Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto
The Board of Health recommends the adoption of the report (October 30, 1998) from
the Medical Officer of Health subject to:
(1)Amending Recommendation (1) by adding the following:
(a)by developing targets, strategies and actions to eliminate the use of pesticides to be
established in time for the 1999 growing season; and
(b)with the goal of designating all public green space in Toronto as pesticide free by
Spring 1999, allowing for exceptions, such as emergency infestations to be determined
by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation
with the Pesticide Subcommittee described in Recommendation (2).
(2)amending Recommendation (2) (a) and (b) so as to read:
(a)establish a Pesticides Subcommittee, with representatives from the public, CUPE
Local 416, relevant departments including personnel with demonstrated expertise in
pesticide reduction, and businesses with demonstrated expertise in pesticide-free
horticultural practices. This Pesticide Subcommittee will develop a Corporate policy and
action plan for the reduction and phase out of pesticides used on City-owned lands; and
(b)implement the action plan by Spring 1999 and report to the Board of Health;
(3)amending Recommendation (5) to read:
"(5)the Medical Officer of Health and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment
Team (TIE)
(a)investigate the feasibility of regulating the use of pesticides on private property as is
presently done in the City of Westmount, Quebec; and
(b)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 and report to the
Board of Health;"
(4)amending Recommendation (7) by adding the following:
"(d)provide enabling legislation for municipalities to regulate the use of pesticides
within municipal boundaries"
(5)adding the following additional recommendation:
"(8)City of Toronto Agencies, Boards, Commissions and School Boards be invited to
participate on the Pesticide Subcommittee and participate in the City's goal for a
pesticides-free green space."
The Board of Health reports having adopted the foregoing report (October 30, 1998) from the
Medical Officer of Health, as amended.
The Board of Health submits the following report (October 30, 1998) from the Medical
Officer of Health:
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 Economic Development 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
The Board of Health also submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the
Chair, Environmental Task Force:
Purpose:
To respond to the request from City Council to consider the pesticides motion that was before
City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 and report thereon to Works and Utilities Committee.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable
Recommendations:
- That City Council indicate its support for the development of targets, strategies and actions
to eliminate uses of chemical pesticides on public green space and in public buildings by
all City departments, agencies, boards and commissions and that targets, strategies and
actions be established in time for preparation for the 1999 growing season (ie. winter,
1998).
- That City Council and relevant City departments, agencies, boards and commissions be
advised that the Task Force strongly supports the following actions which are underway by
City staff:
i) an inventory of types, volumes and reasons for chemical pesticide use both indoors and
outdoors by all City departments, agencies, boards and commissions; and
ii)strategies and options to reduce/eliminate chemical pesticide uses in the City of Toronto.
3. That City Council be advised that the Environmental Task Force is willing to assist by
examining the issue of chemical pesticides, including the reports being prepared by City staff,
and recommending a plan which will include targets, time lines, options and strategies for the
elimination of pesticide uses in Toronto.
4. That the Works and Utilities Committee receive this report for information.
5. That the Board of Health adopt this report and forward it to City Council together with the
report on pesticides from the Medical Officer of Health.
6. That the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee receive this report for
information and consideration together with the pending report requested by City Council on
pesticide alternatives and costs involved from the Commissioner of Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism.
7.That the Toronto Inter-departmental Environment Team (TIE) submit the inventory of
indoor and outdoor pesticide uses and the proposed corporate strategy for the
reduction/elimination of outdoor pesticide uses to the Environmental Task Force by fall 1998
en route to Standing Committee..
Background:
At its meeting on July 28, 1998, the Environmental Task Force had before it the request from
City Council to report to the Works and Utilities Committee on the pesticide motion that was
considered by City Council at its meeting on June 3, 4 & 5, 1998 (see attachment).
The Environmental Task Force was established by City Council to prepare an Environmental
Plan for Toronto and identify immediate environmental issues for consideration by City
Council. Task Force members include City Councillors, environmental agencies and citizens
with a variety of backgrounds including environmental groups, business, education and
labour.
The term pesticides is understood to refer to a variety of formulated chemical products
including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides.
Comments:
The Environmental Task Force believes that there are strong reasons to move towards a
sustainable approach that aims to eliminate the use of chemical pesticides. In recent years,
public concern about the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the environment
has been increasing. Scientific evidence has shown that pesticide use is associated with a
range of adverse health and environmental impacts. Furthermore, alternatives to chemical
pesticide use are successfully being used by many jurisdictions as part of pesticide reduction
programs.
Over the coming months the Environmental Task Force will be working with stakeholders,
including City staff, to examine environmental priorities and identify targets, strategies and
options to address these priorities. The Task Force believes that pesticides use is an important
environmental issue for Toronto. Accordingly, the Task Force is willing to assist by
examining the issue of pesticides and recommending a plan which will include targets, time
lines, options and strategies for eliminating chemical pesticide uses in Toronto and
encouraging others to take similar action. The proposed targets and time lines would reflect
the goal of eliminating chemical pesticide use while taking into consideration the availability
of and need for alternatives. The possibility of pilot projects in visible locations such as
Toronto or Metro Hall also will be explored.
The Task Force is aware of the following activities related to pesticides which are underway
in the Corporation:
i) the preparation of a report by the Medical Officer of Health to the Board of Health for the
fall of 1998 which will include an overview of community concerns about pesticide use as
well as the potential adverse health and environmental impacts of pesticides and provide
options that could be initiated by the City of Toronto to promote reductions in chemical
pesticide use by Toronto residents;
ii) the report of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to
Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on alternatives to pesticide uses on
public green spaces and costs involved that was requested by City Council;
iii) the preparation of an inventory of indoor and outdoor pesticide uses by City Departments,
Agency, Boards and Commissions that is being coordinated through the Toronto
Interdepartmental Environmental Team; and
iv) the preparation of a corporate strategy for the reduction/elimination of outdoor pesticide
uses that is being coordinated through the Toronto Interdepartmental Environmental Team.
The Task Force supports these activities and will coordinate its work with that of City
officials. In view of the time frame of the Task Force, it would be most helpful if the Task
Force is to recommend a plan if the above-mentioned reports of City officials could be made
available to the Task Force in the fall of 1998 so that the information could be used as a
starting point for developing a plan.
Conclusions:
The Environmental Task Force believes that eliminating the use of chemical pesticides is an
important environmental goal for Toronto and is willing to assist by recommending a plan
which includes targets, time lines, options and strategies.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Jane Weninger
Project Manager
Environmental Task Force
Phone (416) 392-6788
Fax: (416) 392-7418
--------
(Communication dated June 11, 1998, from the City Clerk,
addressed to the Environmental Task Force, appended to the foregoing report)
City Council, at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it the following Motion:
Moved by: Councillor Mihevc
Seconded by: Councillor Augimeri
"WHEREAS chemical pesticides are inherently toxic products designed to kill various life
forms and are deliberately released into the environment; and
WHEREAS recent reports published in scientific journals link exposure to pesticides used on
public, private and institutional green space to adverse health effects in humans and animals
including:
Birth defects
Prostate cancer
Childhood leukemia
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Endocrine disruption
Canine malignant lymphoma
Suppression of enzymes in the central nervous system
Damage to the immune system
WHEREAS scientific evidence indicates that the use of pesticides and fertilizers poses a
significant threat to water quality and Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) are presently incapable
of removing pesticides from drinking water and updating and replacing STP's would place an
enormous financial burden on the City of Toronto; and
WHEREAS the City of Toronto has the power and the responsibility to address this issue; and
WHEREAS environmentally benign, non-toxic methods of pest prevention and lawn care
maintenance do exist and are used by other municipalities such as Waterloo; and
WHEREAS the former Cities of East York, North York and York had considered this
problem and embarked on pesticide reduction or elimination programs on public green space;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council direct all City Departments,
Agencies, Boards and Commissions to report back to City Council by September, 1998 with a
list of pesticides used (including trade names and active ingredients) both indoors and
outdoors, volume of pesticides used, date of pesticide application and reasons for pesticide
application;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City Council direct all Parks and Recreation
departments and divisions in the City of Toronto to report back to City Council by September,
1998 with the turf management practices presently used by each of the former municipalities;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT other jurisdictions, such as Waterloo, Hudson,
Quebec and Port Coquitlam, B.C. that have successfully implemented parks maintenance
programs which do not rely on pesticide use be contacted for details of their practices and
their results;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT these best practices be combined into a
City-wide policy that will eliminate the use of pesticides on public green space.?
Council referred the foregoing Motion to:
(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, with a request that he
review 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.
--------
Copies of the following reports/communications were forwarded to all Members of Council
with the agenda of the Board of Health for its meeting on November 10, 1998, and copies
thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:
-report dated October 30, 1998, titled "Pesticides: A Public Health Perspective - Technical
Report" from Toronto Public Health, Environmental Protection Office
-communication (November 5, 1998) from Dr. Sakuls, The Ontario College of Family
Physicians
-communication (November 5, 1998) from Lorraine Johnson, Toronto
-communication (November 9, 1998)from the Northern Health Area Community Health
Board of the former City of Toronto
-communication (Undated) from Peter Leiss, Vice President, Toronto Civic Employees
Union Local 416
-communication (November 10, 1998) from Ramona Burke, Etobicoke