Proponents of a pesticide ban should expect the industry to present a number of false arguments unsupportable by facts.

They will attempt, first of all, to turn the debate into an argument over 2,4-D.

1) They will argue pesticides are safer than aspirin, coffee, salt, and other common houselhold products.

2) They will argue that a ban on pesticides will cause the industry to fail and jobs will be lost.

3) They will argue people will break the by-law and apply pesticides themselves rather than use "professionals".

4) They will argue an "IPM" by-law will be more effective.

5) Their best argument is also a major falsehood: That Health Canada has declared pesticided as "safe".

Rebuttals:

1) This argument is too stupid for a meaningful response. No one buys it so there is no need to respond.

2) In no jurisdiction where a ban has been put in place, have jobs been lost. In fact, there has been evidence of job increases, new competition, and new entries into the market. Here is a background article, re: Halifax:
http://www.greenventure.ca/hcpi/campaign/Bus_Gro_Pest_Bylaw.pdf

The industry and their political supporters should be pressed to provide verifiable business cases of lawn care jobs being lost as a direct result of a ban in any jurisdiction.

3) They should again be pressed to provide evidence of persons not adhering to the a by-law in any jurisdiction where one exists. Again, the documented evidence is the opposite - people adhere to the by-law. There is research available but not at my finger tips.

4) IPM is first and last a marketing tool to permit business as usual. IPM "audits" are never made public. No lawn sprayer has ever had IMP accrediation revoked. The most basic requirement of IPM is to offer a "natural" alternative in marketing material. There is no possible independent and verifable method of measuring success/failure of IPM. IPM by-laws are generally industry driven and contain loop-holes large enough to drive a pickup with barrels of chemical through. It is also worth noting that organic or non-chemical lawn care comapnies cannot become IPM accredited so industry driven IPM by-laws also lead to a closed market.

5) Health Canada does not approve pesticides. The Pest Management Review Agency (PMRA) a department that falls under Health Canada is charged with reviewing and registering pesticides. The PMRA has come under criticism and pressure for failing to keep up to date with new recertifying or taking off the market thousands of old products and of being slow or biased against new and safer non-chemical products. The PMRA is regarded as a "captured" agency that acts as an industry proponent rather than as a watchdog for the public interest. The PMRA has even leaked documents in the interests of the industry. The PMRA collects a substantial part of its operating budget from selling registration services to its industry "clients".

The PMRA views pesticides from a "risk management" perspective. So they did say 2,4-D is "safe", as per risk/benefit management analysis, if used as directed. But they also said the chemical should be diluted further, a larger buffer area used, and some other restriction added. The question that ought to be posed, is why is your health risked for someone else's dubious benefit? For the public risk, of what public good is someone's drugged up lawn?

A link: http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbaxter6/research.html