Grass growing government

With a little break in the rain earlier this week, it was easy to see just how important a good-looking, well-groomed property is to most people.

Rakes, lawn mowers and fertilizer spreaders were being used in full force to begin the transformation of turning dingy brown winter grass into a healthy vibrant blanket of green carpet accented by various colours of shrubs, trees and flowers.

Of course, this transformation, like those of the human nature, can't be done by manpower alone - a little artificial help is required.

In Nova Scotia, this helping hand was given a little slap last week, when the province's Environment Minister Sterling Belliveau introduced a bill that would create a list of "low-risk" pesticides allowed for use on lawns, shrubs, residential trees and flowers.

This means our neighbours directly to the east have only this summer to use what they like to make their properties the talk of the town, as the lawn care ban begins in 2011. The ban on pesticides used for shrubs, trees and flowers comes into effect in 2012.

While Nova Scotia isn't the only province - Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have similar bans in place - to have legislated such a ban, here in Newfoundland and Labrador no such provincial rule exists.

Despite the importance - and work - put into ensuring a beautiful looking property, many agree with the ban of pesticide use, noting the health risks to animals and humans. There have even been some groups who have advocated government to do something about it, but to no regard.

The affects of pesticide-infected water runoff, both above and below ground, from properties on which pesticides have been used onto other properties and into streams, rivers, ponds and lakes, is a sound argumentative safety concern for these advocacy groups.

This is an uncontrollable factor in the use of dangerous pesticides, and for those who disapprove its use or fear the health-related dangers associated with its use, they have a right to be concerned for the safety of people and animals.

Other arguments, such as domestic animals and children having direct contact with a area treated with pesticides, are really insignificant because these can be controlled by parents or animal owners, especially if a property where pesticides was used is properly marked.

However, the uncontrollable issue certainly has enough merit for government to take a serious look at a province-wide ban, and there's plenty of research material and studies from other provinces on the pros and cons of such a ban, so it need not have to be a situation of recreating the wheel.

Everyone wants their property to be the best in the neighbourhood but health concerns are much more important than green, weedless grass. Besides there are safe pesticide-free ways to make grass grow and weeds die - they just may take a little more sweat and elbow grease.

There are enough health issues in the world today, and people need not add to them because of lawn ego.

And sometimes government needs to lend that helping hand - it's a proactive approach to health care instead of a reactive one.