Clyde Jackmans chemical romance

Provincial Environment Minister Clyde Jackman clearly has his face too close to someones pesticide-sprayed lawn because the fact is that the minister just isnt making sense anymore.

Last week, Jackman talked to the media about his secret decision to change the notification area for lawn-care companies spraying pesticides. In the past, lawn companies were required to contact people within a 50-metre radius that spraying would be taking place.

Jackman quietly reduced that distance to 15 metres, without public consultation of any kind.

Jackmans public defence? The change will actually mean better notification.

Thats right.

Notifying fewer people will make that notification more effective, apparently because, since the companies involved will have to notify fewer people, they can more diligently notify them. Forget the fact there was a legal requirement for notification.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Jackmans explanation makes about as much sense as John Effords argument that people were finding ways around motor vehicle inspections, so it made more sense from a safety point of view to have no annual motor vehicle inspections at all.

Because youd think the legal requirement to notify everyone within 50 metres would mean, oh, I dont know, that the companies would actually have to notify everyone within 50 metres of the spraying.

For some reason, the minister of environment believes that adhering to the stated conditions of a pesticide licence is actually a matter of convenience, not a requirement of law.

His fuzziness on the concept and the fuzziness of government oversight on the spraying issue overall might in fact be the reason why complete notification in the 50-metre radius wasnt working in the first place.

Jackman argued on CBC Radio that, under the old 50-metre regulation, companies couldnt always reach everyone they had to before the spraying started, and wound up spraying lawns before everyone was informed.

Peculiar.

Is the minister perhaps suggesting that his department allowed lawn care companies to violate the conditions of their operating licences, or is he saying that the conditions of licence are a guideline, and not a hard-and-fast rule?

On the face of it, if the minister is aware companies are violating the conditions of their licences, shouldnt he be doing something about that, rather than simply relaxing those rules?

Heres the thing: last Tuesday night, in the heavy wet air of a humid St. Johns evening, a simple five-kilometre walk in the east end of the city would have taken you past seven properties including two apartment buildings where the smell of lawn pesticides was quite obvious. Five of the properties had signs indicating the spraying had taken place. Two did not.

If you can smell pesticides, its pretty hard for anyone to argue that the chemicals are not present and available to be taking up by something as delicate and porous as human lung tissue.

And the problem is that theres pretty solid evidence that lawn pesticide spraying has a number of effects on humans, especially children.

When professional groups from doctors associations to the Canadian Cancer Society are united in their opposition to the chemicals, you have to wonder why anyone would soften rules.

Heres the Canadian Cancer Societys take on the issue, just to be clear: The Canadian Cancer Society is very concerned about the use of potentially carcinogenic substances for the purpose of enhancing the appearance of, for example, private gardens and lawns as well as parks, recreational facilities and golf courses (ornamental use).

We base this concern on the conclusions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer that state that some substances used in pesticides are classified as known, probable or possible carcinogens.

The decision to soften the regulations to make it easier for lawn-care companies and other pesticide users was a bad one, if for no other reason than because it shows the government to be moving in exactly the wrong direction.

If nothing else, the province should be moving towards banning the chemicals altogether for cosmetic lawn use, because they present a potential health threat in exchange for no particular gain.

The minister may not realize that.

If he doesnt, he is a remarkably poor choice for an environment minister.



Russell Wangersky is the editor of

The Telegram. He can be reached by e-mail at rwanger@thetelegram.com.