 |
Appeals from the Pesticide Control
Act
1993
Panel: Harry D.C. Hunter, Harry Higgins
Decision Date: November 10, 1993
The Ministry of Transportation and Highways (MOTH) obtained a Pesticide Use Permit which allowed them to
use two pesticides along highway verges. Before the permit was granted, a local
environmental group, the Thompson Watershed Coalition, wrote to the Environmental Appeal Board
objecting to the permit and expressing an intention to appeal. A copy was also sent to the Pesticide Management
Branch, but the Deputy Administrator did not consider this letter in his decision to issue the permit.
The Board decided that the Deputy Administrator did not have to
consider the letter, since it did not contain "information
about the site." Furthermore, the Board found that the Pesticide
Control Branch made no error in issuing a permit to MOTH. However,
the Board did find that MOTH was using the chemicals incorrectly
(or reporting their use inaccurately), that the areas outlined
in the permit were unrealistic, and that the label requirements
of one of the pesticides had not been complied with. On these
grounds the Board allowed the appeal, and made several recommendations
concerning the issuance of permits for use on highway right-of-ways.
93/11 C. Hargrave
v. Canada Minister of Agriculture
Panel: Harry D.C. Hunter, Harry Higgins
Decision Date: November 10, 1993
After discovering the existence of gypsy moths and their eggs,
Agriculture Canada applied for a pesticide use permit for the
use of Foray 48B as part of an eradication programme. Although
Agriculture Canada did not advertise the spraying in one of the
local papers, as required by the permit, it made reasonable efforts
to provide the public with information about the eradication programme.
There was no evidence that the pesticide causes health risks to
people or has any effect on the natural enemies of economically
important pests. Aerial spraying, in conjunction with other measures,
was held to be the most appropriate method of eradication in the
circumstances. The Board felt that such a programme was in the
public interest.
The BC Court of Appeal has ruled that considering federal pesticide
registration was outside the Board's jurisdiction. Adopting this
judgement, the Board decided not to comment on the safety of the
pesticide. The appeal was dismissed.
Panel: Linda Michaluk, Dr. Elizabeth Keay, Christine Mayall
Decision Date: April 22, 1993
An appeal against the issuance of Pesticide Use Permit 139-043-93/95 authorizing use of Sodium Monofluoroacetate
(Compound 1080) for reactive control of coyotes and wolves.
The grounds for appeal addressed such issues as notification, risk, registration, lack of information on the full
formulation and inadequate consideration of alternative methods. The Panel found there was no evidence
presented to show that exercise of the permit would result in an unreasonable adverse environmental impact and
denied the appeal. The Panel also found the permit should be amended to reflect the historical need and use and
so reduced the number of baits allowed per calendar year.
Panel: Harry D.C. Hunter, Colin Palmer, Dr. John Smith
Decision Date: April 8, 1993
Three appeals against the issuance of Pesticide Use Permit 214-014-93/94 authorizing the aerial and ground spray
of FORAY 48B (BtK) for eradication of european gypsy moth in Saanich.
The grounds for appeal addressed impacts on non-target moths and butterflies (lepidopterans), birds and people.
The Panel found that while non-target lepidopterans could be minimally affected by the spray, the establishment
of the moth would also affect them. There was no evidence presented to support the Appellants' contentions that
use of the pesticide as authorized by the permit would result in an unreasonable adverse environmental impact.
The appeals were denied.
The Panel recommended that if the permit holder found it necessary to exercise the second year of the permit, the
permit holder contact the Appellants as soon as possible to review the possibility of using volunteers to conduct a
seek and destroy program as so avoid the need for further spraying.
Panel: Linda Michaluk, Dr. Elizabeth Keay, Colin Palmer
Decision Date: April 8, 1993
Fifteen appeals against the issuance of Pesticide Use Permit 214-026-93/94 authorizing the aerial and ground spray of
FORAY 48B (BtK) for eradication of european gypsy moth in certain areas of Burnaby, Richmond and Vancouver.
The grounds for appeal concerned such things as the health and environmental effects of FORAY 48B, the need
for the eradication program, violations of the label and Pesticide Control Act Regulation, and certain permit
conditions including duration and application methods. The Panel found there was no evidence to show that the
use of the pesticide as authorized would result in an unreasonable adverse environmental impact and the appeals
were denied. The permit was amended to reflect the intentions of the permit holder in that the permit area was
reduced. The Panel made several recommendations covering such areas as physical information, advertising of
pesticide use permits, public information programs, label issues, worker safety and information regarding the full
formulation of pesticides which are used in urban areas.
Panel: Linda Michaluk, Heather Michel, Dr. John Smith
Decision Date: April 8, 1993
Two appeals against the issuance of Pesticide Use Permit 214-013-93/94 authorizing the aerial and ground spray
of FORAY 48B (BtK) for eradication of european gypsy moth at Fulford Harbour, Salt Spring Island.
The grounds for appeal were based on health concerns and on possible damage to public perception regarding the
organic status of Salt Spring produce. Also before the Panel were several permit amendments requested by the
permit holder which reflected agreements reached with certain members of the public. While the Panel found there
was no evidence presented to prove the Appellants' allegations and denied the appeals, the permit amendments
were granted to ensure the permitted application matched the public expectation. As a result, the permit area was
reduced significantly, the authorization for aerial application was withdrawn and the permit term was shortened to
one year.
The Panel recommended, among other things, that Agriculture Canada require the release of the full formulation of any pesticide that is approved for use in urban areas.
|
