What an example of the CBC nanny state mentality! I thought that Marketplace was supposed to be a consumer advocate show. This was pure propaganda. Wendy Mesley, Big Sister. Posted by: Rob | Oct 10, 07 07:54 PM

Ms. Mesley seemed more interested in finding a villain than actually reporting some useful information. The only real villains here are the people who violate the law, but Ms. Mesley thinks someone else should be responsible for them instead. Maybe she could have actually reported the products that contain banned pesticides - that would have actually proved useful. Posted by: Charles Gordon | Oct 10, 07 08:00 PM

The employees of these stores are overworked and grossly underpayed, and I feel they have been tricked by this report- their integrity is being challenged, because in reality, they are merely stuck between a rock and a hard place; they have the choice of being rude and unhelpful to the customer by being loyal to their place of employment by not answering the customer's questions or they can be honest and helpful and allow the customer to leave feeling valued. It is not the fault of these employees that these substances are permitted on the store shelves. Their job is to provide customer service, not re-enforce what Environment Canada should be, but isn't doing. In summary, I would like to add that I am NOT an employee, nor do I know an employee of any Big Box stores, but simply a consumer who appreciates the customer service I receive at these establishments. Posted by: Mel Ross | Oct 10, 07 08:05 PM

I have been breeding dogs for several years. A few years ago, I moved into a house with only one neighbor. Unfortunately, this one neighbor has a perfect lawn, and a wife who hates insects. They have a lawn care company spraying their lawn regularly, and a pesticide company spraying around the outside of their house monthly during the summer. They live on our west side so the chemicals blow into our yard. Each year since moving, my dogs have had an increased number of stillborn pups. This year, in 2 litters, we had 13 stillborn puppies. My daughter, who lives in the same town, but in an area with no chemical use, has not lost a puppy, ever. Her female is the sister of one of mine, and she has the same stud dog. This says to me that there is a connection between these substances that are banned in so many places (not our city) and these deaths. I realize that this is big business, but the danger of these chemicals is well known and it is time they were banned completely. Posted by: Judy Buchanan | Oct 10, 07 08:07 PM

This evening's show on Pesticide Bans was very interesting - congratulations. Wendy and Erica mentioned that pesticide use and sale has been banned in Québec - well, I live in Quebec City and coming into my condominium building today, I noticed a warning on the front lawn asking us to stay off the lawns due to pesticide treatment. Are they banned outright or what? Posted by: Mr. Leigh Parrish | Oct 10, 07 08:07 PM

Your piece on pesticides' use was spot on! Provincial governments MUST get involved to enact bans on the sale of pesticides for cosmetic use. At the community level pesticides merchants, the chemical industry and their lobbyists ensure that by-laws either don't get passed, or if passed are too weak to even be symbolic! Posted by: Arnie Francis | Oct 10, 07 08:08 PM

Ms. Mesley looked a tad disbelieving at the gentleman who said he "hand weeded " his lawn. There are lots of us who do just that. When you see a lawn in good condition don't simply assume that the owner must be out in the middle of the night spraying with gay abandon. Keep your lawn mower on the highest setting. Most people cut way too short . We have a double lot and a lot of grass. We also have an abundance of wild life, birds and insects. The only thing a lawn really needs is water. Posted by: Christine Newmarch | Oct 10, 07 08:13 PM

I think it was unfair of you to make the sales people of these box stores look like idiots. Yes the big companies shouldn't be selling these products, but at the end of the day, these sales associates are just trying to do what they are paid to do...sell. If you had have come to me in that "undercover" sneaky way, I know I would be very upset. I feel bad for those people. Posted by: A. Miller | Oct 10, 07 08:20 PM

Hamilton, Ontario will also be banning the use of chemical pesticides in 2008. I am in favour of the ban. Ironically, one hour before watching your show, I read an ad for grass seed claiming it "requires no pesticides or fertilizers." I ordered some. I hope this seeding will save me from weeding. Posted by: Lynn Thompson | Oct 10, 07 08:22 PM

Have for years, and still do, support a ban on the sale of pesticides. I call on our politicians to act immediately to implement a NATIONAL ban. There could be not better cost to benefit ratio in investiture of tax payers dollars in my opinion and if it's bad in one place it's bad all over. Posted by: Benjamin McKay | Oct 10, 07 08:30 PM

I could not help but think about an article I read in National Geographic magazine a few years back where they talked about municipalities banning pesticide and herbicide use for home applications. The article stated that well over 99 percent of these chemicals are used in agricultural farming and commercial applications such as golf courses and public parks. Therein lies the danger. They essentialy said that banning all home owners who apply less than a total of one percent of the chemicals, amounted to peeing in the wind and feeling good about it. An interesting and current topic, but not the real story that needs to be told. Posted by: Dave Inman | Oct 10, 07 08:56 PM

I was surprised to hear you say on the show tonight that these harmful products are not sold in Quebec. I live in Bic, close to Rimouski in the province of Quebec and all the products you mention are readily available in the stores such as Canadian Tire, Walmart, etc. In Canadian Tire they are in a locked cabinet but no questions are asked when a customer asks to purchase them. In Walmart they're on open shelves so the customer can serve him/herself. The other thing I find really disturbing is that the local golf course seems to be completely weedfree. The golf course has a watering system which waters the golf course abundantly. Water flows off the course into wetland bordering the mouth of the Bic River which then flows into the St. Lawrence. My own lawn has plenty of weeds but not necessarily because of any convictions. Finding time to mow it is difficult so the slower it grows the better I like it and any pretty flowers get mowed around in the hope they will seed themselves. Posted by: Judy Parceaud | Oct 10, 07 09:13 PM

I don't blame the sales people selling the product but I do blame the stores for carrying the product. A national ban should be placed on pesticides. It will save our health and our earth. Your show, as always, is very informative. Posted by: Helen Pare | Oct 10, 07 09:38 PM

I hand-weed my lawn. I live in Halifax. Are you going to do a show on "jay-walking" and film people running across the street to catch a bus with a hidden camera? That is a bylaw too. Why don't you do a segment on WHY the pesticides were banned and the health hazards they cause...and reveal empirical evidence that the data is accurate (or not) so that people can make their own decisions to break the bylaw or not. I'm glad Michael Moore makes his movies - they are entertaining and make good points. I think Wendy Mesley and co. are trying to acheive the same blockbuster profile by unfairly making poor big-box dept. store employees feel more small than they already do, for example. I am sad that TV is full of programs claiming to be informative and journalistically responsible that, so blatantly, are filmed and produced like their only goal is to "shock" and "entertain" the viewer. Give people the facts - don't stuff your opinions down their throats and forfeit commercial breaks to make you seem credible... this episode, like the one on computer techs, seemed like it was an excerpt from Street Cents; albeit an informative and entertaining show - but nonetheless for youth. The CBC viewers deserve a more thoughtful, less sensationalized, approach to your show.... who are you trying to impress?... or is the IQ of this nation deteriorating so quickly that we have to dumb down every documentary so it can be understood by XBOX-playing teenage drop-outs? Posted by: Austin | Oct 10, 07 10:05 PM

I'm confused,you were talking about weedy lawns and pesticides, but is it not herbicides that control weeds and pesticides that control insects? I certainly was not aware of any pesticides in any of the products mentioned. Posted by: Pat | Oct 10, 07 10:18 PM

I would like to combine the stillborn dog and agricultural comment. Yes 2-4D and glyposates are used in agriculture and are respected. You don't see farmers running around naked in fields after being sprayed. You would not go and dip your puppies in bleach so don't let animals play and lick themselves on freshly sprayed grass. The essence of the bans are that governments are supposed to protect us from ourselves because some people have no brains and others who don't want to take personal responsibility. People who don't have 15hrs per week to weed their lawns because they are too hard keeping ahead of their taxes are the villiains. Posted by: Roger | Oct 10, 07 10:39 PM

Our municipality here in BC uses weed killers extensively, in parks, on street side walk curbs and school grounds. So not only are these pesticides for sale in stores but spread all over as well. The municipal workers will post a hazard sign at the park entrance/exits but when they spray along the curbs. Unless you see it you have no knowledge of it being done. Then of course I can't forget to mention the farmers all around here, God only knows what they use on their land. I wish all use of pesticides would be banned. Who decided that a dandelion is not a beautiful flower anyway??? Posted by: C.Archer | Oct 10, 07 11:00 PM

Nova Scotia's Minister of the Environment seemed to believe that the province doesn't have enough money to control pesticide sales. Perhaps there would be more money if fewer children were not involuntarily exposed to neighbourhood landscape pesticides and costs for their resulting long term illnesses were reduced. The Federal Report on Pesticides states that these toxins are responsible for a "myriad of illnesses". These include costly problems such as lymphoma, prostate cancer, learning disabilities, birth defects....just to name a few. All children should have the right to be safe in their homes - away from drifting pesticides from neighbours' lawns! Posted by: Florence Senay | Oct 10, 07 11:25 PM

There would be more money to control the provincial sales of pesticides if children were not involuntarily exposed to them drifting in their neighborhoods. Pesticides have been linked to costly conditions such as lymphoma, cancer, learning disabilities, birth defects...just to name a few. I believe all children have a right to be safe in their homes. Posted by: Florence Senay | Oct 10, 07 11:35 PM

I am very much hoping that Mr. McGuinty, who was re-elected tonight, will keep his promise and bring in a pesticide ban. A ban from the selling of pesticides as well as the using of them is needed. Banning just the use clearly has not been working in Halifax where stores are still selling them. As a person who almost died a few weeks ago from a severe reaction to weedkillers, I would like the freedom to enjoy my property back. Companies often spray lawns that have no weeds or insect problems. That is like treating healthy people for diseases they do not have. There are plenty of natural solutions for those who do have problems. I live across from a school and can not understand why my neighbors who apparently couldn’t care less what happens to me, at least don’t care about the children. Often the children are at recess or coming or going from school when the spraying is going on. You can ask companies to warn you when they are going to spray but they often don’t bother. The company that sprays my neighborhood even led my doctor to believe they wouldn’t spray near me after I spent two days in emergency recently from a serious reaction. A few days after this assurance I opened my windows to air out my home and became very inflamed and ill and had to be put on steroids, maybe for life now. The company had sprayed again, not warned me and even tried to lie about it when I phoned them. Obviously the dollar is far more important to them than my life or health. Government both provincially and federally need to stop this toxic trespass Posted by: Deborah Baeeie | Oct 10, 07 11:42 PM

Thank you for your program this evening about availability of pesticides and herbicides - so many of them related to Agent Orange of ill repute. Since one of my children died at age 20 of Hodgkins' Disease and since I have become aware of many others with similar cancers, I am very concerned about the use of pesticides, herbicides and other noxious materials. Posted by: Helen Fogarty | Oct 10, 07 11:44 PM

Health Canada has gone on record as saying that pesticide use is safe so long as the directions on the label are followed. So why are the municipalities getting involved? Here in Halifax, if you read the pesticide bylaw, it's written so poorly that simple mosquito repellent is deemed a pesticide and by rights, should be subject to the ban. Should we welcome West Nile virus with open arms? Welcome to the nanny state. Posted by: Dave | Oct 11, 07 12:32 AM

Strangely, there was no mention that ALL pesticide products, "green" or conventional chemical, are regulated federally, by an agency that employs some 400 persons that does nothing but assess pesticide products, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada. Note they were side-by-side on the shelves. Simply because a local bylaw exists, written by the vote-hungry to satisfy the well-meaning but usually uninformed vocal minority, does not mean it is a good bylaw. Anecdotes are no substitute for well designed scientific studies to investigate cause and effect. Note that all pesticide regulatory agencies in the world use science rather than philosophy to make their decisions on pesticides. Should we paint the world with pesticides ? No. But neither should we shun them simply because they are man-made chemicals that are useful in controlling weeds, insects, diseases, rodents, or other pestilance or vermin. "Hidden camera" ... really ?? It appeared more than one store employee spotted the lens! Posted by: Brent | Oct 11, 07 01:28 AM

HRM's, well laudeed progessive Pesticide By-law, was shown for what is really is, a failure. Stats Canada reports that the use of Pesticides has not decreased by any significance. In HRM we have corporate giants openly encouraging residents to break the law. These Pesticide Pushers are selling merchandise they know is illegal for HRM Residents to use, who then face the posiblity of a $2000.00 fine! Let's amend the by-law to make it work, or get rid of it. Posted by: Ernie Brennan | Oct 11, 07 10:30 AM

I actually watched this piece via live feed on the website. I totally agree with the last post, in which the writer expressed that the reporter looking for a villain. I think that bylaws regarding the use of pesticides is important (especially considering how many of us have environmental sensitivities) and should be enforced both municipally and provincially, however, I think that it's equally important not to lose sight of the issue at hand. I thought that we were watching an educational program to learn of the dangers of pesticide use, but clearly the issue was turned around to make the retailers and sales people look negligent. To me, it's shocking to watch such a reputable program attack the sales people. Perhaps if the energy put into educating sales staff and the public on which ingredients were dangerous instead of into belittling and attacking people (who don't even know they're being filmed for national television), we could find some middle ground and ensure a healthier future for our communities. Posted by: Lynette Jones | Oct 11, 07 12:34 PM

I would just like to point out that it is the municipalities who have banned these products for health reasons. If pesticides are as harmful as the bylaws say...then why hasn't the federal or provincial (outside of Quebec) governments implemented the same bans? The reason is that although industrial strength pesticides are potentially hazardous, far less potent household versions are not. Get real Marketplace! Posted by: John | Oct 11, 07 01:09 PM

Thanks for your comments about our programme. Several of you have written to ask about our use of the terms "pesticide" and "herbicide." The term "Pesticides" includes all chemicals used to kill living organisms. So the general term most usually applied is "pesticide bans" which includes herbicides, insecticides and fungicides. Thanks for watching, and thanks for your comments. All the best, Bret Posted by: Bret | Oct 11, 07 03:49 PM

Anyone know what neighborhood that was that they were driving around in Halifax looking for weedless lawns? It looked nice and I'm shopping for a house. Posted by: Cliff | Oct 11, 07 04:36 PM

I think this transcript from Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development from Thursday, October 23, 2006 makes it clear Canada's scientists aren't sure where they are getting their info from (if you go to the link and start here) Int-734719Int-734719Int-734708Int-734708 Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Mr. Green, it was good to hear that you saw this as a priority, because I think members of this committee and members of Parliament generally were quite disturbed by the commissioner's report and had concerns about the agency's ability to meet the timelines that you're indicating you still intend to meet. I think I can say on behalf of a good number of environmental groups who have approached me on this that they also are very concerned about it. I just wish to add some emphasis to the importance of this project. As to the harmonization process with the United States on these evaluations and reassessments, for how many of the 400 that are outstanding are we relying on the United States for the bulk or all of the reassessment? Int-734729Int-734729Int-734710Int-734710 Ms. Wendy Sexsmith: We are and will be relying on probably 80%, if not more, of the number that's left. It's important to understand that the U.S. has a much larger budget than we do. It's a much larger country. They've put enormous resources into this. So our whole program, which we consulted on pre-2001 and then put in place in 2001, was really premised on the fact that we would be able to get the 405 done if we did a number of things. One of those things would be to piggyback, work closely, and use information from the U.S. In many cases, we're working very closely, jointly, for example, on the heavy duty wood preservatives. In other cases, we work with them as they work through their decision, and then we look at how the context works for Canada and make our decision. Posted by: deborah Barrie | Oct 11, 07 04:38 PM

As someone on the front lines during the bylaw debate in Halifax, this story and the comments about it points out one thing. These products have been studied to death and the Federal government has approved them. So the majority of people, those buying the products, believe they are safe to use and ignore the bylaw that was put in to error on the side of caution by the politicians being pressured by a small number of people with evidence as compelling as that of Roger with his stillborn dogs. Posted by: Doug Conrad | Oct 11, 07 04:44 PM

One chemical, MECOPROP, that is being used in our communities was questioned in 2002 by the PMRA and instead of complying the industry choose to end their registration. They were given until 2005 to quit making it, 2007 to quit selling it and 2009 to quit using it. That should astound you and make you realize that the safety of communities is not in the hands of our regulating bodies but in the actions of its citizens.and local governments. It should also bother you that that instead of being a good corporate citizen and switching to a safer product the company chose to continue spraying a product that its makers didn’t want reviewed. Posted by: deborah barrie | Oct 11, 07 04:44 PM

Well I don't know where to start. Most of the responses on here just shows how uninformed people are about Lawn and garden Pesticides. If Lawn and Garden pesticides are so hazardous then why after 20 years of being a pesticide applicator and some 20,000 applications I have not witnessed any harmful effects from the herbicide 2-4D? This is the big baddy of them all or that's what the Sierra Club and it's satellite eco clubs across the country want you think. I mean I should be dead by now or at least be riddled with cancer, but I'm not and infact I am probably healthier than your average 37 year old since I work outdoors and do plenty of walking spraying all those weeds. 2,4D is the most widely used Herbicde on the Planet. It's been around for 60 odd years and will kill broadleaf plants but not harm other plants like grass. It's mostly used in Agriculture and its use gives higher yields, It's probably responsible for saving millions of lives not harming them. The amount that is needed is incredibly small. The average weedy lawn only needs about 250ml of the stuff per year. it mixes with water 100-1. It breaks down rapidly in the environment and does not persist in the soil for more than a few weeks. www.24d.org for more info. I've seen no dead dogs no dead birds no dead babies. all I have witnessed is weed free lawns and happy home owners. What people need are facts. If you use a pesticide make sure you read the label and make sure you actually need to use it. or better yet phone a licenced company that knows what they're doing. I don't spray insect control unless the lawn is infested and most of these by-laws permit that. Also other pesticides like DEET and aerosol sprayed pesticides like RAID are exempt in every by-law and so are Golf courses. Even if there were no pesticides being used at all on Lawns and Gardens you'd only eliminate 1-2 % of pesticide use. Posted by: David Carney | Oct 11, 07 08:37 PM

Pesticide use is such an emotional issue - primarily because there is so little understanding of what it is and why it is used. I'm in the Environmental Horticulture faculty at a Nova Scotia university. Our students are educated in landscape design, management and construction. They have all been taught what it takes to create a sustainable landscape - healthy soil and plenty of it being the primary ingredient. As an urban society, most people don't bat an eye when the soil in a housing development is removed and sold, what's left is crushed and compacted, and the developer slaps down an inch or so of some kind of compromised soil on top and walks away. We're expected to grow healthy trees, shrubs, lawns and gardens in that? Impossible. This is the reason that pesticides are used - recognize it and do something about THAT! In the meantime I agree that pesticides should firmly be removed from the hands of homeowners and placed in the hands of professional applicators who are trained in their use and correct application. Posted by: Carol | Oct 12, 07 04:06 AM

I believe this issue has become way too emotional and beyond reason. Environmental activists bombard the average citizen with rhetorical and anecdotal "findings" about how lawn chemicals are harming people. As well, special interest groups can now have far more influence at the municipal levels of government which can now "regulate" pesticide use. No one at the municipal government level will admit that they tire over activist groups continually ramming their causes down their throats, until they (councillors) finally have had enough and give in. Why would a political party such as the Ontario Liberals promise to ban cosmetic use of pesticides when their agencies as well as our federal government say these products are safe when used in accordance with the label? Where's the data to support such an action? Just another election promise? If people are genuinely concerned about pesticides in the system then they should be more wary of the food they ingest daily, where 97% of all pesticides are used in Canada, rather than the grass they walk on which uses less that 2%. It seems to me that a tremendous amount of time and effort is being spent on this innocuous issue when there are proven killers such as smoking, drug use and alcoholism that statistically kill tens of thousand each year in our country. So if Stats Canada suggests that cosmetic use of lawn pesticides is harming no one, then shouldn't we be directing our energies into finding the real causes of the suggested maladies that are harming people? The CBC piece did a good job of reporting about the confusion in Halifax, but I would like to see a story about whether pesticide by-laws will really improve people's health, or is this just more fear mongering which we already seem to have plenty of. Posted by: Ken | Oct 12, 07 09:28 AM

Congratulations on your courage and persistence to pursue this very important health issue in the face of opposition from the lobbyists for the agro-chemical industry. Here in Edmonton Alberta we have been meeting with city councillors to push for a bylaw to eliminate the use of herbicides on public and private land. This coming Monday we have another election. See the great comments from Edmontonians at our web petition site: http://www.gopetition.com/online/10190.html Thanks so much for your work on this issue! Posted by: Elisabeth Beaubien | Oct 12, 07 11:03 AM

Yes, the province must get involved, and these dangerous products must be removed from the shelves. Municipalities must in the meantime implement pesticide bylaws and get educating. Let's hope our Ontario government will follow through soon on their promise for a province-wide pesticide ban. I'd like to see more segments on what the doctors, the Cancer Society, the Ontario College of Family Physicians (OCFP), the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario are saying about pesticides. Physicians are advising not to use pesticides, and the OCFP identified consistent links between pesticide use and serious illnesses such as reproductive problems, neurological disease, brain cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, birth defects, fetal death, intra-uterine growth retardation, and an increased risk of leukemia in children exposed to insecticides and herbicides used on lawns and gardens. I am one of the one million Canadians (that's one million diagnosed - we know there are more) with multiple chemical sensitivities and am adversely affected by pesticides. The Cancer Society is now on board, saying it is "very concerned about the use of potentially carcinogenic (cancer-causing) 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 on the conclusions of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that state that some substances used in pesticides are classified as known probable or possible carcinogens." Thank you for bringing to light this very real and serious health and environment issue. Posted by: Mary de Bassecourt | Oct 12, 07 11:08 AM

I saw your show on pesticides. Have you ever tried using a hot kettle of water, pouring a little hot water over dandelions and other weeds. It will kill them instantly allowing the grass to grow in. Less costly, and environmentally friendly. Something to think about. Posted by: Mark Rastin | Oct 12, 07 05:58 PM

Well Mary you'll be happy to note that the weed killer 24d is non carcinagenic according to the scientific evidence and listed as a class D compound by the National Cancer institute. The OCFP report has some serious flaws and has been debunked by many world bodies like the UK advisory panel on pesticides. Again rhetoric and fearmongering from activists. They say pesticides and lump them all together when there are many different types of pesticides. If you don't want to use them then don't but don't tell me I can't use something to get rid of unwanted weeds or bugs from destroting my lawn. I don't go around indiscriminatley spraying whatever wherever and I don't need some idiot Mayor telling me how to lok after my property. These by-laws create confusion and promote misuse. Posted by: Dave | Oct 12, 07 11:57 PM

The last comment was probably made by someone employed in the pesticide industry. It's funny what length they go to to keep their 6 figure salary. Unfortunately, with many mixed messages, the public has a hard time deciphering the truth. Personally, I'm really glad that your show is still on the air, I can only imagine the pressure the corporate world and their lawyers place upon you and your bosses. KEEP IT UP. Posted by: Ricky Fernback | Oct 13, 07 04:13 PM

Great job on this Lawn and Order episode. I, as a chemistry major, had the horror to watch at a big box store this summer how the salesperson was pushing sales of pesticides that are illegal to use on unsuspecting customers. I could not abstain anymore and I interrupted to let the customers know that those particular pesticides contained a carcinogenic chemical and were illegal to use. This same salesperson also advised another customer to put rat poison outside to get rid of raccoons! As I was pretty sure poisoning raccoons was illegal as well, I had to explain to both of them that by putting poison outside you end up poisoning not just the intended target but other animals who may eat the poison or feed on the carcass, or that squirrels can move the poison into a neighbour's yard and possibly harm a child. The salesperson's response was that there should be a bounty on raccoons! I do not believe that these chemicals should be sold in stores by and to uneducated people. Posted by: Andreea Ionescu | Oct 13, 07 07:07 PM

North America has the most boring yards in the world. It is extremely dull and monotone to have only one type of plant as far as the eye can see, in every neighbourhood, in every city across the continent and see nothing else. Ever since I emigrated to North America, I have never been able to understand this fascination with GRASS! This practice to have boring lawns has also pushed out wildlife across the continent as it forces out all species that rely on plants other than grass. I always take joy in the yards of European and Asian immigrants who plant a variety of flowers, grapevines and vegetable gardens. Once in a while, I also come across true rebels who only plant native species and allow their yards to go "wild". So let's forget poisonous green lawns all together and support a variety of plants, insects, birds, etc, that can keep each other's population in check, just like Nature always intended. Posted by: Andreea Ionescu | Oct 13, 07 07:53 PM

I'm a landscaper and I hand pull weeds from clients lawns. I pulled almost 8 rubbermaid containers full from one clients property and she was happy to pay the price as her daughter is ill and was happy to see a company not using chemical. I think so many people have become obsessed with the perfect lawn, house and 2.5 kids, cars and "toys" that they forget without a world to enjoy those things in, what's the point in working so hard to get it? No one that I know of has ever died of a dandelion or plaintain on their lawn. However I find it pathetic that a by law be in place but yet HRM allows the chemical to be on the shelves. Although that doesn't shock me because they "HRM" endorsed Farmer Clems in Bedford as being the place to purchase a backyard composter and on any given day you can look in the garbage dumpster and find cardboard, produce, and plant material thrown away to wind up in the landfill. But then again HRM thought it was acceptable to pump raw sewage into the Halifax harbour. OH MY....where will it all end? I'll still continue to reduce, reuse, recycle and do my small part to help and can only hope everyone who reads this may do the same. Posted by: Micheal Mc Burnie | Oct 13, 07 08:08 PM

Your program (which I saw on NewsWorld this evening)wrongly concentrated on the vendors of herbicides and pesticides. In most, if not all, provinces municipal by-laws cannot restrict trade. Your target should have either been on the purchasers of the products or on the provincial or federal governments which could have restricted or banned the sale of the products. Posted by: Charles B Chapman | Oct 13, 07 08:08 PM

The overall point seems to have been sadly missed out on. The culture of our society has changed for the worse. The immorality of corporations has grown, probably due to the ability to crunch numbers using computers. So, the ethic of staying within the law is no longer necessarily followed unless it is more profitable to do so. These corporations lobby the politicians with the sole purpose of getting the politicians to work 'with', or for them in some manner, thus allowing the laws to be weak or unenforced. So, I would judge that the weak laws in Nova Scotia and Ontario are a deliberate situation to allow sales, and therefore profits, to continue, and that situation was knowingly created by the politicians so that they can appear to be looking after the public, while at the same time, in reality, they will be looking after the corporate friends that might finance their campaigns, or employ them if they are no longer voted into future office. Let's face it, a ten year old child could figure out that if something is bad for the public, then it should be banned. This is not a 'resources' issue - I could build a list of products in less than a day, provided the unwanted chemicals are listed on the label. Just ban the product by name until the makers can legally verify that the poisons are no longer used in manufacture. The process is simple, name the chemicals, crosscheck the products, (placing the onus on the sales outlet), and the whole resolution will be done within a few days, and at little public cost. Or maybe just tax the heck out of the products at provincial level......... Posted by: John Greenhalgh | Oct 13, 07 09:28 PM

I agree that Marketplace should do a segment on pesticides that provides information to the public on pesticides and their use. However, rather than or in addition to talking to organizations such as those mentioned above, maybe they should talk to scientists in this country who specialise in pesticides. Both Federal and Provincial governments employee scientists who specialise in pesticides. Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency's (http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/) primary objective is 'to prevent unacceptable risks to people and the environment from the use of pest control products'. Their scientists conduct evaluations based on data sets from many scientific studies that look at the affect of pesticides on health and environment. Rather than Municipalities banning pesticide use, they might consider educating people on the proper use of pesticides and the importance of following label directions. Homeowners can also chose to use 'Green' products, natural biocontrol agents (nematodes to control white grubs), and management practises, such as keeping your grass longer and insuring it is fertilised. The media loves to sensationalise, but unfortunately they don't always provide the whole story. It may be far more interesting to hear the side of Sierra Club and other environmental groups, but shouldn't equal time go to the actual authorities. Don't get me wrong here, I don't necessarily agree with the use of pesticides just to make perfect lawns or even perfect golf courses. Far from it, but I do think that the public is far too often informed by people who are not specialists and anything in the media is considered gospel. Better to go by the saying: 'believe nothing you hear and only half what you see' because things are not always what they appear to be. Let's stick to the facts... Posted by: Debby | Oct 13, 07 09:36 PM

I saw your program on pesticide bans. I am employed in the green industry. Namely I have a background in agriculture and horticulture. I am a sales rep for a company that sells natural lawn products. As well I have years of experience growing and maintaining plants of all types from lawns to indoor tropicals. I agree that the products should be banned from store shelves. What I was really surprised with is the 2-3 minutes of coverage the natural methods recieved at the end of the program which tells me that the general public and the media in particular need to be taught how to care for a lawn the natural and organic way. Posted by: Alroy Brouwer | Oct 14, 07 02:03 PM

Health Canada has deemed these products to be SAFE if used properly. Maybe their sale and use should be limited to licensed professional. It's a crime to make someone who likes a weed free lawn a criminal! Sneaking out to spray in the dark! There isn't ANY feasible alternative to spray therefore lets have it done properly. Posted by: Frank Murley | Oct 14, 07 02:23 PM

We have a perfect lawn - green and lush - and we live in Calgary. However, we don't use pesticides (3 years now), and we watered once this year. How is this possible? We followed the guidelines at http://pesticidefreeyards.org/Pages/Weeds.html. It's been easy! My big problem with this story is that (except for the last few minutes of enlightenment) Wendy has the same assumption that the Pesticide companies use to market their products - only use of pesticides can create a perfect lawn - and that's just the BIG LIE. Posted by: S. Pogue | Oct 14, 07 02:27 PM

EVERYONE is responsible for insuring the health and wellbeing of all human and animal lives are cared for. The stores, the "mayor" as it was put and city council, the consumer and the companies. Focus on one above the other does not remove the bottom line, nor any argument to uphold one's preference. The bottom line, you are not allowed to use the chemicals. Period. Posted by: Loretta Iris | Oct 14, 07 03:07 PM

I saw your hidden camera report on the pesticides, I find it to be unfair on the employee side. They were honest with their customers. The organic junk doesn't work. Your report didn't show the opposite side of the coin. What about the dandelion,weed sufferers, which I am one. I have already lost partial hearing in one ear over this. The government is making a mint on drugs that keep going up monthly for sufferers. Meanwhile you eat fruit from the farms that are full of pesticides. This is progress? Posted by: Randy Livingstone | Oct 14, 07 04:28 PM

I not only find it amusing, but also alarming that so many comments made here show the true lack of knowledge of our citizens. So many people put their trust into propaganda they read on the internet while ignoring the actual science and the toxicologists that study pesticides. Most of these people don't even understand that the term pesticide refers to herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides. It's time for Canadians to wake up and stop letting the activist groups who scream the loudest run our country and dictate to the politicians. It's time these hipocrytes look under their Kitchen sink and at the list of ingredients on there packaged foods. It's too bad that many of you feel that you need to jump on the latest "eco-bandwagen" to feel alive. It's funny that you would eat an apple that was sprayed, but would not walk on a lawn that was sprayed. Please direct your misguided passion to something that really needs attention. If you're not going to educate yourself on the issue then maybe you should stay quiet. If you truly understood the issue, you would realize that all of the bylaws written in Canada were done by ill-informed politicians giving in to the pressure of the activists. Ask yourself why these activists are so vocal. The more noise they make, the more money they receive. They are no different than the large chemical manufacturers making lots of money. Oh, there is one difference. The chemical manufacturers tell the truth. Posted by: John Evans | Oct 14, 07 08:24 PM

Well Ricky (Oct 13), I am a Researcher in the Pest Control Industry, with 11 years of university and over 20 years field experience, and I am interested in knowing who is paying 6 figures? The Industry demands excellence in research and thus demands a PhD of its senior researchers. Check it out, and compare industry requirements to the majority of Eco groups claiming doom and gloom. Over the years I have noticed three topics arising during discussions of Pesticides. First the PMRA (Health Canada) gets bashed, but Canadians should be proud of the excellent job they do regulating Pesticides. Secondly, reference is generally made to the report prepared by the OCFP, a special interest group, not to be confused with the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons which is responsible for licensing Doctors. The lame report meant solely to influence the Toronto Pesticide By-Law debate. And thirdly, it is common to label persons with 'links' to the Pest Control Industry as 'tainted' and 'incapable' of independent thought. "If they ain't wit us, they agin us." Very Canadian eh! The Marketplace report was unbalanced and failed to explain why the various bylaws were not working. Being political, and not science-based, immediately pits our Public Institutions against the Municipalities. Who to believe, Health Canada who has hundreds of staff dedicated to evaluating the data, or the municipalities who have used 'what'? I was deeply disturbed by the Fox Network mentality exhibited by the CBC. Let's create a story, hide a camera, and set up individuals least able to defend themselves. Did any of those people lose their Jobs? Wouldn't it be nice if Wendy and Marketplace could actually take a step back and discuss the benefits of pesticides. While it is a great leap, it is something that we should expect of 'our' CBC. Now wouldn't that be sensational! Posted by: David F | Oct 15, 07 02:09 AM

Yes the QUEBEC pesticide Code and the many municipal pesticide bylaws in Quebec have contributed to mass education on the dangers of pesticide use and alternatives practices and products to maintain healthy natural lawns. As an agronomist, specialized in this issue, I have trained many garden center employees and several lawncare technicians to better understand the bylaws and the pesticide Code and to offer alternatives to their clients. I have also trained buyers of some large chains on what to stock and what not to. Yes some pesticides are still sold in stores in Quebec. The Quebec pesticide Code made it illegal to sell fertilizers mixed with herbicides (e.i.Weed & Feed), insecticides such as diazinon and carbaryl (Sevin, Grub Out), several fungicides, 2-4D and mecoprop (Killex, etc.)used on lawns. So you can't buy any selective weed killer like Killex anymore but you can still buy, glyphosate and glyphosinate based products such as RoundUp and Wipe Out. In cities with a pesticide bylaw, certain only low impact (biopesticides) can be used freely and only those allowed by the provincial governement (pesticide Code) can be used after receiving a permit from bylaw officers. So that's for the crash course on the Quebec pesticide Code and municipal bylaws in Québec. M. Levesque agronomist M.Sc., SAE. Posted by: M. Levesque | Oct 15, 07 08:04 PM

I mainly wanted to say that the most crucial issue here is not lawn spraying, but the fact that many regions are spraying human beings directly in malls, government offices, grocery stores etc. with highly toxic levels of pesticides. Many people have died and are dying as a result, but no one does anything or even admits to it including the department of "environment". We should do away with the dept. of environment, and hire citizens from environmental organizations instead with arms-length regulations re. industry. Spraying pesticides directly on people should be classed with murder as a crime. As for the pesticide sprayer who said he was fine after 20 or 30 years of applying pesticides - I've met plenty who aren't - including one guy who said he was in almost constant pain because of it. Scientific literature also shows that those exposed to pesticides constantly become quite aggressive - hmm perhaps this accounts for the vehemence of the anti-banning group. Have you ever noticed that out in the country most people don't use lawn pesticides at ALL because I guess they have more sense and don't want to waste their money? You know what, their lawns look great, and when I go to buy a house, I look for "weeds" or species diversity in that lawn and the neighbouring lawns just so I can see what chemicals I'll have to live with. Pesticide applicators go around canvassing neighbourhoods and guilting people into "keeping up their properties" by spraying. I know of one person who spoke out about this, and then the pesticide companies would come and spray their lawn constantly and there was nothing they could do about it. Posted by: rick | Oct 16, 07 08:29 AM

So we are told chemical companies tell us the truth and the Ontario College of Family Physicians is a special interest group. Public health is special interest!? White is black. I am a retired federal intelligence analyst. I don't trust the U.K. Advisory Committee on Pesticides with their strong ties to the chemical industry. And I do know that Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has been nicknamed, with good reason, "pesticide manufacturers' rubber-stamping agency." It doesn't have a single medical doctor on staff and doesn't examine epidemiological studies. The PMRA entirely depends, for its evaluations, on secret industry rat studies obtained in industry sponsored and financed labs. Rats have detoxification genes missing in humans, and inconvenient results are withheld by the industry from the PMRA. For example, the industry failed to provide the vital child and neurological data for the recent re-evaluation of 2,4-D, the main herbicide. The first breakdown product of this herbicide is more toxic than the original herbicide itself, with children walking beside a recently sprayed lawn inhaling residues of this chemical, which goes directly to their brain, by-passing the liver which is the cleansing organ. 2,4-D is known to be contaminated by a toxic dioxin in the process of manufacturing, which is of concern to a competent scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Moreover, only so-called "active" portion of pesticides is tested, whereas the "inert" substance, also known as formulant, may amount to as much as 90% of the final product but is untested, an industry secret. According to an International Agency on Research on Cancer reporting to the World Health Organization, the formulant is likely to be cancer causing. If 2,4-D is entirely safe, why doesn't the industry disclose the results of formulants' testing? Posted by: Jean | Oct 22, 07 08:30 AM

How to kill pests without killing yourself or the earth...... After 45 years in pest control, I have just finished re-writing my free IPM encyclopedia entitled: THE BEST CONTROL II, that contains over 2,800 safe and far more effective alternatives to pesticide POISONS. This latest copyrighted work is free and about 1,800 pages in length and is now being updated at my new website at http://www.stephentvedten.com/ . There is simply no need to POISON yourself or your family or to have any pest problems. Stephen L. Tvedten Posted by: Stephen L. Tvedten | Oct 22, 07 02:48 PM

If products are banned from use in a specific city then the sale of such product should be PROHIBITED. Could you imagine a drug dealer being allowed to sell drugs to people but having to say "You know, it's illegal to use these here but just in case you don't obey laws, this is how to use them" INSANITY. Why can't we ban the sale of products the use of which is illegal? Posted by: Russ Reedyk | Oct 27, 07 05:12 PM

Obviously there should be a full & outright ban on selling as well as using these chemicals in restricted areas. However CBC Marketplace are being very unfair to store assistants when they blame them for promoting or being able to influence the companies they work for in any way because it is the primary requirement of the job unless of course, they wanted to loose those "quality" jobs! These people are paid the minimum wage (or very near minimum) & almost certainly have no formal qualifications or real knowledge & experience of the store's products including pesticides they are required to sell. This is why small specialist stores are the best option for the correct advice but unfortunately this retail model has higher overhead because the people who run them actually do have the specific knowledge & qualifications to provide the right advice yet they are disappearing fast in a world where the only criteria the consumer understands is price. Posted by: Dave B (Brit ex-pat) | Nov 15, 07 09:08 AM

Taping and broadcasting a private communication with the consent of only one of the participants in the communication may be legal. When a CBC representative is party to the private communication, he may tape it if he deems it necessary. However, it is CBC's general practice not to broadcast a private communication without the knowledge of all parties to the communication. The above was taken from CBC's own Standard for Journalistic Practices. Perhaps the adage of "practice what they preach" will be more respected when CBC decides to pick on sales clerks. Must be nice to have such bully power. Posted by: Christie | Nov 28, 07 06:38 AM

I was delighted to see a video which explains a strange phenomenon, that while many places in Canada prohibit or limit the use of certain pesticides, they still permit the sale of these toxins if purchased in your local store. If a product contains a banned substance then it should be illegal to sell it or buy it. In the United States, there are no such bans. We can do anything we want and we seem to be content with breathing in what are neighbors have sprayed on their lawns. People can also clear cut trees. At least our northern neighbor and friend, Canada, is trying to restrict the use of some pesticides - while the system has some flaws - I admire the effort being made and hope better enforcement can be realized. Posted by: dog wants a safe lawn to walk on | Mar 24, 08 11:58 PM

Okay, pesticides and herbicides are too different things, maybe the "Marketplace" should do some research and use the right terminology its herbicides that kill weeds, pesticides kill insects. Posted by: cameron | Apr 9, 08 06:07 PM

Pesticides are herbicides, Pesticides are insecticides,pesticides are fungicides. Have you people gotten the picture yet!? The term pesticide is an umbrella term for all...enough said. Know your subject area before commenting. Posted by: Robberbarron | May 8, 08 01:39 PM

Insecticides kill insects. Pesticides kill pests like rats, mice, etc. Fungicides and herbicides are different and are designed to kill off weeds and funguses. Each one is different and must be considered differently. Posted by: Sandi | May 10, 08 08:06 PM

why does the cbc go after a couple of guys working in a store? why do they show the viewers footage, and minutes later show the same footage to the guy they're interviewing? why does the camera move back and forth so you want to be sick? why has this show gone down the tubes? Posted by: smlp | May 12, 08 10:18 AM

I agree with the minister of N.S. people need more education. Do you go into a pharmacy and pick an aspirin off the shelf? No you read the ingredients people are going to have to be more educated (no fear mongering) about the products. Maybe the reason that N.S. sales have not dipped as much as quebec as the people from Quebec are probably going over to the next province to buy their products! Farmers in Ontario have reduced their use by 50% in the past 20 years because they have to be licenced and take a course. It is on the OMAF website and Ontario Federation of Agriculture Posted by: Donna | May 12, 08 11:01 AM

I think the pestiside by-law is stupid. I don't want my lawn overtaken by weeds and bugs and if the province really wants to save the environment, let them better regulate the insudrial wastes first! Posted by: Jay | Aug 16, 08 03:57 PM

How sad (maddening, outrageous, disgusting, shameful) that when you leave it to the individual to poison the earth or not to poison the earth, the individual usually decides to poison the earth. This is the real and only issue. Posted by: jeanette | Aug 16, 08 03:59 PM