Dow Suing Canada Because Quebec Bans Controversial Pesticide

That's right Montreal. Our federal tax money is being spent as we speak on potentially defending Quebec's Pesticides Management Code -- a code that limits the use of cosmetic or non-essential lawncare products -- to a company that brought you innovations as varied as Saran Wrap, Styrofoam and napalm-b!

Dow AgroSciences -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical -- and their legal team are threatening to invoke a nifty NAFTA provision and want compensation in the order of $2 million plus legal fees reimbursed over Quebec "wrongfully" banning the use of products containing 2,4-D (which is, incidentally, the "safer" of two herbicides used, in ester form, to make chemical superstar Agent Orange, another fine Dow product).

This Montreal Gazette article interviews Donald Page, then executive director of the Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research and he is adamant that Quebec is going to lose the suit because they won't be able to prove 2,4-D causes cancer. So as long as it doesn't cause cancer, it must be safe? Does that kind of logic make anyone feel safe? Page says nothing about the herbicide's reported links to birth defects, damage to reproductive systems, irreversible eye damage, endocrine system disruption, neurological impairments, and a compromised immune system.

Why?

So what is 2,4-D? It's a weed-killing pesticide Dow's in-house research deems safe and non-carcinogenic. Health Canada agrees, as long as it's used properly. So does the European Union. And the World Health Organization only considers 2,4-D "moderately hazardous." The Environmental Protection Agency also reports 2,4-D is safe as long as it does not exceed a "maximum contaminant level," kind of like how chocolate can contain a certain amount of rat poop and still be deemed safe (and legal) for human consumption (the FDA calls said poop "mammalian excreta" and group the latter, as well as fly legs, maggots, insect filth, rodent hairs, parasitic cysts, and mold under the foodie blanket term, "defects"; kinda makes the allergy-prone wonder what they're allergic to, the food or the "defects," n'est-ce-pas?)

On the other side of the coin, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Kuwait prohibit using 2,4-D on lawns and gardens, Belize severely restricts its use, South Australia seasonally bans certain formulations of the herbicide used by farmers, About.com's lawn care expert Kelly Burke thinks chemical pesticides should be restricted to licensed applicators, suggesting household use may not be appropriate, Ontario is following Quebec's lead and prohibiting 85 pesticides, including 2,4-D, starting April 22nd and New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council is urging the EPA to recant their "safe" position on 2,4-D, pointing to a flawed risk assessment.

Now the city of Montreal is chiming in, declaring their full support in defending Quebec's Pesticides Management Code along with over 40 Quebec environmental and community organizations.

But before the plot thickens (i.e., as we wait to see if Dow will go all the way and file a formal claim), tell me what you think. Do you feel in safe hands with Dow's multimillion dollar research and Health Canada's heads up or do you support Quebec's and Montreal's respective bans on pesticides?

And at the end of the day, who is genuinely protecting you and your family's health?

More on:

• Chapter 11 of NAFTA
• 2,4-D Faces Scrutiny and Possible Ban in the United States
• Quebec's Pesticides Management Code