October 30, 1998
To:Board of Health
From:Dr. Sheela V. Basrur, Medical Officer of Health
Subject:Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto
Purpose:
To recommend actions that can be taken by the City of Toronto to reduce and phase out the use of pesticides within the
City. This report contains key health and environmental concerns detailed in the technical document entitled, "Pesticides:
A Public Health Perspective" (October30, 1998).
Source of Funds:
Funding requirements and resource implications to be identified by the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team
(TIE) and the proposed Pesticides Subcommittee and included in future reports.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)The Board of Health and City Council make a commitment to the reduction and phase out of pesticides used on
City-owned lands.
(2)The Board of Health and City Council request the Medical Officer of Health and the Toronto Inter-Departmental
Environment Team (TIE) to:
(a)establish a Pesticides Subcommittee, with representatives from relevant departments and the public, to develop a
Corporate policy and action plan for the reduction and phase out of pesticides used on City-owned lands;
(b)report through the Medical Officer of Health to the Board of Health by April 1999 on the Corporate policy and action
plan; and
(c)implement the first phase of the action plan in the summer of 1999.
(3)The Board of Health request the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Medical
Officer of Health to submit a joint report to the Board of Health and to the Community and Neighbourhood Services
Committee on the findings of a survey of pesticide-free maintenance programs in other jurisdictions and the options for
implementing a pesticide-free maintenance program in Toronto parks.
(4)The Medical Officer of Health and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team (TIE) develop and implement
an action plan to pilot the use of Integrated Pest Management in City-owned indoor properties.
(5)The Medical Officer of Health and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team (TIE) develop and implement,
in collaboration with community organizations, a coordinated pesticide public education program to help residents reduce
their exposures and assist them in making informed decisions about pesticide use.
(6)City Council request that the federal Minister of Health:
(a)document non-agricultural pesticide use;
(b)require disclosure of the names of inert ingredients on pest control product labels; and
(c) remove the exemption which applies to pesticides under the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System
(WHMIS).
(7)City Council request that the Ontario Minister of Environment:
(a)research and implement economic incentives to promote the use of sustainable pest management strategies;
(b)establish a 1% waste handling charge on all pesticides sold in Ontario; and
(c)foster an industry stewardship initiative to collect unused or unwanted pest control products and their containers from
residential households.
Background:
Throughout the 1990s, residents and elected officials have requested the former municipalities which now comprise the
new City of Toronto to undertake measures to address the use of pesticides. These measures have included requests to:
provide advanced notice to the community prior to pesticide applications; enact a by-law restricting pesticide use; develop
actions that the City could take to reduce pesticide use on residential properties; research alternatives to pesticides; and
lobby the federal government for full disclosure of ingredients in pesticide products.
At the June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 meeting of the new City Council, Councillor Mihevc tabled a motion which proposed, among
other things, that a City-wide policy that eliminates the use of pesticides on public green space be developed. City Council
referred this motion to:
(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request for the review of the alternatives
and costs involved, and report thereon to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee;
(2)the Board of Health, with a request that the Medical Officer of Health consult with the affected Departments and report
thereon to the Board of Health; and
(3)the Environmental Task Force for consideration and report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee.
At its meeting of July 23, 1998, the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team (TIE) indicated its support for a
Corporate pesticides reduction/elimination strategy, as recommended in Councillor Mihevc's motion. This report fulfills
the second clause of the motion, and reports on the remaining items will be sent through the respective committees to the
December meeting of Council.
Comments:
Historical Context
The earliest known efforts at pest control occurred in ancient Greece and Rome where farmers used natural substances
either to repel or kill pests affecting agricultural yields. However, the commercial exploitation of chemicals in agriculture
began only in the mid to late 1800's with the manufacture of botanical substances, such as nicotine, and inorganic
chemicals, such as copper sulfate and compounds made from arsenic. In the book entitled, "Insects, Exports and the
Insecticide Crisis", Perkins indicates that the pesticide industry grew considerably until, by 1910, annual sales in the
United States totalled an estimated $20 million (1982). Research into chemical compounds for the development of
explosives in World War I acted as a catalyst to the expansion of the chemical industry. However, it was the development
of DDT for use against malaria and typhus in World War II that opened up a major market for pesticides in North
America. Like many of the drug compounds also being developed and introduced in this period, pesticides were generally
considered of net benefit to society. Little attention was paid to the possible negative effects of their use.
By the 1960's, research scientists, such as Rachel Carson who discovered the impact pesticides were having on North
American songbirds, had documented a range of negative effects in wildlife populations that could be traced back to
chemical compounds proliferating in the environment. It became increasingly clear that compounds developed specifically
to damage or kill certain life forms could also have very detrimental effects on others. Evidence also began to accumulate
suggesting that these compounds were having a major impact on the environment as studies showed chemical residues in
water, air, soil and food throughout North America. These studies sounded the alarm about the potential impacts on
humans as a species at the top of the food chain. As research showing effects from pesticides on the environment and
human health accumulated, laws and regulations were enacted that banned some pesticides, such as DDT, and restricted
the use of others. Government agencies such as Environment Canada continue to work on policies to achieve virtual
elimination of persistent and bio-accumulative pesticides from the environment.
As in many other public policy debates, the reduction and phase out of pesticide use continues to be contested. There is a
well established lobby that argues that many pesticides are benign, that more study is needed to establish definitive cause
and effect human health linkages, that any changes in pesticide use would result in job loss for chemical industry workers
and destabilize the economy because of the important contribution of the chemical industry to our overall gross national
product. On the other side are a range of environmental, public health and social justice advocates, as well as emerging
"green industry" representatives, who are urging a move away from a reliance on chemical compounds to other non-toxic
methods of pest control. As an example, the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer, which included
research scientists, physicians, and government representatives among its members, recommended support for the
development and application of alternative, non-chemical pest control measures. In addition, there are growing numbers of
citizens in Toronto and other Canadian cities raising concerns about the human health implications posed by the
widespread use of chemical pesticides in urban areas. A number of municipalities have responded to these concerns by
enacting a range of programs to reduce and phase out the use of pesticides within their jurisdictions. In the City of
Toronto, efforts have been made to reduce the number of chemical pesticides on parks and City-owned land and some
reductions have been achieved. Other municipalities have proceeded to enact by-laws to promote reductions in pesticide
use.
In order to further reduce the use of pesticides on City-owned lands, Parks and Recreation staff have indicated that
significant economic and operational issues must be taken into account. While there are clearly differing views and
concerns at stake in a shift of this kind, they must be weighed against the public health and environmental implications of
continued pesticide use. In addition, there is evidence that continued use of pesticides can result in insect populations
developing genetic resistance to these compounds. As well, when pesticides are used to eliminate one pest, it can lead to a
resurgence in another population of pests that were previously preyed upon by the pest that has been eliminated.
Pesticide Use
The term pesticides includes a wide variety of products such as herbicides which are used to control weeds, insecticides
used to control insects, termiticides used to control termites, rodenticides used to control mice and rats, and fungicides
used to control fungus. In Canada, 542 active ingredients are registered for use in over 7,500 pesticide products.
Insecticides and herbicides comprise the largest groups of products.
Environment Canada reports that 32,000 tonnes of active pesticide ingredients are used each year in Canada. Pesticide
industry sales figures suggest that considerable quantities of pesticides are used in Canada but reliable data on actual use,
particularly residential use, is not available. The 1993 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs survey of
licensed pesticide applicators found that 62.5% of total active ingredients used by licensed pesticide applicators were
applied to residential lawns.
The former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto's 1995 State of the Environment Report indicated that homeowners,
businesses, and government are large users of pesticides and herbicides, although there is no data available to quantify the
extent of their use within the former Metro. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the
Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services are currently preparing an inventory of outdoor and indoor pesticide use
by the Corporation of the City of Toronto.
Major classes of pesticides include, for example, the organochlorine insecticides, the organophosphate insecticides and the
phenoxy herbicides. The organochlorine insecticides were commonly used until the 1970's when most of them were
banned in North America and Europe because of their environmental effects. The organophosphate pesticides represent the
major class of insecticides in use today. The organophosphate insecticides used most commonly in homes and gardens are
dichlorvos (DDVP), diazinon, malathion and chlorpyrifos (Dursban). These insecticides can be used to control ants, fleas,
earwigs, cockroaches and silverfish. The phenoxy herbicides are the class of pesticides used most commonly to control
weeds in North America. Among these, the chlorinated phenoxy herbicides, 2,4-D and MCPA, are used most frequently.
Human Health
Scientific evidence linking pesticides with negative impacts on human health has continued to accumulate since the first
studies were carried out. Like all scientific studies that are aimed at establishing a link between a contaminant and a
human health effect, the limitations of existing scientific methods make these links difficult to establish definitively. Many
of the pesticides in use today were introduced to the market before standardized toxicity tests were developed. While new
pesticides have been subjected to the standardized toxicity tests required today, the tests themselves may be lacking. For
example, standardized tests have not been developed to detect pesticides that are capable of producing cancer by
weakening the immune system. Nor have they been developed to detect pesticides that can affect the intellect of a child
exposed during pregnancy. Studies conducted on human populations have the strength of examining the health effects
related to real-life exposures. They may identify health effects related to the additive or synergistic effects created when
pesticides are combined with other pesticides or other toxic agents. On the other hand, it can be difficult with human
studies to isolate the chemical or combination of chemicals responsible for any increased rate of illness that is observed.
Some of the pesticides in use today have a high acute toxicity. This is the case for the organophosphate insecticides that
are commonly used to kill insects indoors and on lawns. These pesticides inhibit a chemical messenger used by the brain
called cholinesterase. High level exposure to these pesticides can produce acute health effects ranging from headaches and
diarrhea to loss of consciousness and death from respiratory failure. Approximately 10,000 cases of organophosphate
poisoning are reported annually in the United States. Most of these cases involve people exposed to pesticides in the
course of their work. A small number involve children who have been exposed in homes that been recently sprayed with
pesticides.
Much of the public concern with pesticides revolves around chronic health effects that may be associated with repeated
low levels of exposure from a variety of sources. Some of the strongest scientific evidence on the human health effects of
pesticides has been obtained from studies conducted on people exposed to pesticides in the course of their work, such as
farmers, agricultural workers, pesticide manufacturers and pesticide applicators. Collectively these studies suggest that
people occupationally exposed to pesticides have higher rates of a variety of cancers, including cancers of the lymph and
blood systems and soft-tissue sarcoma, than other groups of workers. Numerous cancer studies have been directed at the
phenoxy herbicides, a class of pesticides commonly used to control weeds. While the evidence surrounding individual
phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4-D and MCPA, is complicated by contradictions between studies and mixed exposures
within studies, the weight of evidence suggests that the phenoxy herbicides as a class of pesticides are capable of
producing cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
While most pesticides can be toxic to the nervous system (ie neuro-toxic) at high levels of exposure, until recently, very
little was known about the neuro-toxic effects of low level exposures. Recent studies conducted on people occupationally
exposed, indicate that low level exposure to some pesticides can produce measurable changes in motor skills, reflexes,
memory, attention and behaviour. Animal studies suggest that severe neuro-toxic effects can be induced at even lower
levels of exposures when exposure involves some combinations of pesticides at the same time.
Occupational studies also suggest that pesticides may affect the fertility of workers, and the development and health of
their children. For example, a number of studies indicate, with some consistency, that parental exposure to pesticides prior
to, or during pregnancy, can be associated with childhood cancers such as leukemia and kidney cancer. These studies
suggest that the fetus and the developing child are much more susceptible to the toxic effects of pesticides than mature
adults.
Children are the other group in the general population that may be at particular risk from pesticide exposure. Research
indicates that children are prone to greater exposures than adults because of their size, habits and behaviour. For example,
one study demonstrated that children playing on a floor could absorb 4 to 6 times as much pesticide as an adult by
inhalation and 30 times as much by absorption through the skin. Children are much more susceptible to the toxic effects of
chemicals such as pesticides because their bodies are still developing. A few studies that have been conducted on
pesticides used in the home suggest an association between exposure during childhood and brain cancer and leukemia.
While relatively little research has been conducted on the exposures encountered in non-occupational environments, the
information that is available suggests that people may be exposed to higher levels of indoor and outdoor pesticides than
has traditionally been assumed. Several studies have detected high levels of pesticides in the air of homes sprayed with
pesticides many hours after application. These studies have also indicated that pesticides used in the home, and lawn care
pesticides tracked indoors on shoes, can persist for months or years in the indoor environment because there is no sun, rain
or biological activity to break them down.
Recent research suggests that many pesticides may be capable of disrupting the endocrine system. Wildlife research
suggests that endocrine disrupting chemicals may be capable of producing a broad range of human health effects including
infertility, cancer and neuro-toxic effects, particularly among the young born to the exposed adult. While, to date, only the
neuro-toxic effects have been demonstrated in human populations, the endocrine disrupting potential of pesticides gives
additional cause for concern.
Environmental Fate and Impacts
Pesticides are one of the few classes of chemicals that are intentionally released into the environment. Historically, many
of the concerns about the environmental impacts of pesticides have centred on those that are persistent (i.e., break down
slowly in the environment) or those that accumulate in the food chain. Pesticides currently used today tend to be
considerably less persistent and bio-accumulative.
Pesticides can be released into the environment through drift of spray or vapour due to wind and air currents, accidental
spills, run-off into waterbodies or groundwater, and during the manufacture and disposal of pesticides. Some of the
pesticide residues found in our environment have been traced to pesticides whose use has been banned in Canada that
continue to be used by other countries. These pesticide residues are transported to Canada in air currents.
When pesticides are released into the environment, they can contaminate air, water, soil and food and thus pose indirect
risks to human health. For example, the volatile organic compounds contained in some pesticide products can contribute to
the development of ground-level ozone during smog episodes. Pesticides have been associated with the contamination of
ground water and surface waters from which drinking water can be drawn. The persistent pesticides have also been
associated with contamination of the food supply, particularly with fish.
Actions
The range and nature of the health and environmental effects associated with pesticides and the size of the populations
potentially affected by them, demand action to significantly reduce the use of pesticides. To date, the role of municipal
governments in addressing pesticide-related matters has been complex. On the one hand, many municipalities promote
reductions in chemical pesticide use. On the other hand, most municipal governments use pesticides to control pests on
City-owned properties, parks, greenhouses, right-of-ways, lawn bowling greens and golf courses.
There are a number of actions that the City can take to reduce the use of pesticides within its own operations. The City can
implement a Corporate policy to reduce and phase out its outdoor use of pesticides on City-owned lands. In developing the
actions to support such a policy, the City would have to consider the operational feasibility and other potential impacts in
the development of targets and time-lines. The City of Mississauga and the former City of North York have demonstrated
that it is possible for municipalities to substantially reduce their use of pesticides. Since new turf management approaches
were introduced in 1990, both cities have indicated a reduction in pesticide use of over 90%. Since 1992, Mississauga has
also increased the naturalization of its parks by over 200 acres. Other local municipalities within Toronto also had
programs of pesticide use reduction and park naturalization.
By committing to the reduction and phase out of pesticide use on City-owned lands, the City of Toronto would promote
the development and use of sustainable pest management practices while demonstrating a leadership role within the
community. A pesticide-free parks maintenance program and demonstration projects that test the viability of pesticide
alternatives in sites such as community allotment gardens are two key ways in which the City can provide leadership by
example.
The City can also investigate alternatives to chemical pesticides used indoors and identify City-owned properties for the
demonstration of these alternatives. For example, Public Health in the former City of North York has completed a "Roach
Coach" project which identifies Integrated Pest Management as the least toxic method for effectively controlling
cockroaches in apartment buildings. The details of this project are contained in a companion report to the Board of Health
entitled, "Reducing Indoor Pesticide Spraying in the Residential Sector" (October 28, 1998). The City can also pursue the
use of Integrated Pest Management alternatives to address other types of pests.
The City should expand its efforts to educate the public about the hazards of pesticides and the alternatives to them. All of
the former municipalities have developed public education materials and provided information support about pesticides,
including pesticide-free lawn signs, brochures, workshops and a telephone hot-line. However, this information has not
been delivered in a coordinated fashion, nor has it been evaluated for its effectiveness. In the new City of Toronto, we
have the opportunity to review these programs and to develop a coordinated program that builds on the best of each of
them.
It is noteworthy from our preliminary research that at least 18 municipalities in Canada and the United States have enacted
by-laws or ordinances to affirm their commitment to reduced pesticide use. Public Health staff will continue to monitor
the relative successes and public acceptance of these and other proposed by-laws.
The City should also encourage the federal and provincial governments to provide the legislative and policy amendments
necessary to promote reductions in pesticide use. The federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) at Health
Canada is the agency best placed to: document non-agricultural pesticide use; require disclosure of inert ingredients on
pesticide products; and remove the exemption which applies to pesticides under the Workplace Hazardous Materials
Information System (WHMIS). The Ontario Ministry of Environment is the most appropriate agency to: implement
economic incentives increase the use of sustainable pest management practices, such as reduced license fees for
applicators who use Integrated Pest Management; establish a 1% waste handling charge on all pesticides sold in Ontario;
and foster an industry stewardship initiative for the collection of household pesticide waste.
The technical report entitled, "Pesticides: A Public Health Perspective", contains a scientific review of the human health
and environmental implications of pesticides, and a comprehensive discussion of the actions the City could implement to
reduce pesticide use. Copies of this report are available from the Board of Health Administrator.
Conclusions:
There is sufficient evidence to warrant concern about the potential health impacts of pesticides and there are sufficient
gaps in our knowledge to warrant caution in our use of them. The range and nature of the health effects and the size of the
population potentially exposed requires action to significantly reduce our reliance upon chemical pesticides. In addition,
the demonstrated adverse environmental impacts, some of which are irreversible, and the limited information on the
environmental fate and significance of pesticides, demands action on our part to reduce and phase out chemical pesticide
use. A logical starting point for reductions are pesticides used on lawns and gardens for cosmetic purposes.
The City of Toronto is in a unique position to take leadership on this issue. There is considerable public support for action
to reduce and phase out pesticides on public land. In addition, City employees are exposed occupationally when they work
with pesticides in facilities such as greenhouses and nurseries, or when they apply pesticides in parks and on other
City-owned lands. Given the strong evidence of health impacts on people who work with pesticides in occupational
settings, and on their children, we are obligated to ensure that risk to City employees continues to be reduced as much as
possible. As well, since children are at risk from pesticides due to the multiple opportunities for exposure in places like
parks and the fragile developmental state of their bodies, actions to reduce and phase out pesticides will also have a net
benefit to a vulnerable portion of our population.
While the cost and operational implications of reducing and phasing out pesticide use remain to be explored and assessed,
in the long term we will realize a benefit for all Toronto residents. Alternative pest control measures are available currently
with minimal environmental and human health impacts. As well, by taking a leadership position on this issue, the City can
act as a model for homeowners, other commercial, industrial and governmental sectors to take initiatives to reduce and
phase out pesticide use. The Board of Health has before it today a package of recommendations that will allow us to
proceed in a manner that is rational, consistent and phased in its approach. This will allow time for all our operational
departments to work collaboratively towards a solution that will benefit human health and the environment.
Contact Names:
Steve McKenna, Acting Manager, Environmental Protection Office (EPO)
Siu Fong, Research Consultant
Kim Perrotta, Environmental Epidemiologist
Jeanne Jabanoski, Coordinator, Environmental Information and Education
Toronto Public Health
277 Victoria Street, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5B 1W2
Tel:416-392-6788
Fax:416-392-7418
E-mail:smckenna@city.toronto.on.ca
Dr. Sheela V. Basrur
Medical Officer of Health
