PLCAO Online Forums

It is currently February 26th, 2021, 2:26 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: BRITISH COLUMBIA ― PUBLIC CONSULTATION ▬ Dec. 16th, 2009
PostPosted: December 17th, 2009, 10:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2009, 9:38 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Canada

( PDF documents concerning this topic, with photos, are available at )




December 16th, 2009

( Adapted Excerpts )



In the August 25th 2009 Speech from the Throne, the Government of British Columbia committed to consult British Columbians on “ new statutory protections to further safeguard the environment from cosmetic chemical pesticides.”

This consultation paper [ ... is ] intended to stimulate conversation [ in order to ] gather your input on this topic.

The Ministry of Environment (the ministry) has prepared background information and identified consultation issues for discussion to build understanding about the subject and provide a structure for comments and feedback. Additional comments or suggestions beyond the identified consultation issues are also welcome.

This consultation paper and a response form for providing comments to the ministry, and links to related legislation, are posted on the Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Consultation Forum website. This information can also be accessed by clicking on the “ Cosmetic Use Of Pesticide Consultation ” button on the Ministry of Environment home page (

Discussion comments and responses received by February 15, 2010 will be reviewed by the ministry and a summary posted on the Consultation Forum website. Following this review, the ministry will inform respondents and post information regarding next steps and any intentions for revision of statutory provisions governing the cosmetic use of pesticides.


The paper includes the following sections ―


1. Definition of a pesticide

2. The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to managing pests

3. How pesticides are regulated in British Columbia

4. What is meant by “ cosmetic use of pesticides ”

5. What other provinces are doing



1. Ministry objectives in regulating the cosmetic use of pesticides

2. Potential regulatory restrictions on “ cosmetic use of pesticides ”

3. Creating classes of pesticides that may or may not be used for cosmetic purposes

4. Limiting use to qualified applicators and encouraging IPM

5. Notification and signage requirements

6. Conditions under which pesticides may be sold or purchased

7. Public awareness, education, compliance, and enforcement

8. Additional comments





A pesticide is anything that is intended to prevent, destroy, repel, attract or manage a pest. Pesticides used to kill insects are known as insecticides; those that kill weeds are herbicides; and those that kill rodents are called rodenticides.



In 2004, B.C. became the first jurisdiction in North America to require the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on all public land and by all commercial pesticide applicators. IPM is a systematic decision–making process that aims to prevent pests from becoming problems, and to determine what actions to take if pest problems occur.

In IPM programs, all available information and treatment methods are considered in order to manage pest populations effectively, economically, and in an environmentally sound manner. IPM does not try to eliminate all pests. Instead, it attempts to reduce pest numbers to levels that minimize damage while protecting human health and the environment.

IPM provides important advantages to the pest manager, the environment and to society.

Effective IPM programs ―

● Provide long–term solutions to pest problems

● Reduce pesticide use

● Protect the environment and human health

● Minimize harm to beneficial organisms that help control pests

● Provide pest control options when pesticides cannot be used

● Reduce the development of pesticide resistant pests



Important federal legislation. All pesticides used in Canada must be accepted for use (registered under the federal Pest Control Products Act) by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada.

Before a pesticide is registered, the manufacturer must provide scientific data and information on ―

● Product effectiveness in Canadian conditions

● Toxicity to humans, animals and plants

● Food and feed residues

● Product fate in the environment

● Chemistry of the pesticide

The PMRA makes a registration decision after a complete review of the scientific data, safety, effectiveness, and merits of the product. When a pesticide is registered, it is given a unique Pest Control Products Act (PCP) registration number. This registration number appears on the pesticide label.

Pesticide applicators have specific responsibilities under the federal Pest Control Products Act.

Those responsibilities include ―

● Possessing and using only registered pesticides

● Following the instructions contained on the pesticide label

● Ensuring that the pesticide is used, stored and disposed of safely


B.C. legislation ― the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Act and regulation

The mandate of the Ministry of Environment (the ministry) is to protect human health and safety, and maintain and restore the diversity of British Columbia’s native species, ecosystems, and habitats. The ministry administers the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Act and regulation, the primary regulatory tools governing the sale and use of pesticides in the province.

The ministry relies on the federal Pest Control Products Act, and the expertise of the PMRA of Health Canada, to evaluate and determine acceptable uses for pesticides registered for sale in B.C.

The IPM Act and regulation establish conditions for the sale and use of pesticides in the province through a classification system and regulatory provisions for licences, certification, permits, Pest Management Plans and ministry responsibilities. The regulation also contains public notification, consultation, reporting and record keeping provisions ― as well as standards for IPM programs and use of pesticides aimed to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

The IPM Act and regulation require that ―

● Pesticides used on public land (e.g., schools, parks, boulevards), and those used by pest control services (e.g. lawn–care or tree–care companies),be applied under the direct supervision of a person trained in the safe use of pesticides and that they be used in an IPM program ― under the IPM process, a pesticide can be used only when it is determined to be critical to control a pest and when no practical alternatives are available

● Notification signs be posted when pesticides are used on public land or multi–residence properties

● Vendors selling pesticides have staff trained in IPM to assist customers who request advice about purchasing a pesticide


Municipal powers to regulate the use of pesticides

Under provisions of the Community Charter, municipalities may choose to restrict the use of pesticides for maintaining outdoor trees, shrubs, flowers, other ornamental plants and/or turf ― on municipal land and on land used for residential purposes.

Approximately twenty B.C. municipalities have bylaws that restrict pesticide uses in their communities. Some municipalities prohibit all pesticide uses under their jurisdiction. Others allow certain uses under a municipally–issued permit. One municipality allows applications by licensed service companies, but not by untrained pesticide applicators.

Municipalities do not have the authority to ban the sale of pesticides.



Cosmetic use of pesticides can be considered as the use of pesticides for non–essential or aesthetic purposes. For example, a pesticide may be used in an outdoor situation to improve the appearance of lawns, gardens, landscapes or other green spaces and/or to control unwanted or undesirable organisms.

Some indoor uses, such as use of a pesticide to control spiders, can also be considered as cosmetic or aesthetic.

Non–cosmetic use of pesticides includes use to prevent economic damage or health impacts, such as reducing pest damage to crops or buildings or reducing spread of disease. Exclusions to regulatory provisions addressing the cosmetic use of pesticides have been made to allow the use of pesticides for such activities as public health and safety (including the protection of public works structures), agriculture and preventing impacts to agriculture, forestry, research, and scientific purposes, and to protect natural resources.

Regulations that address the cosmetic use of pesticides generally focus on urban landscapes and residential areas.

● Challenges in regulating cosmetic use of pesticides include ―

● Defining potentially subjective terms such as “ non–essential ” or “ aesthetic ”

● Addressing indoor and/or outdoor cosmetic use of pesticides

● Addressing use of pesticides in food gardens and/or fruit trees in or near residential areas

Use of pesticides on business or commercial properties with public access or use ― such as commercial gardens, retail businesses or landscaping of businesses in residential areas



Six Canadian provinces have enacted or announced some form of regulation governing the cosmetic use of pesticides within their jurisdiction. This section of the consultation paper summarizes key aspects of the approaches and current status of these efforts for each of the provinces ― Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Québec, Ontario and Alberta.


 A. Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

Newfoundland and Labrador regulates pesticides under the Pesticides Control Regulation of the Environmental Protection Act.

The provincial regulation ―

● Bans the sale of pesticide–fertilizer combination products to unlicensed people (while still permitting purchase by commercial applicators)

● Limits broadcast application of a pesticide–fertilizer combination product containing the herbicide 2,4–D by licensed applicators to one application per lawn per year.


 B. Province of Prince Edward Island

The Government of Prince Edward Island in December 2009 announced its intention to “ implement changes to how lawn–care pesticides will be managed in the province.”.

Changes are planned to take effect on April 1, 2010, and include ―

● A ban on the sale and use of specified domestic lawn care pesticides, including pesticide–fertilizer combination products, concentrates requiring dilution before use, granular products and products containing the active ingredient 2,4–D –with criteria and a list of identified products set out in an “ Over–the–Counter Products banned list ” of over 240 products

● Lawn care companies (and individuals working for these companies) who apply pesticides are required to have completed a training course, submit an annual record of pesticide use, and not use pesticides containing the ingredient 2,4–D on lawns


 C. Province of New Brunswick

New Brunswick conducted a public consultation “ lawn care and landscape pesticide use ” in 2008, and introduced regulatory changes to the provincial Pesticides Control Act in the fall 2009 legislative sitting including ―

● A ban on the sale and use of more than 200 over–the–counter lawn care pesticide products, including the use of products containing 2,4–D for domestic lawn care

● As of February 2010, requirements for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) accreditation (involving training and certification)will be included in all operating permits for professionals and companies (such as golf courses and other businesses) companies and individuals carrying out lawn care services involving commercial grade pesticides


 D. Province of Québec

Québec regulates pesticide use under a Pesticides Management Code instituted in 2003.

The code, among other provisions ―

● Prohibits the sale and use of about 20 “active ingredients” present in some 200 lawn pesticide products registered under federal legislation ― listed in a Schedule of the code

● Requires pesticides to be sold “ behind–the–counter ”

● Prohibits the use of most pesticides inside and outside child care centres and schools

● Lists 14 “ low or reduced risk ” pesticides (such as borax, silicon dioxide and acetic acid) that are explicitly authorized for sale and use in public places such as schools and child care centres ― under a specific Schedule of the code

● Prohibits the sale and use of pesticide–fertilizer mixtures for lawns

● Allows use of prohibited pesticides by golf course operators and requires operators to submit a “ pesticide reduction plan ” to the ministry every three years

● Prohibits the application of pesticides less than three metres from a body of water


 E. Province of Ontario

Ontario passed legislation implementing a “ cosmetic pesticides ban ” that took effect April 22, 2009. The requirements of the ban are detailed in Ontario Regulation 63/09 and the Pesticides Act, which was amended by the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act, 2008.

The legislation ―

● Generally prohibits the sale and use of pesticides for cosmetic (i.e., “ non–essential ”) purposes ― excluding golf courses, some sports fields, specialty turf, forestry and agriculture

● Established 11 classes of pesticides ―

► One class of pesticide may not be
sold or used

► Another class may be sold and used
according to label directions without any
additional restrictions

► Another class of products have both
“ cosmetic and non–cosmetic ” uses,
with specific rules provided for vendors
to follow when dealing with potential
purchasers (intended to ensure that
purchasers do not use these products
for cosmetic purposes)


 F. Province of Alberta

In November 2008, the Government of Alberta announced an intended “ ban on herbicide–fertilizer combination products.”

Under provincial legislation ―

● As of January 1, 2010, a list of over 100 products containing a combination of fertilizer and herbicide (2,4–D) will no longer be sold in Alberta

● Herbicide–only products (including those containing 2,4–D) will still be available for sale and use



This section of the consultation paper outlines some key issues in considering regulation of cosmetic use of pesticides in British Columbia.

Please review the following information and consultation questions ― and let us know what you think, using the response form available on the Cosmetic Use of Pesticides Consultation Forum website or by separate submission. Directions for providing comments to the ministry are provided in the final section of this consultation paper.



In regulating pesticides and the cosmetic use of pesticides, the ministry currently considers ―

● Protection of human health and the environment

● Having a science–based approach

● Supporting the practice of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

● Being appropriate and effective

● Providing a foundation for understanding and adoption by the public, IPM practitioners and affected interests

● Cost–effective compliance and enforcement



B.C.’s existing laws governing the sale and use of pesticides that might be used for cosmetic purposes ―

● Require that, for pesticide uses on public land or in and around multi–resident dwellings, the pesticide applicator be trained in the safe use of pesticides and use pesticides according to the principles of IPM

● Allow private property owners to use pesticides on their own property for any purpose allowed on the pesticide label ― if all label directions are followed

● Do not explicitly define or restrict “ the cosmetic use of pesticides ”



● What is and what is not a “ cosmetic use ” of a pesticide ?

● Can certain pests be considered “ cosmetic ” ?

● Is there a point at which the management of a pest becomes “ not cosmetic ” ?

● Is there a difference in using a pesticide to manage pests on a tree used for fruit production in a residential area and a fruit tree that is strictly ornamental ?

● Should the term “cosmetic use of pesticides” apply strictly to outdoor situations (e.g., lawns and/or gardens) ?

● Are there situations where the use of pesticides indoors would be considered to be “cosmetic” ?

● How would this (indoor) use of pesticide for cosmetic purposes be defined ?

● Should the regulation of cosmetic pesticides include uses on residential land, public municipal lands, and/or other private lands ?



B.C.’s existing laws governing the sale and use of pesticides ―

● Group pesticides into classes based on Health Canada’s classification system (that does not distinguish between cosmetic and non–cosmetic use)

● Have established rules for the selling and use of each class of pesticides using this system

● State that pesticides may only be used according to label directions


Some Canadian provinces have introduced statutory provisions that create additional classes of pesticides, with accompanying rules governing their sale and use.

The following table summarizes some approaches that could be used to establish classes of pesticides used for cosmetic purposes ― along with examples associated with each approach, and comments and considerations. ―


A. Approach : Create a class of active
ingredients to which restrictions do apply

Examples :

● 2,4–D

● Permethrin

Comments and Considerations :

● An active ingredient is the part of a
pesticide formulation that produces the
desired effects ― many people think of
the active ingredient as the generic
name for the pesticide.

● Criteria would need to be developed to
assign pesticides to new classes The
time and resources required to
categorize pesticides would depend on
the criteria used for the review.


B. Approach : Create a class of active
ingredients to which restrictions do not

Examples :

● Corn gluten meal

● Soaps

Comments and Considerations :

● The ministry currently depends on
Health Canada to scientifically assess
the risk associated with each pesticide
and assign pesticides to classes.

● Concerns have been raised that
products might be assigned to lists
based on a perception of risk rather
than on a scientific basis.

● Some active ingredients can be used
for more than one purpose ― some
purposes may be considered cosmetic
and others not cosmetic.


C. Approach : Create a class of product
types to which restrictions do apply

Examples :

● Pesticide–fertilizer combinations

● Pesticides requiring dilution before

● Herbicides

Comments and Considerations :

● A product could be assigned to a
restricted list for various reasons (e.g., if
the product does not fit well into IPM
programs, likelihood of misapplication,
types of pests controlled)

● Criteria and a fair process for creating
a restricted list would need to be


D. Approach : Create a class of product
types to which restrictions do not apply

Examples :

● Insect repellents

● Ready–to–use pesticides

Comments and Considerations :

● Use of all pesticides could be
restricted except for pesticides on an
“accepted” list ― a product could be
assigned to an accepted list for various
reasons (e.g., demand for products,
likelihood of proper use, quantity likely
to be used, where the product is likely to
be applied)

● Criteria and a fair process for creating
an accepted list would need to be



B.C.’s existing laws governing the sale and use of pesticides require ―

● Landscape services, tree care companies, pest control companies and managers of multi–residences to ensure that pesticides are used in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs by people trained in the safe use of pesticides

● People applying pesticides to their own private property to follow all pesticide label directions



B.C.’s existing laws governing the use of pesticides require ―

● Posting of signs informing people of pesticide use when pesticides are used on public land or on multi–residency properties

● People applying pesticides to public land, multi–residence properties or as a commercial service (e.g., landscapers) to ensure that pesticides do not “ drift ” onto neighbouring properties



B.C.’s existing laws governing the sale of pesticides presently require ―

● A certified dispenser to talk to pesticide purchasers and inform the purchaser that the pesticide may only be used according to label directions ― the dispenser must also offer to provide advice on pesticide use and pest management



Public awareness and understanding are essential elements of effective regulation, as is compliance and enforcement. Some restrictions that may be considered to regulate the cosmetic use of pesticides could involve significant resources to effectively implement.

The ministry is seeking advice and examples of awareness, education and enforcement programs addressing the cosmetic use of pesticides that are cost–effective.


William H. Gathercole and Norah G

National Organization Responding Against Huje that harm the Green Space Industry (NORAHG)

William H. Gathercole, Founder

For a free Force of Nature e-newsletter, contact


FORCE OF NATURE was launched for continuous transmission on the Internet on January 1st, 2009. It is a series of e–newsletters destined for the Green Space Industry, the Environmental–Terror–Movement, Government Officials, and the Media, nation–wide across Canada, the United States and overseas.

Force Of Nature is the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his entourage. Norah G is actually an acronym for the stable of anonymous producers and writers that contribute to this e–newsletter and have now replaced Mr. Gathercole. They consist of people from the following industries : Distribution, Fertilizer, Golf, Lawn Care, Manufacturing, Municipal, Nursery, and Orchard. Many of these people are leaders in their own industries. The opinions expressed in Force Of Nature, even though from an INDEPENDENT PERSPECTIVE, may not reflect those of everyone in the GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY, or Mr. Gathercole’s many associates. Be warned ! Force Of Nature may sometimes be very irreverent and fearless with these e–newsletters. Mr. Gathercole is now retired from Force Of Nature, although his name continues to appear as the founder.

William H. Gathercole is a principal FOUNDER of the Modern Professional Lawn Care Industry in BOTH Ontario and Quebec. He holds a degree in Horticulture from the UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH, and another pure and applied science degree from McGILL UNIVERSITY. He has worked in virtually all aspects of the GREEN SPACE INDUSTRY, including GOLF and PROFESSIONAL LAWN CARE, and has served in public affairs, workplace safety, and environmental compliance. Mr. Gathercole has supervised, consulted, programmed, and/or overseen the execution of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of pest control applications in the urban landscape. He has trained, instructed, and consulted with THOUSANDS of turf managers and technicians. Mr. Gathercole has also been an agricultural agronomist. For many years, Mr. Gathercole was a contributing columnist for TURF & Recreation Magazine, Canada’s Turf and Grounds Maintenance Authority.

Mr. Gathercole has followed the evolution of ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM for over a quarter–century. His involvement in environmental issues reached a fevered pitch in the 1990s, when he orchestrated, with his colleagues, legal action against the prohibition of pest control products in the Town of Hudson, Quebec. For FIFTEEN YEARS, the strategies designed and implemented by Mr. Gathercole and his colleagues guaranteed the control of Enviro–Terror for the entire Modern Green Space Industry across Canada. Although he can be accused of being Anti–Environment–Movement, he is, in fact, simply a strong advocate FOR the Modern Green Space Industry. However, this position has not precluded him from criticizing the Green Space Industry itself. Nonetheless, his vast knowledge of our long journey with environmental issues is UNDENIABLE. ( Hopefully ! )

The mission of Force Of Nature is as a National Organization Responding Against Huje that harm the Green Space Industry (NORAHG) with statements and activities seeking to prohibit FEDERALLY LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE, and TOTALLY IRREPLACEABLE conventional pest control products. Enviro–Maniac–Culprits are identified on the basis of their statements, activities, affiliations, and whereabouts. Even though each Enviro–Maniac–Culprit is a mis–guided adversary, each still deserves our respect. The terms Maniac, Culprit, Terrorist, or Basterd are not accusations of any legal wrong–doing. Force Of Nature is simply holding Culprits accountable for conspiring to change public policies that TERRORIZE and THREATEN the Green Space Industry. Force Of Nature believes that the pretentious prohibitionist policies of the Environmental–Terror–Movement is leading to LOSS OF REVENUES, BUSINESS FAILURES, BANKRUPTCY, and UNEMPLOYMENT, inflicting DESPAIR and DESTITUTION for THOUSANDS of victims throughout the Green Space Industry. The actions of Maniac–Culprits–Terrorists–Basterds in the movement are viewed as a form of TERROR against the Green Space Industry. The information presented in Force Of Nature has been developed for the education and entertainment of the reader by providing a sequence of historical events with commentary. Additionally, Force Of Nature inspires people to believe that ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM can be STOPPED ! The events, characters, companies, and organizations, depicted in this document are not always fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, may not be coincidental. All document excerpts and pictures contained in Force Of Nature were found somewhere on the Internet. We believe that they are in the public domain, serving one of the following purposes : archive, education, promotion, publicity, or press release.

The following Force Of Nature documents are currently available ― ● Alberta Prohibition ● British Columbia Prohibition ● Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment ● Canadian Cancer Society ● Canadian Environmental Law Association ● Consequences ● David Suzuki Foundation ● DDT and Politicized Science ● Death and the Environmental–Terror–Movement ● Enviro–Money ● Environmental Terrorists Unmasked ● Fertilizer-Terror Is Next ● June Irwin, The Clown of Junk Science ● Kazimiera Jean Cottam ● Landscape Trades Capitulate ● New Brunswick Prohibition ● Nova Scotia Prohibition ● Ontario Prohibition ● Organic Fertilizers ● Pesticide Free BC ● Pets and Lawn Care Chemicals ● Prince Edward Island Prohibition ● Quebec Prohibition ● Rachel Carson, The Queen of Junk Science ● Salmon Arm BC Prohibition ● The 9/11 Era of the Green Space Industry ● The Failure of Integrated Pest Management ● The Looming Golf Industry Shipwreck ● The Industry Strikes Back ● The Misconceptions About Cancer ● The National Annihilation of the Modern Green Space Industry ● The Wisdom of Bill Bell ● The Wisdom of Drysdale ● The Wisdom of Health Canada ● The Wisdom of Holland ● The Wisdom of Lowes ● The Wisdom of Mains ● The Wisdom of the Solomons ● Ask For a Copy of Any Back Issue of Force Of Nature Today. Read All About Enviro–Maniacs and Their Environmental–Terror–Organizations in Force Of Nature ! The Whole Truth From An Independent Perspective ! Force Of Nature is TOTALLY INDEPENDENT of any trade association or business operating within the Green Space Industry. DON’T THANK US. IT’S A PUBLIC SERVICE. AND WE ARE GLAD TO DO IT.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group