Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ontario bans lawn and garden pesticides

MURRAY CAMPBELL

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 12:23 PM EST 22/04/08

'It's the right of kids to play in the grass .. without compromising their health,' Premier says ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. George Hall from Canada writes: Why it has taken so long is beyond me...we ned to get rid of all the toxins that are in our food, air, and water.
    We now need to look at what is in our drinking water and definitely get rid of these moronic gasoline cumbution engines that are spewing toxins galore into our lungs.
  2. Fake Name from Canada writes: ' George Hall from Canada writes: definitely get rid of these moronic gasoline cumbution engines that are spewing toxins galore into our lungs.'

    Was that sarcasm, or are you that far divorced from reality? Sure, efficient hydrogen engines would be lovely - but do you know where commercial hydrogen comes from? Cracking it off hydrocarbons; i.e. fossil fuels. We're twenty years or more away from that working well enough to replace gas.

    Call me crazy, but a choice for an immediate plunge to third-world economic status in exchange for a 5-10% reduction in pollution (most of it comes from factories and the US anyway) doesn't seem like a smart trade.
  3. Logo Pogo from United States writes: Why are golf courses exempted?

    If anything golf courses are the first places that need to be cleaned up from pollution and toxins.
  4. M Nolz from Toronto, Canada writes: Now McGuinty, let's work on improving the air that our children breathe.

    How are plans coming along to replace the electrical generating capacity that will be lost when the coal-fired electrical plants are closed in 2014 (oops, that was supposed to be last year, 2007 and then next year, 2009 but promises are made to be broken).
  5. D D from Canada writes: Happy Earth Day!
  6. High and Mighty from Canada writes: Logo Pogo from United States

    Cuz a golf course is a business.
    Just like farmers, the success of their business depends on raising good.......grass.
  7. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: Excellent news. No more cross-border (Ontario border anyway!) smuggling.
  8. Borys Nijinski from Canada writes: Not to put too fine a point on it, but pesticides are anti-pest while herbicided are anti-plant. Will the pesticide ban, ban chemicals created to destroy insects or weeds? As such, I really don't know what the ban is all about.
  9. Whodat Singer from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Why are golf courses exempt? Just for the use of a few people who want to spent their weekend chasing a little ball. So what if there are a few weeds. I wonder about the use of pesticidesby these people.

    BTW...Fake Name...I believe that hydrogen is made by the electrolysis of water (i.e. aplying an electric current to water). The electricity though must be generated either through hydro, fossil fuels or nuclear. I do agree though that hydrogen is not really that clean.
  10. roger samson from Montreal, Canada writes: Well with Ontario playing follow the leader with Quebec on environmental policy, i wonder how many more months it will take them to get rid of corn ethanol, quebec abandoned corn ethanol as a policy in november 2007 because they couldn't find any appreciable environmental benefits. That would have made a doubly good earth day announcement
  11. D D from Canada writes: Lol...M Nolz...he is delaying because smart people informed him after he made his promises that shutting down coal is a dumb (really dumb) idea. Keep the coal (There are 4 in Ontario, some of which are the most efficient in the world, as compared to the hundreds upwind in the US)...But hey...when a family member is laid up in a hospital on a mid summer windless day and the lights go out...you'll only wish the coal fires were burning!
  12. Tree Hugger from Parksville, Canada writes: YAY! YAY! YAY! YAY!
  13. Alex Nguyen from Toronto, writes: Thank you Premier for making our lawn and park free of pesticide. Our children will no longer be harm by these dangerous chemicals which are wiping out generation of kids. Too bad our kids can't go outside to play due to high pollen and weed. Instead, they remain inside safe and sound playing with their safe video games, watch wholesome tv and movies and slowly gaining weight.
  14. Jake Richardson from Kingston, Canada writes: Yay! Long overdue.
  15. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: It's the year of the BAN!
  16. D D from Canada writes: Good Point Alex....don't forget that there won't be much grass left to roll in once the grubs get at it
  17. Canada Rocks from Canada writes: My kids just love rolling around in lawn full of noxious weeds and thistles. Thanks for protecting me from myself again Dalton.
  18. R W from Canada writes: Whodat Singer from St. Catharines, Canada writes: believe that hydrogen is made by the electrolysis of water (i.e. aplying an electric current to water). The electricity though must be generated either through hydro, fossil fuels or nuclear. I do agree though that hydrogen is not really that clean.

    Actually, that electrolysis can be done by solar and wind too. That would solve the storage problem that both have Don't have enough wind, use the Hydrogen that you created when it was windy. Same does for solar in the night/cloudy days.

    But, that is a tangent in the discussion. I for one am veru upset that golf courses are exempt. Do you think for a moment people would stop playing golf if an occasional weed popped up. As long as it is across the board (public/private) I don't think anyone will lose business. I am sure courses spend a ton of money to get the grass just right. I doubt all those British seaside links pour on tons of chemicals, and people love playing those.
  19. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Good move. Devra Davis was on The Agenda just last night talking about the link between pesticides and cancer. I'm no fan of the premier, but I have to agree wholeheartedly with him on this one.

    Majordomo: cheap sarcasm is just that - cheap.
  20. A Chinaman from Canada writes: The move may be good. How about those who suffer from hayfever? The provincial government should pay for my Spring and Autumn allergy medications.
  21. mike sty - from Canada writes:
    One small step for man, a bigger step for mankind.

    Bye-bye weedman.

    Another smart move by the Ontario Liberals.
  22. Ed Lewis from Sanityville, Canada writes: D D from Canada writes: 'don't forget that there won't be much grass left to roll in once the grubs get at it'

    --------------------------------------
    Well, given the choice, I would much rather have less grass if it means less cancers and other diseases and a less poisoned environment.

    In my city there are many large tracts of grass that are not treated with pesticides and they are doing just fine after 40 years with no chemicals being poured on them. The same goes for my lawn at home.

    As for 'perfect' lawns, that aesthetic is no longer environmentally viable. Same goes for 'perfect' fruit and vegetables - we poison ourselves just to have an apple that is shaped right and has the right color with no blemishes. How silly. Granted, there are some requirements to keep a crop from dying. But, those chemicals and waxes that are used for aesthetic purposes should be done away with.
  23. Art Vandelai from Burlington, Canada writes: No problem with banning the use of pesticides for ornamental lawns and plants. We need those hydrocarbons anyway...to help ensure we can grow enough food. Lawn care companies will make more $$ with organic options.
  24. Guy Nick from Toronto, Canada writes: 'I for one am veru upset that golf courses are exempt. Do you think for a moment people would stop playing golf if an occasional weed popped up. As long as it is across the board (public/private) I don't think anyone will lose business. I am sure courses spend a ton of money to get the grass just right. I doubt all those British seaside links pour on tons of chemicals, and people love playing those.'

    The golf industry is preparing for the day when it's not exempt, and my understanding is that the loophole will probably disappear before too long.
  25. The Majordomo of Baie Comeau from Canada writes: If I quit using pesticides and get a wasp nest, I'm gonna mail it to Dalty with the wasps included!
  26. Fake Name from Canada writes: ' Whodat Singer from St. Catharines, Canada writes: Why are golf courses exempt? Just for the use of a few people who want to spent their weekend chasing a little ball. So what if there are a few weeds. I wonder about the use of pesticidesby these people.

    BTW...Fake Name...I believe that hydrogen is made by the electrolysis of water (i.e. aplying an electric current to water). The electricity though must be generated either through hydro, fossil fuels or nuclear. I do agree though that hydrogen is not really that clean.'

    Golf courses are exempted because golfers are generally rich, and if they were mad at McGuinty, they could make a lot of donations to John Tory.

    And I know hydrogen can obviously be gotten from electrolysis, but what the producers don't want you to know is that they're mostly using hydrocarbons, because that's a much cheaper process.
  27. Fake Name from Canada writes: ' R W from Canada writes: Actually, that electrolysis can be done by solar and wind too. That would solve the storage problem that both have Don't have enough wind, use the Hydrogen that you created when it was windy. Same does for solar in the night/cloudy days.'

    The really slick solution would be to retrofit old oil tankers for hydrogen storage, cover the tops in solar panels and extend more out the sides on platforms, and hang around in the ocean near the equator, generating hydrogen from seawater where the sunlight is strongest ... the bonus is they can just drive directly where they need to go to deliver it, as well.

    That would require more efficient (manufacturing cost and electrical efficiency) solar cells, though. I'd guess maybe fifty years down the line, for that.
  28. Ross H from Muskoka, Canada writes: D D from Canada says that Ontario has some of the most efficient coal plants in the world...

    Quoting Ontario's Energy Minister:
    Ontario's coal-fired generating plants won't be getting scrubbers to cut the smog-producing pollution they spew because they're costly and won't reduce climate change.
    April, 2007

    Ontario's coal plants produce over 25% of Ontario's sulfur dioxide emissions, and 20% of Ontario's mercury emissions...

    But because they 'might' be closed down in the next 5 years (don't count on it) the province won't make the investment.

    What do you think is going to affect are children more,
    exposure to pesticides (which can be controlled) or smog, acid rain and mercury?

    Don't get me wrong, I do support this ban. But come on people. Don't let our government tell that they are looking out for our best interests!
  29. Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore from Canada writes: I love the smell of 'KILLEX' in the morning.
  30. Mike McFee from Ottawa, Canada writes: Another useless regulation for Ontario....... We don't even know the effects of such small doses we use on our lawns...

    Yet again the vocal minority of the environmental nazis has sucked the Liberals...
  31. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Memo to the editors:

    From the perspective of journalism, the cuff does not match the collar.

    The headline speaks of 'pesticides'.

    And yet the article speaks of 'pesticides and herbicides'.

    Both the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star made the same mismatch.

    Look, editors, you need to make up your minds about whether you think an herbicide is a pesticide.

    If you think it is, then your headline is fine ('pesticides'), but your article is logically messed up (you should not say 'pesticides and herbicides' you should instead say 'pesticides such as herbicides').

    Alternatively, if you think a herbicide is not a pesticide, then your article is fine ('pesticides and herbicides') but your headline is messed up (you should not say just 'pesticides', since that excludes herbicides - you should say something like 'garden herbicides and pesticides' or 'chemical garden agents' or even the slang phrase 'garden chemicals').

    In summary, editors, you need to make up your minds about whether you think an herbicide is a pesticide - and once you decide, make it so that your headline's usage matches your article's usage.
  32. Harvey Mushman from cambridge, Canada writes: George Hall from Canada writes: 'Why it has taken so long is beyond me...we ned to get rid of all the toxins that are in our food, air, and water.' George you do realize that water is toxic...don't you? Pretty much everything is...its all about the dosage.
  33. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: I don't have kids. And I don't want the neighbours kids rolling around on my lawn.

    How about making 'WARNING: PESTICIDE' signs mandatory? That way your children will only get cancer if they are too stupid to read the sign.

    (Although most adults are too stupid to read signs. So where does that leave us?)
  34. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: Well, THANK GAWD we can still use HERBICIDES.
  35. D D from Canada writes: Ross H- What was the point in quoting me? Was that a rebuttal or an agreement? I suppose I should clarify 'efficiency'...meaning that Ontario has some coal units which produce the lowest emissions per MW produced.

    As for coal generation producing those levels of SO2 and Mercury, that is of total 'ONTARIO' emissions. That is a useless figure unless we know what level of emissions we get from other sources like the States. So say if Ontario's contribution were 25% of total emissions of mercury with 75% coming from the States, then coal fired generation only produces 5% of TOTAL emissions in Ontario...which means that spending all that money would have little effect on Mercury levels in Ontario...
  36. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: BorysNijinski & Tyler Williams . The term 'pesticides' applies to insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides , and are all registered under the Pest Control Products Act
    Their ban is a step in the right direction .While golf courses will remain toxic, children and pets do not play on the greens .Pesticides produce no benefit in ' managed forests', but are integral to justifying excessive harvest levels.Organic agriculture is on the rise anyway.
    Now we just wait for the multinationals to sue under NAFTA
    Congratulations Ontario !
  37. Nickstar One from Canada writes: '.....As such, I really don't know what the ban is all about.....'
    Neither does the leader of the Dalton Gang. As long as it's a 'BAN' it's good enough for this completely disingenuous dolt. He babbles on about having the 'right' to roll in the grass out of one side of his mouth while systematically abusing, bullying, and denormalizing millions of citizens in Bantario utopia. He then turns himself inside out and condemns and throws money at bullying in schools. A government bully giving lessons on bullying, rich and oh-so liberal!

  38. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mike McFee: if we're not sure about the effects of the amounts used on lawns, do you really think it's a good idea to assume there are no ill effects and keep on spraying our lawns? You daredevil, you!!
  39. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ..//

    Well Halifax banned it ages ago. Now nobody has grass to play in... it looks like the third world.... dirt rock....

    Environmental extremism run amok.

    ..//
  40. Cassandra . from Mississauga, Canada writes: Murray (and the rest of the G&M editorial staff), how about as standard practice in reports like this, including a link to the full actual press release or better yet the full actual legislation being discussed?

    Then a lot of the claptrap about 'is a herbicide, a pesticide?' can be avoided.
  41. Western Liberal from Langley, Canada writes: Clearly the Ontario ban is on both Pesticides and Herbicides, but for some strange reason, for the last few years the term Pesticide has been used in the press to refer to both. This ban is all about politics, not the environment. Of all the Pesiticides and Herbicides used, only a tiny percentage is applied by homeowners; farmers and golf courses will continue to use vast amounts. All that will be achieved is the proliferation of weeds.
  42. Lawn Shmawn from Canada writes: BRAVO!!!

    This is a great first step in getting rid of unnecessary chemicals in our environment. Lawns can serve a purpose (bowling, croquet, toddler play area) but there are much better alternatives -- which don't have to include noxious weeds.

    Check this out: http://www.riversides.org/rainguide/riversides_hgr.php?cat=2&page=54&subpage=56.

    There's tons of other guidance online too.

    Y'know, guys, zipping around every other day on your Acme 9000 riding lawnmower with beer holder (and optional beer gut holder) isn't really all that sexy. But a romp in a bed of fragrant thyme . . . now you're talking . . .!
  43. G From Canada from Kitchener, Canada writes: so tell me how am I supposed to keep my lawn lush and weed free now, what a stupid law. I am going to now spend money on fuel, and add to pollution driving to Manitoba to get my 2-4-d. The comment about kids rolling around on the grass is stupid, I do not let ANYONE on my lawn to begin with
  44. Remain Nameless from Canada writes:
    Time to change Ontarios' provincial flower to the dandilion.
  45. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Gotta love how returning areas where kids play to a more natural state is described as environmental extremism.

    To all you nutters carrying on as if this ban marks the end of Western civilization as we know it: have a warm cup of your favorite pesticide, recline in your La-Z-Boys, and chill out.
  46. Betty Davis from Toronto, Canada writes: I'll take weeds in my lawn over pesticides anyday. This is one time I applaud Mr. McGuinty. For all those who complain that their kids will now have to play in thistles may I suggest you turn off the TV, get off your seat and go out with the weeder or push lawnmower.
  47. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Copy cats! Gawd, I love those nanny state nutters... I see nothing but grass looking out my window in Halifax, Bib AmomA

    However, it seems that Dalton just copies everything that Nova Scotia does because let's face it...

    He has no new ideas !
  48. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Can we ban the nanny state nutters too that say stupid stuff like Halifax looks like the third world ?

    I wonder?
  49. tom h from Edmonton, Canada writes: About F*ing time.
  50. Justa Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: .

    This is great news!

    Congratulations to all the hard working medical, chemical and environmental specialists who have fought long and hard for today!

    Rachel Carson would be proud. And so will our grandchildren!



  51. A C from Canada writes:

    A Chinaman writes: The move may be good. How about those who suffer from hayfever? The provincial government should pay for my Spring and Autumn allergy medications.

    Or you could get yourself a nasal irrigation system (google 'neti pot') for 20 bucks and handle most spring and autumn allergies without relying on big pharma's drugs. I haven't had so much as a sniffle since using one during allergy season.
    Besides, last time I checked, hay and ragweed weren't pests that were managed with pesticides.

    .
  52. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: -
    Tyler Williams is right, on some comment regarding ''Pesticides and Herbicides''....

    My grain of salt is: this is about Ontario and it's about time. Quebec and most municipalities in Quebec have had this same law in effect for about two (2) years...

    I remember when after the Vietnam War, the United States were stuck with a gazillion containers of that deadly defoliant ((Agent Orange))... What did we see in Canada??? Herbicides with said ''Agent Orange'' sold anywhere... no questions asked... What happened?? I know from first-hand experience what happened... We spread some innocuous looking herbicide on our patio, somewhere around 1985, and lo and behold, a few months later, our beautiful pine trees were dying...

    After a complete laboratory analysis, the culprit was found... Agent Orange... sold under some other name...In those days, there were no strict controls...

    Oh well... Now, it's our cats and dogs getting sick from contaminated petfood, our kids and grandkids exposed to dangerous chemicals, even in their bottles...

    The whole thing is mostly swept under the rug until it's too late.... thanks to those ''paid by.......'' researchers....

    Enough.

    -
  53. Robert Loblaw from Canada, Canada writes: A stellar example of a government bereft of ideas and initiative, and incapable of producing any serious legislation to deal with real issues.

    Education funds are poorly used to feed excessive levels of administration, the coal plants are still running full steam ahead, there haven't been any meaningful tax cuts to assist industry, Caledonia is under siege by outlaws, health care hasn't been improved (notwithstanding the new 'health premium') and gun crime in Toronto has flourished under McGuinty's watch.

    On the other hand, out kids can't buy soft drinks with sugar in them at school (but they can have all the aspartame sucralose and cyclamates used in its place), plastic bags will be banned at the LCBO - lets cut down more trees for papaer containers, and now we have a ban on 'pesticides' which have been approved for use by Health Canada.

    Window dressing - passing lightweight legislation to give the appearance of governing.

    Who actually voted for this guy?
  54. M Nolz from Toronto, Canada writes: Betty Davis from Toronto, Canada writes: 'go out with the weeder or push lawnmower. '

    I hope the weeder is the good old fashion hand tool variety (not the gas powered or electrical kind) and same thing with the lawnmower :)
  55. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Love this statement, LOVE IT:

    ''It will be the new standard,' he said. 'No one will be able to have standards lower than ours.''

    I always knew Ontarians had low standards, but now your Premier commits it to law! Well done!

    Outrageously funny!
  56. snow lander from Canada writes: mcfee we do know what the effects of long term exposure to low levels of toxins are. good work dalton.
  57. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Interesting how personal choice and the notion of property rights have disappeared under the quise of environmentalism. In Toronto you cannot get rid of a tree that is threatening your house unless city council lets you. In most cases they won't yet they will destroy a mini forest in Scarborough for a new subdivision. The amount of pesticides used by homeowners is miniscule compared to golf courses and farmers yet they will tell you that you cannot keep or tend to the lawn the way you want because they know better than you. So while the leftie artists scream about freedom of expression and bill C-10 which affects a small percentage of people here in Ontario our rights are being stripped by McGuinty and Miller and the lefties cheer the emergence of their enlightened society. Ironic.
  58. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Geoffrey May from Canada, to the contrary, there is no god of terminology (Pest Control Products Act or what have you) to address the sole problem that I noted.

    And the sole problem that I noted was a journalistic problem, that the newspaper failed to match its headline terminology with its article terminology.

    In spite of your quoted government act, there is really no compelling reason to stop a newspaper from describing pesticides and herbicides separately.

    Indeed, it is often done:

    'toxic pesticides and herbicides may be used' - Washington Post 2007
    'pesticides and herbicides now on the market' - New York Times 1983
    'environment with pesticides and herbicides' - the Guardian 2003
    'exposure to pesticides and herbicides' - Globe and Mail 2006
    'use of pesticides and herbicides' - The Lethbridge Herald, 1974

    However, in contrast, there are compelling reasons for a newspaper to ensure that its headline terminology match with its article terminology - namely, logical consistency and continuity and congruity of usage and style.
  59. Billy Bob from who knows, Canada writes: Well, I guess I stock up this year and get enough to last me for a few years and then smuggle the rest in from the u.s. and or get it shipped from another province in this backwards country.

    ...and I don't want to hear any crying from the tree huggers out there either. You all have your heads shove way to far up your A$$.

    ...yes I have kids, they don't have any extra limbs, speech impariments and or deformed in any way. It's called follow the instructions on the product and don't let your kids play on the lawn for a day or two.

    Maybe we should all stop using any kind of paint or even hair spray. No, better yet, lets stop using gasoline, that stuff can explode and is very dangerous to kids and adults......who know what other problems it could be causing us...like pollution.

  60. bruce desjardins from Windsor, Canada writes: If we all spread 34 to 40 lb of corn gluten meal on our lawns in lieu of herbicides, will that add to the shift of corn from food to non-food usage, thus adding to the high cost of corn for food purposes?
  61. G Montcler from Canada writes: A great way to disguise the real problems that this province faces: like loss of jobs, loss of manufacturing, exodus of brainy people.
  62. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: I spend 4-6 hours a week pulling weeds all summer long and I'm not even CLOSE to controlling the problem. I divert eavestroughs to water the lawn. I let the grass grow longer to combat drought. I compost. I overseed spring and fall. I use organic fertilizer 4 times a year.

    Where does that get me? Tired with an ugly lawn.

    While I appreciate that retirees have 24/7 to groom a lush, urban jungle, I still have a job to go to and bills to pay. I do the very best I'm able and yet I'm still fighting a losing battle.

    So, for all you green thumbs out there making snotty comments about lazy, chemical-dependent people, feel free to kiss the fattest, furriest part of my posterior.

    As far as I'm concerned, life is WAYYY too short to spend it trying to become an expert on everything. To he11 with the lawn.
  63. Doug Consul from Alberta, writes: I can just see it now: patrol cars cruising the city streets, looking for well groomed lawns...

    There is a law (act) in Ontario called, the Nauseous Weed Act...property owners can and will be charged for permitting weeds to grow on their property....I trust the great socialist Dalton, has change the law...
  64. Justa Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: im curious ... why do people feel the need to criticise X by stating that it is not Y?

    banning cosmetic pesticides has nothing to do with caledonia, school bullying, or street racing. and yet some of you fools feel the need to draw comparisons or offer up examples of something else that you feel is more important.

    its a good thing none of you is running the show here. in fact, some of you shouldn't even be allowed to vote. you are stupid.
  65. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Last week I asked a co-worker if she uses all natural deoderant. 'Why yes I am. I don't want to poison my body with that horrible toxic deoderant. How did you know' 'I told her that she may want to look at switching back because while she may be healthier it definitely wasn't working out to well for her co-workers'.

    My point is that this organic stuff works pretty horribley. Does anybody know how effective these natural pesticides are?
  66. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:
    According to Harper's Index (The Magazine's, not the despot's), per acre golf courses use 18X more chemicals than the average farm.

    Hell, knowing that, even Keith Richards wouldn't step foot on a golf course.

    So golfers, do the right thing; don't let your children play with your balls.
    But seriously, the issue isn't about rolling in the grass, it's about the chemical soup that's ending up in our groundwater.
    But that's only an issue if one thinks that groundwater is important, if not . . . play through.

    .
  67. E. Biggs from Canada writes: The article severed one purpose as I did not know that Home Depot was going to stop selling herbicides etc.

    I sure will be stockpiling as much as I can get.

    Keep your damn kids off my grass.

    If you don't want them then don't buy them but once again the rest of us have to cow tow to the loonies.

    I only have enough for a couple years so have to get more.

    Just sprayed yesterday, round-up and melathion. Kids, bugs and weeds not on my property.
  68. G From Canada from Kitchener, Canada writes: YES YOU ARE

    Justa Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: im curious ... why do people feel the need to criticise X by stating that it is not Y?

    banning cosmetic pesticides has nothing to do with caledonia, school bullying, or street racing. and yet some of you fools feel the need to draw comparisons or offer up examples of something else that you feel is more important.

    its a good thing none of you is running the show here. in fact, some of you shouldn't even be allowed to vote. you are stupid.
  69. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Mr. Biggs from Canada, about your beloved garden chemicals, I think the only thing you forgot to say was:

    'FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!'

    .
  70. G From Canada from Kitchener, Canada writes: 8HOME DEPOT MAY NOT CARRY IT ANYMORE, BUT HOPEFULLY OTHER RETAILERS LIKE CANADIAN TIRE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND CARRY THIS PRODUCT....DID I SAY HOW STUPID THIS LAW IS ALREADY*
  71. Justa Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: G From Canada from Kitchener, Canada writes: YES YOU ARE [stupid]

    oh, i wont deny that ...

    im wondering, G. Is your lawn more important that the health of neighbourhood children?
  72. Beyazet Ilderim from Scarborough?, Canada writes: How about this: All environuts don't use any pesticide and or insecticide and the normal people are left alone to decide for themselves? How about if the Ontario Government mind its business instead of further restricting one's choices? A good reading for enviroterorism is a book ' State of Fear', really worth reading. Dalton is a clown and so is all his cabinet.
    BTW, I will have several trips to Manitoba. I take orders at only 20% my invoice cost....
  73. alex just a canadian from Canada writes: hey its a start, if people want strickter rules, well lay the pressure on the government. I don't know the powers that municipalities of Ontario have but if a city wants to ban them completely get it on the city agenda and enough people supporting it and off the market they are. It will cost more for the biological stuff, but there are always trade offs.

    Either way good for you Ontario, soon others will follow.
  74. G From Canada from Kitchener, Canada writes: THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED ON MY LAWN, AND IF THEY FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO GRAZE ON MY GRASS, I GUESS IT IS THEIR ISSUE NOT MINE, AND YES AT THE END OF THE DAY IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT I HAVE THE NICEST LAWN ON THE STREET...STREET APPEAL IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING MY INVESTMENT

    Justa Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: G From Canada from Kitchener, Canada writes: YES YOU ARE [stupid]

    oh, i wont deny that ...

    im wondering, G. Is your lawn more important that the health of neighbourhood children?
  75. Dan Van Gageldonk from Toronto, Canada writes: Justa Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: im curious its a good thing none of you is running the show here. in fact, some of you shouldn't even be allowed to vote. you are stupid. Justa Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: . This is great news! Congratulations to all the hard working medical, chemical and environmental specialists who have fought long and hard for today! Rachel Carson would be proud. And so will our grandchildren! So Rachel Carson the woman who was responsible for stopping the use of pesticides like DDT. Are you aware stupid that by banning the use of DDT to third world countries that we caused alot more deaths than we prevented. By our high and mighty attitudes we allowed millions of people living in the free world to die of diseases like Malaria because alot of well intentioned people started banning stuff without thinking of the long term ramifications. You act all high and mighty yet call people stupid because they don't see things the way you do or believe that McGuinty is busy with bullcrap feel good exercises instead of taking care of stuff that would have an actual impact on the quality of life. Also the federal scientists have said that this ban is useless. How come people don't listen to scientists when they don't support their viewpoint. Last time I checked the global warming debate we would be stupid not to listen to what they say as gospel. Whats that just a loser from Toronto? We are only supposed to listen to the scientists when they support what you say? Gotcha. I'll try and learn the rules of the enviro weenies.
  76. Neon Cab from Canada writes: Now let's see if there's anything we can do to get rid of the dog poo in the parks since it poses a serious risk of viral infections to any kid who rolls in the grass mistakenly believing it to be safe.
  77. james p from Canada writes: why such a long wait for this? Big Pharma, kids.
  78. Robert Loblaw from Canada, Canada writes: Justa Guy from Toronto - Governments are elected to administer the business of (in this case) the province, and enact laws to protect it's citizens.

    Since first being elected, McGuinty's government hasn't done much of anything. His 'no new taxes' platform left us with a health care premium. His promise to close coal burning electrical generating stations was broken. Court orders against the criminals in Caledonia aren't being enforced, and peoples property rights are being ignored, because of the political consequences of confronting aboriginals.

    I prefer that the government of my province actually address the serious problems that effect it's inhabitants. This government has done nothing, but it makes headlines with a questionable piece of fluff legislation that pleases the environmentalists, but will ultimately do very litlle else.


    You call those of us for whom his government hasn't done enough as being stupid. I say you are easily amused - your allegiances are won over with 'shiny objects'.

    If you are happy with being invited to a steak dinner and being served peanuts, vote for Mr. McGuinty.
  79. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Fake et al ... re: Hydrogen production ... H2 from cracking of hydrocarbons is not that pure. It comes off the cracker and the demethanizers mixed with methane. The methane/hydrogen is generally burned as fuel as it would be too expensive to purify the H2.

    On the other hand, if you have electrolytic chlorine cells, the hydrogen produced is relatively pure and can be compressed and sold as either a fuel or as a chemical. And yes, it takes lots of electricity to produce chorine / hydrogen.

    Hydrogen is also made in fuel cells from methanol and this H2 is used directly in hybrid cars. Just google 'hydrogen from methanol'.

    Regarding lawns ... in 1974 a Dow Chemical marketing manager developed 'Dow Grass'. It was a plastic fibre. From the street, you could not tell it from the natural Texas crabgrass they call grass. He installed it in a his home and had the best looking lawn/landscape in Freeport/Lake Jackson Texas. Zero maintenance. Trouble was, he was 40 years ahead of the times and his project failed. Time to resurect the dead project.
  80. ss dd from Vancouver, Canada writes: Ontario is quickly becoming the laughing stock of the entire country. On top of everything, there's nothing funnier than a premier who chooses to solve all the imaginary problems while ignoring the real ones.
    My guess is that's because, unlike the real issues, the imaginary ones can be tailored to perfectly fit the solutions one might already have in mind... :-)
    Plus, it makes you feel good about yourself, while looking busy for outsiders.

    And they call BC lotus-land... :-))
  81. Another Opinion from Toronto, Canada writes: For james p: 'why such a long wait for this? Big Pharma, kids.'

    Yeah, because the people who make Advil really care enough to spend millions of dollars lobbying Toronto City Hall over what method you use to kill weeds.

    Your hat needs another layer of tinfoil.
  82. My eyes are open, Are yours? from Canada writes: Anyone want to give me an estimate on paving my front yard?
  83. Mister G. from Canada writes: Herbicides leads to skin irritation? I don't use herbicide so why is it that when I lay down in the grass my skin gets irritated?
  84. A C from Albertario, Canada writes:

    I'm impressed by all of the defenders of a chemically enhanced lawn.

    Clearly you all possess a long term perspective on the value of lawns.

    They're actually North America's largest and most expensive crop, taking up more water, chemicals, dollars and labour than any other crop on the continent and yet creating no value whatsoever.
    In fact, not only do they create no value, they cost towns and cities (taxpayers) hundreds of thousands of dollars to haul away all the tons of precious clippings that don't get composted and instead end up curbside. Yes, what a wonderful use of time and money.
    Now if only we had a similar sense of history about the idea of the lawn, and its roots (no pun intended) in aristocratic affluence and ostentatious displays of wealth. I'm sure that your backyards are all the envy of Versailles.

    Clearly you all know best, so weed on McDuff, weed on.
  85. L.B. MURRAY from Canada L.B. MURRAY from Canada from Canada writes: -
    This looks like ''bad news allover'' for some people...

    People used to drive to Ontario to get all those ''banned'' pesticides, herbicides, whatever....

    Guess the poor owners of whatever ''hardware'' stores next to the border will lose a lot of business... Perhaps not... We'll soon see some king of ''contraband'' similar to the liquor and cigarette business....

    You know what I mean, all of you, smart, intelligent people who read the Globe and Mail...

    -
  86. Chris Michaels from Oakville, Canada writes: Hard to believe anyone objects to this.
    It's f'n lawn! Who cares. There are some natural pest repellents out there.

    I also don't get why golf courses get a free pass on this one Golf courses are an environmental disaster...but, they don't have to be. I'm sure there are some smarter ways to manage them. And, if it takes more effort/ manpower, then I'm sure the rich, white guys who play the sport would be more than happy to pay it. (Then they can look down their noses at others who pay less for they're greens fees.)
  87. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: LB Murray from Canada:

    Wow, Quebec banned pesticides 2 years ago...

    Big deal, Halifax banned them 7 years ago...

    We lead this country in the use of the ban !

    Ban everything !
  88. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Tyler Williams, no offense was intended , however , in the other newspaper stories you quoted, the authors are not being more specific . webster dictonairy ,pocket edition 8th printing,June 1975 ,' Pest 3:a plant or animal detremental to man'.'Pesticide: an agent used to kill pests'
  89. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: Neon Cab from Canada writes: 'Now let's see if there's anything we can do to get rid of the dog poo in the parks since it poses a serious risk of viral infections ...'

    I heard that dog poo is the next thing that is going to be banned by the Ontario Liberals ....
  90. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Mr. G. Your neighbor may be using herbicides on his lawns. The drift as they spray may fall on your lawns. Ask Monsanto about lawsuits of 'drift'. You may have a case against your neighbor.
  91. R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: All kidding aside, this is a very sensible move...

    Well done, Mr. McGuinty....

    Now about those biofuels subsidies ?

    Cheers.
  92. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes:
    People are quick enough to SCREAM DISCRIMINATION if women or invisible minorities are singled out for special privileges.

    Why on earth are 'farms, golf courses and managed forests' singled out for special treatment.? Will golfers have to wear gloves if they handle their balls, which will continue to be contaminated?

    It's a little like saying that only fat women will be allowed to be pregnant!

    It's completely illogical if not absolutely inane!

    The exclusion of these BIG ABUSERS of Herbicides and Pesticides
    vitiates the entire program's potential benefits.

    The whole episode smacks of 'Political Grandstanding' or so it seems to me.
  93. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Canada writes: What kills me is the 'better safe than sorry' argument when imposing a ban that flies in the face of property rights.

    How many 'better safe than sorry' bans are imaginable. The list is literally endless. Better ban everything to ensure people don't hurt themselves. Is this what people mean by Nanny State?

    Also, here's a question I doubt old Dalton considered...What is to stop me from going to the States and buying a bag of weed and feed? This is a provincial ban...Customs only seize federally banned products, no? So where is the enforcement? Weed Police? What's the allocated budget for these weed police?
  94. hockey mom from Canada writes: Doug Consul from Alberta, writes: There is a law (act) in Ontario called, the Nauseous Weed Act...property owners can and will be charged for permitting weeds to grow on their property....I trust the great socialist Dalton, has change the law...
    Teehee... Doug, ... they are Noxious weeds...although I suppose too many in your lawn may make you nauseous. Too funny - thanks for the giggle.
  95. E. Biggs from Canada writes: Tyler You are correct just an over sight.

    I still say keep your bloody kids off my lawn. My neighbours dog craps on my lawn so maybe you can bring your kids to roll on it.
  96. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Geoffrey May from Canada, I think you are somehow debating with what I am NOT saying.

    If you re-read my 12:43 post, you will see that I ALSO think it is fine if the Globe and Mail opts to use the word 'herbicide' as a type of 'pesticide'.

    However, if they opt to do that, then logically - as I noted then - their article sentence ought to read: 'pesticides such as herbicides' (rather than 'pesticides and herbicides').

    It is a matter of logically matching the headline terminology WITH the article terminology. Presently the two are mismatched.

    I think the point was made quite clearly in my 12:43 post.
    • Posted 22/04/08 at 2:02 PM EST |