The dilution of the pesticide bylaw is indeed a step backwards. The pesticide committee that proposed the original bylaw boasted several local physicians who recognized the danger that pesticides — even in small quantities — pose to human health. One of the most heart-breaking environmental stories I’ve read of late is of Inuit communities where women are unable to breast feed because of their diet of fish which have been contaminated by pesticides and fertilizers carried north via air and water currents. Although cosmetic pesticides make up a small percentage of the chemicals poisoning our environment, they nevertheless make there way into our lake and eventually our oceans. Salmon Arm is not an island.
I am astounded that council would cite esthetic concerns over the health of community members. In response to Coun. Harrison’s comment about a cordoned-off lawn not being a place where children play: what happens when it rains and the pesticides leach into our storm drains or are washed into adjacent yards? In response to Coun. Flynn: it does not matter whether we are talking one lawn or sixty, the question is whether it is more important to have a healthy lawn or a healthy community? As for city staff lobbying for the right to use pesticides in the case of “pest epidemics” – (which seems a rather extreme term) – what is wrong with alternative, non-chemical solutions? My understanding is that the city was a bit delayed in its application of “soapy-solution” and ladybugs to combat the aphid infestation. Shouldn’t the city at least give alternatives a fair shot before rushing back to chemicals?
Someday I wish to raise a family in beautiful Salmon Arm, and I hope to return to a forward-looking community that has not ignored the science pointing to the dangers of pesticide exposer. Coun. Flynn, it is the small steps that can eventually lead to the greatest change. Twenty years ago, who would have thought we wouldn’t be smoking in public places or around children?
Lynn Shehan