Does Sudbury really need a bylaw banning
pesticides? The debate does not have to be complicated. Not if
we rely on science. The Ontario College of Family Physicians,
by any measure a conservative group not given to
publicity-seeking exaggeration, has issued a stunning report.
After reviewing some 12,000 scientific studies from around the
world, it concluded that pesticides should be completely
avoided by humans.
"The review found consistent evidence of the
health risks to patients with exposure to pesticides," it said.
It listed the following links:
- brain cancer
- prostate cancer
- kidney cancer
- pancreatic cancer
- leukemia
The most shocking conclusion was described in
a recent Globe and Mail story. It states: "The researchers also
found that children are far more vulnerable to the effects of
pesticides than adults because their bodies are growing; they
have a greater skin surface in proportion to their size than
adults; they ingest more food for their size than adults and
they often have less-developed systems to excrete
chemicals."
I have read that paragraph many times. It
does not read "children are more vulnerable." It reads
"children are far more vulnerable."
The doctors' review also noted that there
was, "no evidence that some pesticides are less dangerous than
others, just that they have different effects on health that
take different periods to show up."
More than 65 municipalities across Canada,
including Halifax, Montreal and Toronto now have anti-pesticide
bylaws. Sudbury has nothing. Chemicals that endanger the lives
of our children continue to be applied to our lawns, public
places and golf courses. Isn't it time we had an effective
anti-pesticide
bylaw?
Tom Colton
Sudbury