Municipalities versus Pesticides

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

Lisa Caine's article about the recent Supreme Court decision allowing municipalities to ban pesticides ("Are Pesticides Such a Problem?" August 2, 2001) misses the most important point. The Supreme Court entrenched the Precautionary Principle as the standard of public safety.The Precautionary Principle is a powerful protection for ordinary Canadians from corporate depredations such as genetically modified foods, toxic waste dumping, or pharmaceutical experimentation. Under the Risk Assessment model, in the past, it was up to the public to prove that corporate activities endangered the public. With the Precautionary Principle, the onus is on the corporations to prove that their activities are safe.When Len Ritter says that there is no proof that pesticides cause cancer, he is referring to the old Risk Assessment model. What he fails to grasp (and so does your reporter) is that it's no longer enough to say that the link is not proven. The Canadian Toxicology Centre needs to add a new branch, to identify pesticides that are unquestionably safe for humans.Mr Ritter is right to say that the Supreme Court reviews laws, not toxicology. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruling sets a vitally important, crucial, and rather bold standard for public safety. Toxicologists can argue how many poisons can dance in our intestines without harm. The Supreme Court has said that Canadians are entitled and empowered to pass laws that protect us from toxins, no matter how profitable they might be, unless the manufacturers can prove that those toxins are absolutely safe.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.