Urgent Call To Action
Dear Concerned Citizens:
Like many stakeholders, Turf King is extremely concerned that the proposed regulations on pesticides are not based on science, are not equitable to homeowners, lawn care operators, distributors, retailers or manufacturers and are also not in the best interests of farmers. Ontario deserves better. There is a public consultation period open for people to comment on the proposed regulations.
That comment period closes Dec, 22, 2008. Like many other stakeholders, Turf King is anxious to protect the safety of Ontarians and we are advocating that this protection of all Ontarians be based on science, not on emotion. In fact, it is all about safety through science. Once the government uses science, then there needs to be a reasonable phase-in period.
We urge you to write in with your comments. Please encourage your friends and neighbours to make their feelings known. We need as many responses as possible. (Thank you to those you have already done so.)
At the bottom you will find the following:
* A short letter that can be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Registry. (The Environmental Registry was created under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) and all are welcome to comment on these matters – it is your right to do so). It is straightforward. You can copy and paste this into the comment field on the EBR website.
* Next you will find some background information to assist if you wish to write your own response to the EBR. It also provides information on the issues.
* There is also a more detailed submission to the Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Registry.
* You may also write to your MPP. This is a link to allow you to look up the name of your MPP based on your postal code. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en
Step 1 - Create your response
* Please feel free to use either of the 2 letters or any part of either letter.
* Or use the background information to draft your own response.
Step 2 – Send your response to
* The EBR (Ontario Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Bill of Rights Registry ) – this needs to be done by Dec. 22, 2008. Simply open the following website: http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTA0OTk2&statusId=MTU3MjYz&language=en
o On the right hand side of the screen, click the “submit comment” button and paste your response into the box provided. Add the required information and submit your response.
o Or you can fax it to the Mr. Robert Bilyea using the fax number on the top of the letter. Please do that before Dec. 22, 2008.
* Or you can insert your MPP’s or a Cabinet Minister’s name and address instead of Mr. Robert Bilyea. Use the MPP / Cabinet Minister file for names and addresses, including e-mail addresses to send your comments directly to them. It will be best to do it before Dec. 22, 2008, but if not done until after, please don’t let the date stop you from sending your response to your MPP and concerned Cabinet Ministers.
* For letters to your MPP’s it is best to use their constituency office address. The best Cabinet Ministers to include are Ministers Gerretsen (Environment), Bryant (Government House Leader), Duncan (Finance), Wilkinson (Innovation), Pupatello (Economic Development) and Dombrowsky (Agriculture).
* Or you can do all three (respond to the EBR, send it to your MPP and Cabinet Ministers)
Optional Step 3:
* You can also use the CropLife website to send your message to the Premier. (CropLife is the trade association representing the manufacturers, developers and distributors of plant science innovations – pest control products and plant biotechnology for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings).
* Just click http://www.croplife.ca/web/mailmp and follow the online instructions.
Step 4 – Send it to others
* Please send this e-mail to your friends, family, colleagues and gardeners. Send this to as many people as you can. They do not have to be Ontario residents to respond to the EBR. The Ontario Government considers opinions of people living outside of Ontario since they can be stakeholders, too. They may, for example, sell products in this province, have a seasonal home here, have other interests or otherwise be an Ontario taxpayer.
* To forward this e-mail to others, simply click the “forward” button at the top of this e-mail. If you wish to delete the names and e-mail addresses of the persons who sent or received the e-mail before sending it on, then simply scroll down and highlight the names and then push the delete button before clicking the ”send” button.
Please respond to the EBR before December 22, 2008. If you cannot, please continue to send your comments by letter or e-mail to your MPP as well as Cabinet Ministers. They will still get them after Dec. 22, 2008.
Please pass this along to as many concerned stakeholders as you can.
Suggested short letter to EBR
Dec. __, 2008.
Mr. Robert Bilyea
Senior Policy Advisor
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Integrated Environmental Planning Division
Strategic Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
Fax: (416) 314-2976
Dear Mr. Bilyea:
Ontario’s draft regulations to ban the sale and use of some pesticides are seriously flawed.
Like most Canadians, I expect the laws governing the products I can use to be based on sound scientific criteria. Ontario currently has a science-based scheduling system for all pesticide products, yet the new draft regulations fail to provide any such criteria for domestic products. From a safety in science perspective, we are taking a step backwards. I ask that you develop scientific criteria and then resume consultations once there are criteria to review.
Ontarians need to know:
* why a specific product can – or cannot - be used or sold in Ontario
* what criteria are desirable in new products so that companies can develop new solutions to common pest problems
* why our home landscapes – grass, trees, shrubs, flowers and vegetable gardens – are defined as cosmetic and not worthy of protection
* how this government plans to keep the door open for new product development in Ontario
Once Ontario has developed science-based criteria for pest control products, then there needs to be a reasonable phase-in period such as the 3-year period suggested by the Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Registry in January 2008. Such a time line will allow a reasonable transition for homeowners, gardeners, lawn care operators, retailers, distributors and manufacturers.
We are all safer with science-based regulations. Please be serious about the science! Go back and define the scientific criteria that your government will use to assess current products and future innovations, so Ontarians will have access to the safest and most effective tools to manage legitimate pest problems.
Sincerely,
Background Information for Responding to Ontario’s Proposed Pesticide Regulations
1. The proposed regulations are not based on scientific criteria despite the fact that Minister Gerretsen promised the House a science-based regulatory process on June 12, 2008.
a. Consumer use products have no criteria for classification. Agricultural products have proposed classes based on a clear set of criteria. Consumer products, including those that are acceptable and those which are banned, have no science-based criteria. They will be arbitrarily classed by the Director.
b. Ontario has proposed to ban products that Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA is part of Health Canada) has approved. Canada has one of the most stringent and respected regulatory systems in the world. Furthermore, these leading authorities share information with key regulators in other countries and build in large margins of error to account for potentially unknown factors before approving a product. These products are further re-evaluated as part of PMRA’s ongoing vigilance. Banning these approved products will not only confuse Ontarians, but will lead to regulatory chaos when citizens shop on the internet, cross-border shop, shop at illegal retail sites that are waiting to spring up, or use dangerous home remedies.
c. The proposed regulations will ban products and active ingredients that were intended to protect the health and safety of Ontarians. There are many health and safety related issues that appear to be deemed cosmetic and therefore banned. There is no provision for the control of many invasive pests even in the case of infestations. The control of noxious weeds, or bees and wasps in lawns are good examples. There is little to allow for the protection of trees which provide shade to homes and thereby reduce cooling costs in summer and offer wind breaks in winter. These critical needs are not cosmetic but they are largely ignored.
2. The lack of a science based criteria and resulting lack of a clear, predictable business climate will result in an innovation chill. It is most likely that the handful of companies which develop and manufacture active ingredients will not invest in new and lower risk products for Canada, since there is no scientific basis of predictability. This very unfortunate outcome will seriously affect farmers as well as consumers, lawn care operators and pest control operators.
3. There needs to be a reasonable phase-in period. That needs to be a minimum of 3 years. Many products currently proposed to be banned are already in the marketplace from last year. A reasonable phase-in will allow homeowners, lawn care operators, retailers, distributors and manufacturers to exit in an orderly fashion and reduce the impact on waste disposal programs.
4. Failure to base the ban on science, to work with Health Canada, to have a clear science-based classification system and allow for an orderly phase-in will result in economic hardship and a serious loss of jobs. Consider the impact of adding these hardships to an economic climate already in dire straits.
We urge the Ontario Government to re-consider these issues and use a scientific approach to achieve the same goals of protecting Ontarians.
As stakeholders, please
· Reply to the Government on the EBR by December 22, 2008.
· Use the points outlined above and add your own.
· It is really critical that the MOE gets feedback on what constitutes a reasonable phase-in period. Otherwise, it will become law and be fully enforceable once it is proclaimed.
· Write or call your MPP as well as the Ministers of the Environment, Agriculture, Finance, Research and Innovation and Economic Development.
Detailed Submission to EBR
Dec. __, 2008.
Mr. Robert Bilyea
Senior Policy Advisor
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Integrated Environmental Planning Division
Strategic Policy Branch
135 St. Clair Avenue West, 11th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
Fax: (416) 314-2976
Dear Mr. Bilyea:
Canadians expect the laws governing the products they find on stores shelves to be based on sound scientific principles. Ontario’s draft regulations to ban the sale and use of certain pesticides are seriously flawed because they are lacking in scientific criteria.
1. The proposed regulations are not based on scientific criteria. The formulating and agricultural products (classes 1 to 4) have proposed classes that are criteria-based. However, all other classes of 5 to 11, covering consumer products and the “available” and “banned” uses for the consumer, have no such criteria. Ontario currently has a science-based scheduling system that has been in place for years, yet the new draft regulations fail to provide any such criteria for domestic products going forward. From a safety in science perspective, Ontario is taking a step backwards. Determinations for suitability of use are left to the sole discretion of one person, namely the Director. Products are arbitrarily banned or accepted based on intended use with no consideration for the active ingredients, proven safety or other science-based criteria. This lack of science-based regulations is contrary to what the Minister of the Environment assured the House during Question Period, on June 12, 2008.
The following was excerpted from Hansard for June 12, 2008 where MPP Ms. Laurie Scott asked questions of the Hon. John Gerretsen.
MPP Ms. Laurie Scott: “Minister, over the course of a year, who have you spoken to who has convinced you that you should abandoned science-based risk assessment and risk management protocol in this matter?”
Hon. John Gerretsen: ‘We're going to have consultation on this to determine exactly what should be in the regulations. It may very well be that some of the products and ingredients that are listed there may be taken off or put on the list, but I can assure you that the entire bill and the entire regulatory process will be science-based.”
Ms. Laurie Scott: “I've been watching very closely to make sure that it is science-based. On Monday, in committee, I asked your members if the Ontario Pesticides Advisory Committee, OPAC, had been consulted on the drafting of the legislation. One of your colleagues said that she couldn't answer the question, but a few minutes later, your own parliamentary assistant said, "My understanding is, the group was consulted with three times during the preparation of the proposed bill."
Given that your own parliamentary assistant couldn't confirm whether or not OPAC had been consulted, why didn't you call on OPAC to testify, or are you choosing to ignore the scientific evidence that OPAC has suggested?”
Hon. John Gerretsen: “I can assure you that the work that will be done by the committee and the ministry with respect to the 80 different ingredients and the 300 different products that are out there right now in the regulatory framework of things will be based on a scientific basis.”
2. There is no appeal process to change the classification for new products. When a new product is developed, tested, registered under the strict guidelines of the Health Canada (through the Pest Management Regulatory Agency) it will then be classed for Ontario. If that classification prevents its sale or use, how can the registrant appeal the Director’s arbitrary decision?
The lack of a science based criteria and resulting lack of a clear, predictable business climate will result in an innovation chill. Without science-based criteria, there is no predictability for the basic manufacturers – how does a manufacturer predict how their product will be classed? Will new products under development be acceptable, or be designated as restricted access or simply be banned, regardless of science-based safety? Without a predicable outcome and without clear and predetermined criteria, why would active ingredient manufacturers waste valuable resources in developing new products, including those for minor use farm crops, when they can’t estimate an investment payoff in the Canadian market? Over the past decade or so, we have witnessed the steady decline in large international companies investing in the Canadian market because it is proportionately smaller than the US market. The proposed Ontario pesticide ban will not only ensure that this trend continues for traditional pesticides but will also result in a failure of companies to invest in new and lower risk replacement products for Canada since there is no scientific basis of predictability.
3. Ontarians need to know why a specific product can – or cannot - be used or sold in Ontario when it is available in other jurisdictions. They need to know how they can protect their homes and gardens from various insects and weeds in order to maintain the value of their property which is the largest and most significant investment made by most people. They deserve a set of clear and objective science-based rules that outline which products will be acceptable, which ones will not and why. They also need to be assured that Ontario will not be closing the door on new products for use on lawns, gardens, farms and anywhere pest controls are needed to protect people, pets and landscapes. Only by meeting these requirements can Ontarians have the safety through science that they deserve.
4. Once there is a set of science-based regulations, there needs to be a reasonable phase-in period. The Ministry of the Environment’s Environmental Registry in January 2008, clearly stated that there needs to be a reasonable phase-in period, such as 3 years in order to allow manufacturers, retailers and homeowners the opportunity to exit existing products and allow reasonable time to develop and register acceptable alternatives. Many pest controls that are currently proposed to be banned are already in the marketplace from last year.
5. Failure to base a ban on science, failure to work with Health Canada and have a clear, science-based classification system, as well as not allowing for an orderly phase-in period will result in economic hardship and a serious loss of jobs. These losses will occur in manufacturing, distribution, lawn care and retail sectors. Consider the impact of adding these hardships to an economic climate already in dire straits.
Please consider the urgent need for science to correct these flawed regulations and then implement a reasonable time for phase-in. To do anything less is simply not in the best interest of Ontario.
Yours very truly,