Re: Pesticide ban needs test period (Editorials, March 2). I am absolutely appalled by the comment that a representation of 498 people represents an "overwhelming" support for a pesticide ban. We are a province of more than 1.2 million people, and 498 makes an overwhelming majority? Give your head a shake and get real.
This agenda is driven strictly from an environmentalist lobby group whose members have not done their research and don't realize what happens if we go through with this.
The fact that weeds don't stay urban means they will spread to and pollute agriculture land. This means more chemicals will need to be used on our crops.
Oh, you think we need to go all organic? Well, guess again. With the growth and population explosion worldwide, where do you think the world gets its food from?
Another thought: How many preservatives are added to the produce before it gets to your table? How many ripening agents are used to deliver fresh fruit to your table?
Perhaps it would also be worthwhile to do an impact study on crop yields from organic to conventional farming. Or how about tourism? Do you really think that we can sustain or grow tourism if we neglect our ability to have weed-free spaces? How many tourists are willing to take their kids to the park with dandelion fluff flying up their nose?
Perhaps the anti-bullying law should be enforced on this government!