2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-P004 Move Away From Pesticides and Biocides | VGM-2 Amended Version
Submitter Name
Mary Lou McDonald
Ratification Vote Results: Adopted
Proposal
This is the amended proposal adopted by GPC membership at the VGM-2.
GPC supports a transition away from or the elimination of the use of glyphosate (e.g. Roundup) and other harmful pesticides and biocides in farming, forestry, recreational and other sites, and the promotion of the use of least toxic and most regenerative measures in these areas.
Objective
The proposal seeks to eliminate the presence of harmful pesticides in our world and promote the use of alternative, least harmful measures to reduce pests.
Benefit
Pesticides harm the health of humans and of soil, forests, aquatic and other ecosystems, and run counter to climate change solutions. By seeking to remove these harms, the proposal will improve the health of humans, these systems and the planet.
Supporting Comments from Submitter
The proposal can be expected to be effective by removing or lessening the harms associated with pesticide use. Some of the harms documented on glyphosate include harms to human health, the soil, forests and wildlife, and water ecosystems described below.
1. Human health. Glyphosate harms the barrier that is the lining for the gut and the brain, causing chronic inflammation, injury to the functioning systems of the body and neurological problems.
Zach Bush,"Glyphosate: A Root Cause of Chronic Inflammation?" Holistic Primary Care, March 25, 2016.
https://holisticprimarycare.net/topics/environomics/glyphosate-a-root-cause-of-chronic-inflammation/
2. Soil. Glyphosate strips nutrients from soil and plants and imbeds itself in crops. Healthy soil created through organic (no pesticides) regenerative farming sequesters carbon and is considered a solution to climate change.
Ty Bollinger,"Understanding the Dangers of Glyphosate (& How to Minimize Exposure)", The Truth About Cancer, May 14, 2018.
https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/glyphosate-dangers/
Rodale Institue, "Regenerative Organic Agriculture and the Soil Carbon" , September 30, 2020.
3. Forests. Glyphosate is sprayed by forest companies to kill broadleaf trees and keep evergreens for cutting. This harms the resilience of the forest ecosystem and increases forest fires. It also reduces food and habitat for wildlife, is toxic to amphibians and aquatic systems, and promotes the persistence of glyphosate in the environment.
Stop the Spray B.C.
4. Water ecosystems. Glyphosate increases phosphorous loading in watersheds, causing algae blooms and other harms.
Marie-Pier Hébert, Vincent Fugère, and Andrew Gonzalez "The overlooked impact of rising glyphosate use on phosphorus loading in agricultural watersheds" Front Ecol Environ 2019; 17(1): 48–56.
Green Value(s)
Ecological Wisdom, Sustainability
Relation to Existing Policy
This proposal would rescind and replace G06-p15 Banning Cosmetic Pesticides Environment, and expand on G14-P57.
We're building a new kind of politics. One that is open, participatory, and people-powered
If you believe in what we're doing, please consider making a small donation to help us build it
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Comment details
You are seeing a single comment
View all comments
Conversation with Neil
This will reduce farm productivity, resulting in higher food prices - unless an equally effective alternative is found, and there is nothing foreseeable. With a rising population (proposal P-015) this will aggravate human suffering, especially for those who are food insecure.
Lumber will be more expensive, so housing will become more expensive. This conflicts with affordable housing policies.
Confused by your choosing "In favour" but then speaking Against the policy.
I was only noting the consequences of this proposed policy. A move away from chemical pesticides is “good” for the environment, but like just about every green policy it will be “bad” for the economy – meaning higher prices. There is no free lunch. And higher prices will almost always hit the less wealthy the hardest. But we have to make sacrifices: what price are we willing to pay to get rid of pesticides?
Higher prices result in lower consumption (good), but it makes everybody poorer. Unfortunately the rich will not feel the impact as much as the poor. Trudeau still flies a private jet from one Montreal airport to the other in order to avoid the traffic regardless of the carbon tax, but Nana has to turn her heat down in the winter to be able to afford presents for her grandchildren. The result is, at best, a minuscule reduction in GHG at the expense of the wellbeing of seniors and the working poor. (I would be unsurprised if the Law of Unintended Consequences came into effect here and resulted in more GHG.)
In the present case at least we get rid of pesticides (while being fully aware of the likely economic consequences). And let’s face it, if we were to decide every GPC policy based on its economic outcome, the GPC wouldn’t have ANY policies left. ;-) We can at least take the environmental high road.
Many GPC policies conflict with each other in this way: environmental policies result in less consumption due to higher prices, but the social policies result in more consumption due to higher incomes (for the poor).
Perhaps this contradiction is one reason for the GPC’s poor electoral results? People no doubt either intuit or know directly the contradiction, and do not see any clear direction for the GPC; it is being pulled in two opposing directions - and perhaps this can be seen in the internecine conflict currently going on within the Party.
Well spoken Neil.
Loading comments ...