OTTAWA, Canada - Do those plush green lawns really need to be free of dandelions?
In a case that may end up affecting the lives of more Canadians than most political and legal issues that surface in Ottawa, the Supreme Court of Canada examined on Dec. 7, 2000, whether towns may ban lawn pesticides.
The case pits environmentalists, who say pesticides are too risky to be used for cosmetic purposes, against landscapers, who say a judicious use of pesticides should be allowed.
The case involves the leafy Montreal suburb of Hudson, which in 1991 became the first Canadian municipality to ban pesticides - chemicals which attack weeds or insects. Golf courses and large farms were exempted.
Since then 36 other Quebec towns as well as the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, have enacted similar bans. Other towns are now looking at this court case for guidance.
"When your neighbor sprays your lawn, not all the pesticides stay on the lawn," Janet May, representing the Toronto Environmental Alliance, one of the groups that presented written arguments, said ahead of the hearing.
"Other people are exposed to the pesticides in the air they breathe, the food they eat and in the water that they drink."
Michael Elliott, Hudson mayor when the ban was introduced, said on he had used pesticides on lawns and in agriculture but changed his mind after hearing "enough horror stories." He pointed to the warnings on a pesticide package.
"It does have a skull and crossbones and it says on the back of the package, 'If ingested, induce vomiting.' Now to me that means it's dangerous."
Two lawn-care companies took Hudson to court in Quebec. Hudson won twice and the firms are now appealing. Their lawyer, Gerard Dugre, urged the court not to "create small enclaves where life is made difficult for property owners."
The court battle was fought primarily on the fine legal argument over whether a town has the right to ban something licensed by federal and provincial governments.
"You cannot make illegal an activity that is allowed," Dugre said "Spreading (pesticides) is a property right."
But Justice Charles Gonthier, citing the example of provincial driver licenses, said municipalities had the authority to circumscribe how provincial or federal rules should work.
ENVIRONMENT UNDERLIES LEGALITIES. Underlying the legal niceties was the environmental argument as pesticide use is increasingly questioned.
Dr. Nicole Bruinsma of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment told reporters pesticides can affect brain and nerve developments of children and can block or mimic natural hormones.
Professional landscapers say there is no proof of harm to humans, but that they have at any rate scaled back the pesticides they use and adopted new approaches, including biological and other alternatives to pesticides.
Jean Baillargeon of the Quebec Association of Ornamental Horticultural Services, one of the groups that intervened against Hudson, told Reuters: "There are certain cases where biological solutions just don't work."
He said the biggest culprits in town are citizens who buy big packages of fertilizer mixed with herbicide - often called weed-and-feed. He said professionals do not use such products, and he advocated that the federal government simply ban them.
The environmentalists say that, regardless of the court case, Canada should tighten rules for approving pesticides.
The House of Commons Environment Committee produced a 212-page report last May recognizing that farms will continue to use pesticides but arguing for a gradual national phase-out of cosmetic pesticides.
Ironically, snow blankets Ottawa and most of Canada now. But by the time the Supreme Court renders its decision, it is likely to be the height of spraying season next summer.
The author is a news writer with Reuters.