A settlement with Dow AgroChemicals implicitly affirms the legitimacy of provincial pesticide bans that take a precautionary approach to protect the health of their citizens and the environment (Credit: edgeplot via Flickr).
Late last week, Dow AgroChemicals quietly dropped its multi-million dollar case against Quebec's lawn pesticide ban. The U.S. chemical manufacturer had filed for arbitration under Chapter 11 of NAFTA, claiming that the provincial ban on the use and sale of 2,4-D in lawn pesticides was unfair — in part because Health Canada has approved the chemical. Dow manufacturers 2,4-D and was seeking compensation from the Government of Canada for lost profits resulting from the ban in Quebec. The chemical is used in products like Killex.
This is an important victory for provincial pesticide bans across the country — all of which outlaw the cosmetic use of 2, 4-D among other pesticides.
The case against Dow was strong. The pesticide 2, 4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, a group of chemicals that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies as possible human carcinogens. Exposure to 2, 4-D is also associated with a number of other serious health risks, including effects on the hormone system. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have banned 2, 4-D and a petition pending in the U.S. calls for the use of the chemical to be discontinued. The David Suzuki Foundation was urging the federal government to vigorously defend Quebec's ban, even though it is more restrictive than current federal standards.
Maybe Dow realized that they were unlikely to win this case. Under the terms of a settlement that has just been made public (pdf), Dow has withdrawn its legal claims and receives no compensation. In exchange, Quebec acknowledged the federal regulatory assessment that 2, 4-D does "not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, provided that the instructions on their label are followed."
It's hard to fathom why Quebec, or for that matter the federal government, would deem the risks from a potentially cancer-causing pesticide as "not unacceptable" — especially when the issue at hand is the needless use of this chemical to improve the appearance of lawns... Unsurprisingly, Dow is trying to spin Quebec's inconsequential concession as a victory. But the important thing is that Quebec's ban remains in place.
More broadly, the settlement implicitly affirms the legitimacy of provincial pesticide bans that take a precautionary approach to protect the health of their citizens and the environment. Five Canadian provinces have banned the cosmetic use of 2, 4-D, and Alberta also prohibits the chemical in pesticide-herbicide mixtures. For more information, check out our recent progress report that compares the approaches used in different provinces.
Dow's about-face in the NAFTA claim against Quebec's ban is a victory for all municipal and provincial prohibitions on the cosmetic use of pesticides. Let's hope that the remaining provinces without bans are encouraged to follow suit.
If you live in BC, take a moment to send a note to Premier Christy Clark in support of a province-wide ban.
Post a comment
The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »