Request for information and clarification on the response to petition 473 from the Minister of Health
Petition: 473C
Issue(s): Biological diversity; Compliance and enforcement; Human/environmental health; Pesticides; Toxic substances
Petitioner(s): A Canadian resident
Petitioner location(s): Toronto, Ontario
Date received: 23 May 2023
Status: Completed—Response(s) to petition received
Summary: This petition is a follow‑up to petition 473. The earlier petition raised concerns about the use of permethrin as a broad‑spectrum insecticide to kill mosquitoes in southern Ontario’s cottage country and about how its application will inadvertently kill many non‑target native insects and spiders; cause adverse health effects on local insect, mammal, and bird populations; and lead to biodiversity loss.
The follow-up petition requests further clarification on the answers provided for petition 473.
According to the follow-up petition, labels of permethrin‑based pesticides include restrictions against spraying permethrin on wildflowers when bees are foraging. The petition questions whether the restrictions apply to residential settings as well as agricultural land. Furthermore, it asks whether protection is intended for all bees or only honeybees.
The petition refers to Health Canada’s previous response regarding applications of permethrin and its minimal effect on the community because the applications are limited to a maximum 3‑metre band around the perimeter of the property. The petition claims that using the same 3‑metre band application will have significantly different consequences on a residential property than on an agricultural property because the area sprayed will represent a greater percentage of the total area for a residential property. The petition indicates that treating multiple neighbouring properties expands the permethrin exposure in a community. Furthermore, the petition asks whether any studies have been conducted to look into the way that repeated applications of permethrin on plots of residential land affect insects, spiders, mammals, or amphibians.
The petition refers to eye irritation in squirrels and the disappearance of insects and spiders from a property as a result of permethrin treatment and questions whether these would be considered potential pesticide incidents or whether only harm to humans qualifies as a pesticide incident.
The petition alleges that the Minister of Health once stated that mosquito control may be desirable or necessary for a variety of reasons and asks for examples of situations requiring mosquito populations to be controlled given that incidences of mosquito‑borne diseases remain low in Canada. Furthermore, the petition questions why the government is not directing agencies and the public to use larvicides as an alternative to permethrin, as they are more environmentally sustainable.
The petition refers to studies that indicate that the overuse of permethrin contributes to mosquitoes developing resistance to it. The petition asks why the government is not reserving the use of permethrin for serious disease outbreaks only and inquires whether any studies have been done that indicate that the current use of permethrin is not contributing to pesticide resistance.
Federal departments/organizations responsible for reply: Health Canada