The Globe and Mail reports, “On Thursday, U.S.-based Dow AgroSciences LLC settled a $2-million (U.S.) lawsuit stemming from Quebec’s 2006 ban of the pesticide 2,4-D, used in products such as Killex. In 2009, Dow filed a challenge under NAFTA’s chapter 11, which allows companies to sue governments for actions that affect their investments. No cash was involved in this week’s final settlement.”
The newspaper adds, “Dow agreed to drop its case, and in return, Quebec acknowledged that 2,4-D does not ‘pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment’.” Of course, as noted in Embassy magazine, “Environmental and medical groups like the Canadian Cancer Society have long argued that no amount of risk is worth taking when it comes to ‘unnecessary’ chemicals, such as lawn pesticides, which are used for purely cosmetic purposes.” Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has stated, “Runoff has resulted in a widespread presence of pesticides in streams and groundwater. 2,4-D, found in weed and feed and other lawn products, is the herbicide most frequently detected in streams and shallow ground water from urban lawns.”
In a statement issued yesterday, Canada’s trade minister Ed Fast says, “This agreement with Dow AgroSciences demonstrates that the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism works. Today’s agreement also confirms the right of governments to regulate the use of pesticides. This right will not be compromised by Canada’s participation in NAFTA or any other trade agreement.”
In a media release we said, “The Council of Canadians is disturbed by preliminary accounts of a settlement between the Government of Canada and Dow Agrosciences in the firm’s NAFTA challenge to Quebec’s cosmetic pesticide ban. While the Supreme Court decision upholding the legality of provincial and municipal pesticide bans still holds, the very existence of an investor-state dispute settlement process in NAFTA and other trade agreements, with the power to overrule court or government decisions, threatens environmental and public policymaking in Canada.”
The Globe and Mail notes the differing views on the implications of the settlement. They report, “Lisa Gue of the David Suzuki Foundation said the settlement would have little effect because even the threat of a NAFTA challenge did not dissuade provinces from banning the chemical. She also suggested the company may have withdrawn its lawsuit because it feared it would ultimately lose the case. (But) according to a government expert, the settlement may eventually help the company fight a potential ban being considered by other provinces.”
Currently, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island restrict the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides. Alberta has a limited restriction on pesticide/ fertilizer mixtures. The Winnipeg Free Press reported last week, “Manitoba is one of only four Canadian provinces (Manitoba, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan) with no pesticide ban and that club is about to shrink. British Columbia just finished a long round of public consultations on a possible ban and new Liberal Premier Christy Clark has said she supports one.”
