A May 17 special committee on cosmetic pesticides made a number of recommendations to promote their safe use in B.C., but fell short of imposing a province-wide ban.
"The majority of the committee does not think the scientific evidence, at this time, warrants an outright ban," said the committee's chair, Bill Bennett.
The all-party committee, composed of three members of the B.C. NDP and five from the B.C. Liberals, received 8,700 submissions, "setting a new record for public participation in a committee inquiry."
Their report makes a number of recommendations, including banning the sale of commercial-class pesticides "as soon as possible, except for use by certified applicators" and increasing penalties on retail outlets that allow the products to be sold without "appropriate information and instruction."
Also among their recommendations was requesting the golf industry to develop a province-wide certification process for pesticide use in their industry, as well as encouraging the chemicals to be properly disposed of with improvements to the province's unwanted pesticide management program.
For health groups including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the lung association, among others, the news was met with disappointment.
"We will continue to urge the B.C. government to implement strong province-wide cosmetic pesticide legislation, similar to Ontario's," said director Gideon Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
Barbara Kaminsky, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society in B.C. and Yukon, said the recommendations will not protect children from exposure to the chemicals.
"We waited years for the B.C. government to follow the lead of other provinces and B.C. municipalities," she was quoted as saying in a May 17 release. "The report was slow in coming and is weak in content. It is disappointing overall."
The Sunshine Coast's medical health officer, Dr. Paul Martiquet, said there's not a lot of evidence linking cancer with cosmetic pesticides, but parents should still ensure their children and pets avoid them.
"By their very nature being cosmetic means you don't really need them, so why put animals or kids at a potential risk if it can be avoided," he said. "I can't point to any evidence that is showing that it's an adverse health impact, but why take the risk if you don't need to."
According to Martiquet, the Health Officers Council of British Columbia had taken a similar stance to the government, resisting an outright ban due to a lack of evidence linking the chemicals to cancer.
