
The Supreme Court’s decision
In June of 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Quebec Court
of Appeal’s decision quoting the Quebec Cities and Towns Act
(CTA). The act allows towns to “regulate or prohibit the use of
combustible, explosive, corrosive, toxic, radioactive, or other
materials that are harmful to public health or safety, in the territory
of the municipality.” While it could be argued the lawyers for the
plaintiffs were ill advised in their defense, the fact remains a
precedent had been set from which judges could now draw their
opinions.
In the Hudson case, Supreme Court judges relied heavily on the
“precautionary principle” of accepted international law and
the right of senior jurisdictions like the federal government to set
standards, while junior jurisdictions (provinces or municipalities) may
pass laws that exceed but not relax those senior standards.
This precautionary principle is meant to protect people from
activities that may appear to impair “health, peace, order and
good government” in any way, whether based on good science or not.
This principle errs heavily on the side of caution. In other words,
municipalities cannot enact a by-law that stipulates motorists in their
jurisdiction are not required to wear seat belts, as this would relax a
provincial standard. Provinces, on the other hand, cannot enforce an act
which allows for the use of non-turf licensed pesticides as this would
relax a federal standard. Municipalities, however, can enact by-laws,
which regulate when and where PCP Act-approved pesticides can be used,
as this is stricter than federal standards.
The Supreme Court ruling has given the anti-pesticide activist
lobby a renewed sense of purpose, even though the ruling only cited the
CTA in Quebec. A recent independent, legal clarification on the Ontario
Municipal Act (OMA) and its proposed revised wording found most
provinces have similar provisions for the application of the
precautionary principle in their jurisdictions as long as they do not
relax the standards of the senior court.
In Hudson and Halifax, golf courses have been given temporary
exemptions, but this may not be what the future holds in all cases.
There have been other hot spots across the country including Calgary,
which last year successfully adopted a holistic IPM approach (with help
from the Alberta Golf Superintendents Association (AGSA) and the CGSA.
In Ontario, Caledon, London and Ottawa are seeking public input on this
issue before drafting new by-laws.
Healthy lawns
In response to a report by the Standing Committee on the Environment
and Sustainable Development, in October 2000, federal Health Minister
Allan Rock announced an Action Plan for Urban Use Pesticides. This
action plan includes a Healthy Lawns Strategy aimed at reducing
Canadians’ reliance on pesticide use for lawn care through the
application of Integrated Pest Management principles (IPM), with
particular emphasis on “pest prevention, use of reduced risk
products and application of pesticides only when
necessary.”
This strategy was developed through a partnership between
Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and provincial
and territorial governments. A Healthy Lawns Working Group (HLWG) was
subsequently created to implement the strategy by: assessing pesticide
product type availability to the home owner; revising classification of
domestic pesticide products; improving product labelling of lawn care
pest control products; developing educational/training materials; and
establishing a healthy lawns web site.
The industry response
A number of interested parties with common goals have come together
to present a unified front in the face of anti-pesticide lobbyists. The
Royal Canadian Golf Association (RCGA) is spearheading industry efforts
in Ontario. Its partners include the Ontario Golf Superintendents
Association (OGSA), the Ontario Golf Association (OGA), the National
Golf Course Owners Association, (NGCOA), ECO and CGSA in concert with a
professional lobby group. These are strategic alliances, which together
form a unified provincial strategy whenever representation is requested
by various ministries or municipalities.
The golf industry is not advocating the use of more pesticides
to maintain golf courses. The industry wants to illustrate the many good
things currently being done to protect the environment, and demonstrate
the economic importance golf has on local regions and the negative
impact a pesticide ban would have on these local economies.
Pesticides are used as a last resort, and only after all other
pest control methods have been exhausted before imminent turf loss
occurs. Moreover, superintendents have a fiscal incentive not to use
pesticides, as they are expensive tools, which affect operating
budgets.
Interestingly, a recent IPSOS-Reid poll conducted by the
Canadian Manufacturers of Chemical Specialties (CMCS) found over 60 per
cent of Canadians do not support pesticide bans as this would affect
their established rights as property owners. It seems Canadians take
great pride in the appearance of their homes, and a well-maintained
property impacts positively on its re-sale value.
A message worth repeating
The industry coalition has developed some guidelines and messages
superintendents should consider if called upon to discuss pesticides.
They are as follows:
- Express the depth, complexity, and ramifications of a ban and
the need for ministries to take a ìgo-slowî
approach.
- Consider the economic impact of any decision to ban
pesticides.
- Restrict the ability of municipalities to implement
bans.
- In the absence of proven effective alternative products, there
is a need in the golf industry for the legitimate, responsible, and
controlled use of pesticide products unfettered by municipal
bans.
- Pesticides are a part of our success in maintaining the
playing conditions Canadian golf courses have become renowned, which has
a direct link to tourism.
- Help research institutions and manufacturers bring to market
bio-friendly products.
- Reinforce the PMRA-stated objective of fast-tracking products
through the approvalsí process.
- Pesticides are not for cosmetic or non-essential use as turf
loss has an economic and enjoyment value for the golfer and
owner.
- Charitable golf tournaments or the PGA tour would have
difficulty in justifying holding an event at a venue with poor
conditions.
- Courses along our border with the U.S. would loose
clientele.
- We are environmental stewards.
- Band-Aid solutions would create chaos with ìbrownî
and ìgreenî communities with virtually unenforceable
regulations.
- Pesticides are already well-regulated and tested by the
federal government with the public having the option of entering the
course when posting of an application has taken place, thus an exemption
for golf is warranted.
Some do’s and don’ts
If you have been called upon by your local municipality to make a
presentation on this issue, consider the following:
- Contact the local clerksí office to get on the
schedule
- Get other superintendents to attend and speak
- Get to know the local issues and personalities
- Be yourself and be honest and brief
- You must attend (because activists will)
- Each municipality is different (no standard presentation) yet,
there is a universal theme
- Personal letters to councillors work better than blanket
letters
- All groups should be represented
- Do not put anyone else down to build yourself up
- ìHired gunsî are not what councillors want, rather
local constituents
- Look at the big picture
- Repeat your three key messages
- Act as a partner not an adversary
- Try to present an ìoutî by stressing that products
are already strictly regulated
- Volunteer your expertise
- Ask to be part of the process, they respect our
opinions
- Help to educate councillors
- Do not fight science with better science. Try not to mention
studies that refute other studies.
“Just let the dandelions grow on your lawn”
Such statements show a lack of knowledge about pesticides and their
potential benefits. The real issue is not the cosmetic use of
pesticides— it’s about choices.
In his presentation, “The debate on pesticides: science
has been lost and PR has won,” Dr. Mark Winston of Simon Fraser
University’s Centre for Pest Management points out, “The
media has taken the debate to extremes, creating an us versus them
scenario, with industry losing its credibility.”
Winston went on to tell attendees at the 48th annual
conference of CropLife Canada (formerly the Crop Protection Institute),
“The middle ground, where the risks balance the benefits of
pesticides is lost.”
The suggestion that pesticide use is cosmetic or non-essential
is extreme, and may have its roots in various (and unfounded) health
concerns. In fact, in a 1997 report to the National Cancer Institute of
Canada (NCIC), an ad-hoc panel on pesticides and cancers concluded,
“It was not aware of any definitive evidence that suggests
synthetic pesticides contribute significantly to the overall cancer
mortality.” The panel added, “it did not find any existing
evidence that suggests that crop protection chemicals and lawn and
garden products are likely to be a major cause of
cancer.”
With progressive analytical technology, scientists can now
detect one part per quadrillion Consider that one part per million
equals one square inch in a baseball diamond, and one part per billion
equals one second in 32 years. How can we define zero? However, it seems
that zero exposure is what anti-pesticide group is
advocating.
It’s about choice
Each day choices are made which affect our health in a more profound
way than any pesticide product with an LD50 of 10,000 (Daconil) could
ever accomplish (where a 65-kg person would need to ingest 650,000 mg or
650 kg ai./kg of body weight).
There is no such thing as zero risk—life is about
balancing risks and benefits. It’s about making choices. Choices
like: labouring in our own gardens, playing golf without having to
invoke the “unplayable lie” rule on dollar spot-infested
fairways, or caring for loved ones in an environment of our
choosing.
In times like this, lawmakers are a little skeptical of
science, experts, studies, outsiders, lobbyists, public-relations firms,
and environmental activists. They want to hear from you, the local
taxpayer on how by-laws will affect your life or business. Rest assured.
This issue is coming to a council chamber near you. Are you
ready?
Bob Burrows is the course manager at the Rosedale Golf Club
in Toronto, Ontario, and the CGSA Ontario Director. He can be reached at
(416) 485-9742 or e-mail rjburrows@sympatico.ca.
