Pesticide decision must respect scientific evidence

When there is clear evidence that governments need to protect the public, we expect them to act, even if it runs counter to preconceived notions.

But what happens when the evidence suggests the opposite, that there is no reason to override individual judgment and take extraordinary action?

Last year, Premier Christy Clark supported the idea of a provincewide ban on the use of pesticides for so- called cosmetic purposes. To her credit, she also agreed to a consultation before acting. In June, her government appointed an all- party committee of the legislature to study the issue.

The committee launched a consultation that inspired submissions from more than 8,600 groups or individuals, the most reaction ever received by a legislative committee.

The members sifted through the evidence and when it came time to report, the all- party committee split on straight political grounds. Consistent with their party position when the exercise started, the New Democrats on the committee wanted a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides.

Contrary to most expectations based on Clark’s earlier position on the issue, the Liberal members of the committee, who formed the majority, found there was not enough evidence that pesticides used properly were harmful to human health or the environment to justify a provincewide ban.

The majority report called for some increased regulation over the sale and applications of pesticides, but concluded that the health and safety determinations by the already rigorous federal regulatory process should be trusted.

It is unfortunate the split in the committee was along party lines. That suggests strongly that there were more than strictly scientific considerations behind the assessments of the individual members.

The fact that the Liberal members, led by committee chair Bill Bennett, took a position that has put their leader in an awkward spot, gives them additional credibility. It is not likely to be a popular stance.

Clark’s promise last year to act on pesticides was hardly radical. Since Port Moody became the first municipality in B. C. to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides in 2003, 39 others, including Vancouver, Burnaby, Richmond and Victoria have already enacted full or partial bans.

Those bans were brought in, however, without the kind of comprehensive consultation and review undertaken by the legislative committee.

Clark’s environment minister, Terry Lake, has also previously supported a provincewide ban.

All of which will make the future of cosmetic pesticides in B. C. a difficult call for Clark, who will not want to be seen going back on an earlier commitment, especially on an issue that has substantial public support in favour of a ban.

What’s crucial here is that Clark must not simply disregard the committee report and follow her populist instincts. Having asked for the extensive consultation process, the premier must show that she is listening to the results.

That doesn’t mean that the committee should have the final say. Ultimately, the government must take responsibility whatever it does or does not do.

But if Clark decides to overrule the committee, she must explain why. It won’t be enough to defend a ban by arguing that it is the will of the majority. To do so would be to ride roughshod over the rights of people who are now making use of lawful chemicals as part of their livelihood or to enhance their own sense of wellbeing by maintaining their lawns and gardens in a manner and to the standard they see fit.

Cosmetic does not mean frivolous or even unnecessary. A ban will have consequences.

So it has to be justified. So far, according to the majority of the committee that has studied the evidence, that justification is lacking.