The appellant associations appealed pesticide use permits issued to the respondent to apply Vision to commercial forest area near Princeton, B.C. The appellants claimed there would be an unreasonable effect on the environment and human health. They claimed that the herbicide will get into streams and poison fish and contaminate domestic water sources.
The Board dismissed the appeal. Although it had heard from many witnesses, it was unable to conclude that there would be any unreasonable adverse effects if applied as prescribed by back-pack spraying and by injection. There was much evidence in the reports that fish are not contaminated by the herbicides as they do not accumulate in their tissues. The appellants were also concerned about the presence of 1,4 dioxane in Vision and Roundup and it being a known ‘carcinogen’. The Board stated there are many carcinogens we intake into our bodies and that the concern was unrealistic. The Board quoted a Federal-Provincial Study carried out on Carnation Creek on Vancouver Island where the entire chemical combination was studied extensively and found no adverse effects.
