- Requiring pesticide manufacturers to supply the state and federal government
with toxicity data for their products, including low-dose effects (it has recently
been revealed that low-dose exposures of certain pesticides are more dangerous
than those at higher doses) on development and reproduction.^2
Policy makers are faced with what to do about suspected toxins when there is
uncertainty or ambiguity in the science used to judge risk. Industry members con-
tinue to argue that it is irresponsible to sacrifice new products and undermine fiscal
prosperity by halting product development before the data conclusively indicate dan-
ger. The precautionary principle should prevail: when society is faced with devastat-
ing health problems as a result of using potentially toxic chemicals, those chemicals
should be held in abeyance until they are proven safe.The Precautionary PrincipleOne of the most quoted definitions of the precautionary principle is the Wing-
spread Statement, produced by a gathering of scientists, philosophers, lawyers, and
environmental activists in the United States in 1998. It pronounces that ‘‘when an ac-
tivity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically.’’^3
The substance of the precautionary principle is not really new. The essence of the
principle is captured in such cautionary cliches as ‘‘An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure,’’ ‘‘Better safe than sorry,’’ and ‘‘Look before you leap.’’ The precau-
tionary principle may be interpreted as a generalization of the ancient medical princi-
ple associated with Hippocrates: ‘‘First, do no harm.’’ The essence of the principle is
the idea that if the consequences of an action are potentially severe or irreversible, the
absence of full scientific certainty should not be used to prevent action. In other
words, the onus should be on pesticide manufacturers to demonstrate beyond reason-
able doubt that their products will not harm people or wildlife before these products
are approved for use.Cosmetic Pesticides Are HarmfulIn the United States, we are enthralled by the sight of a picture-perfect lawn or
garden, for which credit is given to the application of large doses of dangerous pes-
ticides. Canada is head and shoulders above us in their treatment of these chemical
threats. More than seventy Canadian municipalities, including Toronto, Quebec,
and Halifax, have taken action to reduce or ban cosmetic (or ‘‘aesthetic’’) use of
pesticides on both public and private property. Most of these bans are being phased
in over a few years. The sales of pesticides have not been completely banned,
though. For this reason, other cities, such as Vancouver, have opted against a legis-
lative approach and instead are trying to educate consumers on why they should
not use pesticides and to try safer alternatives instead. Canadian public health236 | Pesticides