Alan White fears the tools of his trade are being taken away from him. White is a lawn care operator (LCO) in Canada where pesticide bans and restrictions in more than 70 municipalities have hampered LCOs’ abilities to combat weed, pest and disease problems.
The bylaws have been spurred by environmental activists’ demands and public concern regarding the safety of pesticides. Proponents of the lawn care industry’s right to use pesticides say the laws are based on misinformation and that they unfairly target LCOs while letting homeowners and municipalities off the hook.
The double standard is taking business away from trained professionals and putting it in the hands of novices, say several LCOs and industry experts. “My biggest concern is that if all of the tools of the trade are taken out of the toolbox and the consumer is still allowed to purchase them readily at an economical cost, why would the consumer hire a professional to use an inferior product at a greater cost?” says White, president, Turf Systems, Burlington, Ontario.” The product that is left as an alternative for the lawn care operator won’t manage the job as well.”
Even more disconcerting for some LCOs is the prospect of U.S. municipalities adopting pesticide laws similar to Canada. “This year, we’ve seen bills introduced in Connecticut and New York where they refer to the success of Canada doing it,” says Tom Delaney, director of government affairs, the Professional Landcare Network, Herndon, Va.
As a result of such pesticide restrictions spreading in Canada and the United States, industry professionals are organizing efforts to overturn current laws and to prevent proposed legislation from taking effect.
FIGHTING BACK. Although some U.S. municipalities have taken steps to reduce or limit pesticide use, Canadian anti-pesticide activists have been much more successful in their attempts to ban pesticides. It’s unclear exactly why the issue has impacted Canada more than it has the United States, but LCOs in Canada and industry experts seem to agree that the lawmaking authority of Canadian municipalities has played a major role.
In the United States, federal laws often preempt state or local legislation. But in Canada, recent court rulings have given local governments more lawmaking power. The first ruling that impacted LCOs stemmed from a 1991 bylaw enacted by the Montreal suburb of Hudson to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides. In 1992, two lawn care companies challenged the bylaw after they were cited for unlawfully applying pesticides. The companies lost challenges in two Quebec courts before appealing the decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The companies argued that the bylaw conflicted with federal legislation and that local governments don’t have the authority to enact such laws. In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the lawn care companies, upholding the Hudson bylaw. By then, at least 36 municipalities in Quebec had established similar laws and other municipalities throughout the country began enacting pesticide bans or restrictions.
One of those cities was Toronto where in 2003 the city passed a law that limited what pesticides could be used and where they could be applied. This time, CropLife Canada, an association representing pesticide manufacturers, challenged the law and lost. The organization unsuccessfully appealed the decision in the Ontario Court of Appeals in November 2004 and is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. Meanwhile, LCOs throughout Canada are trying to understand the nuances of the law, which took effect in September of this year.
THE FALLOUT. The Toronto law permits pesticide applications, provided disease or pest infestations exceed a certain threshold, which is defined in the bylaw as “the presence of pests in numbers or under conditions which involve an immediate or potential risk of substantial loss or damage.” Weed control is not listed as a permissible use for pesticides. But currently the law doesn’t apply to Toronto homeowners, who can purchase and apply pesticides until Sept. 1, 2007, which White says could hurt business for LCOs.
“The health department has said the products, in their view, are unsafe,” White says. “Commercial applicators had to cease using registered products as of Sept. 1 or they’re subject to fines. The argument here is if the products are dangerous, homeowners shouldn’t be allowed to use them as well, but they are. It kind of makes you wonder what their motives are.”
Additionally, the homeowner could pose a financial risk to LCOs. During the first two years of the Greater Montreal Area ban, LCO Chris Lemcke estimates that customer renewal rates decreased by 10 percent. “The first year of the bylaw was certainly more difficult,” says Lemcke, technical coordinator for Weed Man USA. “A big concern in Toronto is that once we can’t provide the pristine lawns that clients are used to that they’re going to get frustrated and just do the lawn work themselves.”
White says he doesn’t anticipate losing too many customers from the Toronto ban because most of his customers are on lawn care programs that incorporate more than just weed control. But he adds that some of his lower-income customers who could only afford weed control may be lost.
Another exemption from the bylaw is the use of pesticides in some circumstances on public parks, sports fields and golf courses, a clause that makes another industry professional question the law’s rationale. “It makes no sense at all because if the whole premise is that you can’t use pesticides because they’re too dangerous why aren’t they dangerous in these areas?” argues Tony DiGiovanni, executive director, Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades Association, Milton, Ontario. “The logic is not there.”
The bylaws also are not clearly defined. For example, in some circumstances cemeteries are exempt from the Toronto law, but Lemcke says it took him five phone calls to bylaw enforcement officers before one confirmed that he could apply pesticides at the cemetery.
Similarly, fatty acids are exempt from the bylaw, but LCOs are still required to post a sign saying a pesticide was applied at that location. Some enforcement officers say if a sign must be posted, the applied product is a pesticide and cannot be used. “There’s just total confusion in this, and hopefully we’re not going to get fined in the meantime,” Lemcke shares.
Muddling the situation even more are different laws for neighboring municipalities. “What drives us crazy is every bylaw is different,” DiGiovanni says. “We say if you feel you need bylaws, why go from municipality to municipality reinventing the whole process. Do it at the provincial level and create one piece of legislation for everybody.”
At one point, Lemcke operated in 20 different jurisdictions in Quebec before they became a part of Greater Montreal. “It’s less complicated now that it’s the Greater Montreal area, but you still have cities outside the area that don’t have bylaws, so you have to send a different renewal letter to them for a different program, which makes running a business more complicated.”
White says the varying standards make it difficult for him to explain to customers and employees why pesticides are OK to use in some areas but not OK in others. “Why is it not safe in Toronto, but it’s OK for the city right beside it?” he relates. “And if it isn’t safe for Toronto, then as a company should we be applying it next door? As a result, you have to explain to your customers all the time the science because they open the headlines and the first thing they see is ‘Pesticides Banned in Toronto,’ but they’re still using them at their house in Mississauga. There’s a lot of confusion right now.”
THE ALTERNATIVES. Pesticide bans in Canada have forced LCOs to experiment with different lawn care approaches. Cultural practices, such as proper irrigation, pruning and careful plant handling, are known to make plants less susceptible to disease and infestations. Anti-pesticide activists often cite cultural practices as an effective alternative to pesticides, but White says this was already a standard lawn care method for LCOs. “When you look at the alternatives, they’re all the cultural practices we’ve been preaching for the last 30 to 40 years,” he says. “It’s not so much the alternative to plant health care, but the first offense. But first offenses don’t always work.”
White compares cultural approaches for turf to people practicing healthy lifestyles. For instance, people can eat low-fat foods, exercise regularly and abstain from smoking and still become sick. When this happens, a trip to the doctor and some medication can help alleviate the symptoms and restore a person’s health. The same can be said for turf that is diagnosed with a weed, insect or disease problem despite the fact that it’s been cared for and is in good shape.
Now that many LCOs in Canada don’t have certain products at their disposal, they’re left with organic or biological pesticides. In Montreal, Weed Man is applying a beet extract that shows promising results over time but costs 10 to 20 percent more and is much less effective than traditional pesticides, Lemcke says.
Some LCOs in Canada are using corn gluten to battle weed infestations, but Lemcke says the product is only effective in large concentrations. It takes about 20 pounds of corn gluten per square foot to achieve results. “I would have to have a warehouse of an impossible size to store the product and you would have drag trailers around everywhere because you have to use so much of it,” Lemcke says. “And I’m not sure whether it’s doing anything to stop weeds or just smothering weeds. Then you have dogs rolling around in it because it’s in dog food, and it actually smells like rotting bodies after it rains.”
Because organic products are less effective than traditional pesticides, Lemcke says he can no longer guarantee his customers the treatments will work. “You can’t make promises anymore to customers because you don’t have the reliable products, so you lose customers because you can’t provide results or reliability,” he explains.
The other problem with biological pesticides is the misconception that they’re safer, Delaney says. Traditional pesticides are subject to rigorous testing procedures in the United States and Canada before they can be registered. In some cases, pesticides are scrutinized more than pharmaceutical drugs before they’re made available to the public, according to Delaney.
In fact, traditional pesticides may be safer than some organic substances, Delaney says, citing an incident in which a university researcher in California said he suffered a severe allergic reaction after experimenting with a castor bean-based pesticide. “Just because something is natural or organic does not mean it is safe for 100 percent of the population,” he says.
CHANGING PERCEPTIONS. The only way to stop more laws from being enacted in Canada and in the United States is for LCOs to become more vocal, says Bob MacDonald, owner, Weed Man Orillia, Orillia, Ontario. Pesticide regulations spread throughout Canada because LCOs there didn’t take action immediately. “We missed the boat in Canada when we didn’t fight the posting issue right at the beginning,” he explains. “That’s where we lost the battle because it provides the activists an opportunity to say the product is not safe because they see signs all around town.”
When posting laws took effect more than 10 years ago, MacDonald says the activists would gather hundreds of signatures while LCOs and the rest of the “silent majority” did little to combat their efforts. Fighting for the right to grow healthy lawns doesn’t rouse the public like other environmental issues, says Debra Conlon, executive director, The Urban Pest Management Council of Canada, Etobicoke, Ontario.
“We’re trying to stop something, and there isn’t a lot of information out there that tells municipalities they should stop,” she says. “You don’t see people marching so they can kill their grubs, but you do see people marching because they have a cause. So we don’t have that general population that’s active even though they do buy the product and enjoy the product.”
Delaney speculates that a more vocal public has helped the United States resist sweeping changes in pesticide laws. “Part of the problem is Canadian customers aren’t as verbal and independent as some of the U.S. public is, and they’ve taken some of this lying down,” he concludes. “It’s the result of a little different personality of the Canadian public vs. the U.S. public. In other words, it ain’t worth fighting over. But for Americans, everything is worth fighting over.”
However, Delaney cautions that the United States is not immune to pesticide restrictions, as evidenced by posting laws in New York state and elsewhere. Delaney recommends that U.S. LCOs remain vigilant of proposed changes in pesticide laws and that they organize much like the activists do. “The No. 1 defense is going to be monitoring changes in legislation,” he explains. “You have to mobilize and teach members of the industry to watch for this stuff and then teach them to testify.”
Delaney adds that LCOs need to get their customers involved in the battle. “We have to mobilize our customers and get them to understand the science and testify at some of these hearings, so they can say, ‘This isn’t what we want.’ We have to be as vocal and passionate as some of the activists have been.”
But MacDonald says getting customers involved could be a risky venture. His concern is if customers write letters to city council, the letters will become public record and make them activist targets. Instead, the industry must take responsibility for fighting pesticide legislation, he says. “We have to constantly be in touch with politicians because activists are constantly badgering them about the issue,” he says. “We almost need to send a weekly one-paragraph e-mail bulletin to each councilor across Canada to make our point. Otherwise, we’re going to have an uphill battle.”
The Urban Pest Management Council of Canada is doing its part to educate the public on pesticide issues with a public relations program. “What we’ve found is that this isn’t an issue that’s at the top of the public’s mind, but they have a latent concern, so what we want to do is provide them with some balanced information,” Conlon says. “I think that’s the way to deal with it long term.”
Part of the public relations message LCOs need to convey to consumers is that they’re environmentalists, too. “If you ever ask anyone in the green industry why they chose this profession, they’ll tell you it’s because it works with the environment,” White says. “Most people got into this profession not to do harm to the environment, but to do good. Unfortunately, the public feels that we don’t really manage the environment, and it’s probably happened because we never really communicated where our passion lies.”
