TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1999

BOARD OF HEALTH

REPORT No. 14

1Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 14

OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH

(from its meeting on November 10, 1998,

submitted by Councillor John Filion, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

1

Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause in accordance with the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee, embodied in the communication dated December 2, 1998, from the City Clerk, subject to deleting Recommendation No. (A)(1)(a) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(a)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the Medical Officer of Health and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Board of Health, the Works and Utilities Committee and the Economic Development Committee, no later than February, 1999, on a reasonable phase-in that would aim to achieve an end to the application of pesticides on public green spaces in 1999, except in emergency situations or other circumstances to be outlined in a report by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;";

so that the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee shall now read as follows:

"The Works and Utilities Committee:

(A)recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Board of Health, embodied in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 14 of The Board of Health, entitled 'Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto', subject to:

(1)striking out Recommendation No. (1) of the Board of Health and Recommendation No. (1) of the Medical Officer of Health, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'(1)That City Council adopt in principle the banning of pesticides on all City property; and further that:

(a)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the Medical Officer of Health and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Board of Health, the Works and Utilities Committee and the Economic Development Committee, no later than February, 1999, on a reasonable phase-in that would aim to achieve an end to applying pesticides on public green spaces in 1999, except in emergency situations or other exceptions to be outlined in a report by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(b)staff ensure that the phased-in ban include an improved and modified lawn care program to balance the effect of eliminating pesticides; and

(c)the proposed Pesticide Sub-Committee, as amended by Recommendation No. (2) of the Board of Health, be convened to assist the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health in the development of their report;' and

(2)amending Recommendation No. (3) of the Board of Health to provide that funding for the proposed public education program be included for consideration in the 1999 budget; and

(B)further recommends that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to develop a pilot project to engage the use of the various beneficial use products arising from the biosolids management initiatives from the Main Treatment Plant;

(2)the appropriate staff be requested to submit a report to the appropriate committee on a program similar to the Plant Health Care Program of the City of Waterloo that involves horticultural practices to lead to the near elimination of pesticide use on City of Toronto properties; and

(3)the submission by Councillor Shiner, consisting of a report dated November 1996 which was before the former City of North York Environment Committee, entitled Pesticide Use/Alternatives to Pesticides - 1996, and detailed recommendations with respect thereto, be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team, the Medical Officer of Health and any other staff reviewing pesticide use, to review in context with the final reports.' ")

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on December 16, 1998; pending the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee and the Economic Development Committee in this regard.)

--------

(Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of The Board of Health)

The Board of Health recommends the adoption of the following 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.":

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 WarII 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 inthefood 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, 7^th 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:

1. 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).
2. 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.

1. 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.
2. That the Works and Utilities Committee receive this report for information.
3. 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.
4. 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

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (November 19, 1998) from Mr. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades Association, requesting that Council defer consideration of the phasing out of pesticide use in the City of Toronto.)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (December 2, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Works and Utilities Committee:

(A)recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Board of Health, embodied in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 14 of The Board of Health, entitled "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", subject to:

(1)striking out Recommendation No. (1) of the Board of Health and Recommendation No.(1) of the Medical Officer of Health, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)That City Council adopt in principle the banning of pesticides on all City property; and further that:

(a)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, in coordination with the departments affected, report back to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health no later than February 1999 on a reasonable phase-in of the proposed ban that would aim to achieve an end to applying pesticides on public green space in 1999, except in emergency situations or other exceptions to be outlined in the report by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, such report to include a financial impact and risk assessment and the final timetable for the setting of goals and targets for the reduction of pesticides in time for the 1999 season;

(b)staff ensure that the phased-in ban include an improved and modified lawn care program to balance the effect of eliminating pesticides; and

(c)the proposed Pesticide Sub-Committee, as amended by Recommendation No.(2) of the Board of Health, be convened to assist the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health in the development of their report;" and

(2)amending Recommendation No. (3) of the Board of Health to provide that funding for the proposed public education program be included for consideration in the 1999 budget; and

(B)further recommends that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to develop a pilot project to engage the use of the various beneficial use products arising from the biosolids management initiatives from the Main Treatment Plant;

(2)the appropriate staff be requested to submit a report to the appropriate committee on a program similar to the Plant Health Care Program of the City of Waterloo that involves horticultural practices to lead to the near elimination of pesticide use on City of Toronto properties; and

(3)the submission by Councillor Shiner, consisting of a report dated November 1996 which was before the former City of North York Environment Committee, entitled "Pesticide Use/Alternatives to Pesticides - 1996", and detailed recommendations with respect thereto, be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team, the Medical Officer of Health and any other staff reviewing pesticide use, to review in context with the final reports.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee on December 2, 1998, had before it a report (October 29, 1998) from the Environmental Task Force responding to the request from City Council to consider the pesticides motion that was before Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, and report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee; and recommending that:

(1)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 (i.e., winter 1998);

(2)City Council and relevant City departments, agencies, boards and commissions be advised that the Task Force strongly supports the following actions which are under way 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)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)the Works and Utilities Committee receive this report for information;

(5)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)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; and

(7)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.

The Committee also had before it a copy of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of The Board of Health, entitled "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", which sets out the recommendations of the Board of Health at its meeting on November 10, 1998, and which was deferred by City Council on November 25, 1998, until the meeting of Council to be held on December 16, 1998, with a request that the Works and Utilities Committee and the Economic Development Committee submit comments thereon at that time.

The Committee also had before it a communication (November 27, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, responding to communications from the Weed Man dated November 23, 1998, and from the Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades Association dated November 19, 1998; and advising that the communications completely misrepresent the Board of Health motions on pesticides.

The Committee also had before it a report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, addressed to the Economic Development Committee and the Works and Utilities Committee, recommending that:

(1)an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program be implemented for all City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions that provides for safe management of pests and reduces reliance on pesticides;

(2)standard procedures in distinct program areas be developed in order to monitor the effectiveness of the IPM Program and to provide regular reports;

(3)a copy of this report be sent to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health;

(4)the appropriate staff participate on the Pesticide Sub-Committee and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team;

(5)staff report back to the Economic Development Committee once targets are set and standards devised; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Committee also had before it a communication (November 17, 1998) from Mr. Danny Passmore, President, Frechette Lawncare, recommending that Council postpone any decision on the phasing out or banning of pesticide use in the City of Toronto for the reasons outlined therein, and that Council make no decision on this issue until further information is provided.

The Committee also had before it a copy of correspondence from the Ontario College of Family Physicians in support of the recommendations of the Medical Officer of Health on phasing out pesticide use in the City of Toronto, and of a presentation prepared by the City of Waterloo, Parks Services Group, entitled "Plant Health Care Program: Mastering Change", submitted by Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

The Committee also had before it a report dated November 1996, entitled "Pesticide Use/Alternatives to Pesticides - 1996", which was before the former City of North York Environment Committee, and detailed recommendations with respect thereto, submitted by Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights.

The following persons appeared before the Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario Horticultural Trades Association, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Gerald Boot, Owner, Boots Landscaping and Maintenance Ltd.;

-Mr. Gavin Dawson, Technical Manager, Greenspace Services Ltd.;

-Mr. Bill Stennson, President, Sheridan Nurseries;

-Ms. Janet May, Toronto Environmental Alliance;

-Mr. Dino Grande, Rouge Valley Naturalists;

-Ms. Marcie Goldman, Parents' Environmental Network, and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Vic Palmer, President, The Green Team;

-Mr. Luciano Martin, ARCH (Action to Restore a Clean Humber), and submitted a communication with respect thereto;

-Ms. Susanne Burkhardt, South Riverdale Community Health Centre;

-Mr. Caryl Manning, Toronto, Ontario;

-Dr. Earle R. Nestmann, Principal, Cantox Inc., and filed a submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Wendy C. Rose, Executive Director, Urban Pest Management Council of Canada, and submitted material with respect thereto;

-Mrs. Lois James, Scarborough, Ontario; and

-Ms. Patricia Wolchok, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and filed a submission with respect thereto.

(Report dated December 2, 1998, addressed to

the Economic Development Committee and

the Works and Utilities Committee from the Commissioner

of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism)

Purpose:

The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has compiled information concerning the turf management practices by the former municipal Parks and Recreation Departments and their records of pesticide usage in order to report back to City Council.

Source of Funds:

There are no requirements for funding but there are significant financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendations:

(1)Implement an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program for all City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions that provides for safe management of pests and reduces reliance on pesticides;

(2) develop standard procedures in distinct program areas in order to monitor the effectiveness of the IPM Program and to provide regular reports;

(3) a copy of this report be sent to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health;

(4)participate on the Pesticide Subcommittee and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team;

(5)that staff report back to the Economic Development Committee once targets are set and standards devised; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department was asked to report to City Council on turf management practices used by the former municipalities, along 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. The report was to include alternatives and costs involved. Attached to this report is a summary of pesticide usage in the former municipalities by program area.

Comments:

The turf management practices within the Parks and Recreation Departments of the former municipalities varied to some degree, but all Departments utilized a form of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The former municipalities of North York, Toronto and Metro provided the leading edge by implementing effective IPM programs and demonstrated a reduction in pesticide usage by 70-90% since l988.

IPM is a decision-making process wherein pest problems are controlled within the larger ecosystem. The objective of IPM is not to eradicate but to suppress pest populations to acceptable levels and to maintain the presence of natural enemies in an overall balanced system. A monitoring system, complete with documentation, determines if and when treatments are needed according to established threshold levels for various program areas. Physical, cultural and biological control methods are introduced to keep pest numbers at tolerable levels. As a last resort, chemical controls may be applied with the least toxic, most effective pesticide selected. These controls are integrated in a systematic manner in order to maximize their effectiveness. IPM is recognized as an established and effective method of achieving healthy turf with a minimal reliance on chemicals.

Turfgrass is acknowledged as the best surface for general park areas. The dense intertwined root system is resilient to wear and tear. The uniform leaf structure can be maintained at a low height and creates a soft and even surface for a variety of recreational uses from organized sports, to walking and picnicking. Turf is an excellent source of oxygen generation and helps to prevent soil erosion. Its extensive green leaf surface provides both aesthetic enhancement and climate amelioration in a dense urban environment.

Physical controls include: aeration of turf to relieve soil compaction; higher mowing heights to develop healthy root systems and inhibit weed development; and dethatching to provide better absorption of water and nutrients. Cultural controls include: naturalizing areas in the landscape; routine fertilizing, irrigating and top dressing; and selecting species that are disease-resistant. Biological controls include organic composting and the addition of top dressing media rich in micro-organisms to promote vigorous growth and suppress fungus diseases. Chemical controls may involve the application of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides. If monitoring determines that action thresholds are exceeded and all other strategies have been considered and attempted without success, the application of a pesticide becomes necessary.

Action thresholds differ according to the recreational activity associated with the turf. General parkland areas have a higher weed tolerance and an effective IPM program may never require the application of a pesticide. Sports fields, however, have a lower pest threshold and require an intensive maintenance program including the occasional spot application of a broadleaf weed herbicide. Resodding sections of a sports field is an alternative but it is expensive and sod farms typically use significant quantities of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Golf courses and bowling greens have bentgrass turf and, combined with very low mowing heights and weather conditions, are susceptible to fungus infestations. Alternative methods to maintain turf health are used including syringing greens, aeration of compacted turf and regular irrigation, but the application of a fungicide may be necessary to prevent extreme turf damage.

The Parks and Recreation Division is faced with the challenge of maintaining healthy, growing plants in an unnatural and hostile urban environment. This requires a proactive and intensive maintenance program. IPM is the program recommended as a "best practice" but the availability of pesticide application is a necessary component of the program. The potential impact of not being allowed to use pesticides must be weighed against the loss of healthy trees and greenspace in the City. Further, there would be an impact on our labour costs in terms of increased manual labour and specialized horticultural functions and overall loss of productivity if pesticides could not be used. The Department's professional staff are constantly exploring initiatives and alternatives which will assist in meeting this challenge. Amalgamation of all the Parks and Recreation Departments will create the opportunity to standardize and expand the IPM program throughout the City.

Many of the programs that the Parks and Recreation Division delivers would be seriously compromised by the elimination of pesticide applications in park areas. For example, sports fields would gradually decline without the occasional intervention of herbicide applications. Golf courses, especially tees and greens, could suffer irreversible damage without fungicide applications. The annual revenue generated from sports field permits would be jeopardized without an option to use pesticides, and well in excess of $5 million in green fees could be lost, along with recreational opportunities denied to thousands of residents. The cost of renovating a sports field with new turf costs approximately $20,000 and the new sod would have been chemically treated in any event.

Effective IPM programs require increased labour costs but the Department will attempt to rationalize the program within existing resources. The Department is committed to a reduction in its use of chemical pesticides and the safe and responsible use of pesticides is part of the IPM program for maintaining parks for the benefit of the public. Reductions in pesticide usage will be available by standardizing the authorized list of pesticides and eliminating duplication in types of pesticides that provide the same effect. Certain parkland areas may be identified as pesticide-free with necessary exceptions allowed through proper authorization (e.g. poison ivy). Improvements in application equipment would reduce the volume of pesticide needed and enable more precise spraying techniques.

Conclusion:

The implementation of an Integrated Pest Management program is one of the goals of the Parks and Recreation Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism. The emphasis is placed on using alternative strategies to control pest populations to acceptable levels and to use chemical intervention only as a last resort.

Contact Name:

Doug McDonald

Telephone: 392-8578.)

(A copy of the report on Pesticides Usage, 1997 Operating Season, referred to in the foregoing report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause the following transmittal letter (December 14, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Economic Development Committee recommends that consideration of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 14 The Board of Health, headed "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", be deferred pending a report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, the Urban Pest Management Council and Landscape Ontario on the development of an Integrated Pest Management Program, for submission to the March 25, 1999 meeting of the Economic Development Committee.

For the information of Council, the Committee reports having deferred consideration of the report (December 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism pending submission of the above-noted report.

Background:

At its meeting on December 11, 1998, the Economic Development Committee gave consideration to the following reports respecting pesticide use:

1. report (December 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism forwarding information concerning the turf management practices by the former municipal Parks and Recreation Departments and their records of pesticide usage, and recommending:

(1)implementation of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program for all City of Toronto Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions that provides for safe management of pests and reduces reliance on pesticides;

(2)development of standard procedures in distinct program areas in order to monitor the effectiveness of the IPM Program and to provide regular reports;

(3)a copy of this report be sent to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health;

(4)participation on the Pesticide Subcommittee and the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team;

(5)that staff report back to the Economic Development Committee once targets are set and standards devised; and

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(ii)report (November 26, 1998) from the Chair, Environmental Task Force recommending that the Economic Development Committee endorse the recommendations of the Board of Health contained in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of the Board of Health, headed "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", which Council on November 25, 1998, resubmitted to its next meeting on December 16, 1998.

(iii)Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of the Board of Health, headed "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", which was deferred by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on December 16, 1998; pending the recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee and the Economic Development Committee in this regard.

(iv)report (December 7, 1998) from the Chair, Environmental Task Force recommending the adoption of the following recommendations of the Works and Utilities Committee at their meeting on December 2, 1998:

The Works and Utilities Committee:

(A)recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Board of Health, embodied in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of The Board of Health, entitled "Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto", subject to:

(1)striking out Recommendation No. (1) of the Board of Health and Recommendation No. (1) of the Medical Officer of Health, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)That City Council adopt in principle the banning of pesticides on all City property; and further that:

(a)the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, in coordination with the departments affected, report back to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Board of Health no later than February 1999 on a reasonable phase-in of the proposed ban that would aim to achieve an end to applying pesticides on public green space in 1999, except in emergency situations or other exceptions to be outlined in the report by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health, such report to include a financial impact and risk assessment and the final timetable for the setting of goals and targets for the reduction of pesticides in time for the 1999 season;

(b)staff ensure that the phased-in ban include an improved and modified lawn care program to balance the effect of eliminating pesticides; and

(c)the proposed Pesticide Sub-Committee, as amended by Recommendation No. (2) of the Board of Health, be convened to assist the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health in the development of their report;" and

(2)amending Recommendation No. (3) of the Board of Health to provide that funding for the proposed public education program be included for consideration in the 1999 budget; and

(B)further recommends that:

(1)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to develop a pilot project to engage the use of the various beneficial use products arising from the biosolids management initiatives from the Main Treatment Plant;

(2)the appropriate staff be requested to submit a report to the appropriate committee on a program similar to the Plant Health Care Program of the City of Waterloo that involves horticultural practices to lead to the near elimination of pesticide use on City of Toronto properties; and

(3)the submission by Councillor Shiner, consisting of a report dated November 1996 which was before the former City of North York Environment Committee, entitled "Pesticide Use/Alternatives to Pesticides - 1996", and detailed recommendations with respect thereto, be referred to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Toronto Inter-Departmental Environment Team, the Medical Officer of Health and any other staff reviewing pesticide use, to review in context with the final reports.

1. communication (undated) from Mr. Douglas W. Bryant, CanTox Inc, Consultants in Toxicology forwarding comments on "Pesticides: A Public Health Perspective: Technical Report" (Toronto Public Health, Environmental Protection Office, October 30, 1998).

(vi)communication (December 11, 1998) from Mr. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario

(vii)communication (December 11, 1998) from Ms. Wendy Rose, Executive Director, Urban Pest Management Council of Canada forwarding comments regarding the Board of Health report (October 30, 1998) regarding the phasing out of pesticide use in the City of Toronto.

The following persons appeared before the Economic Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Doug McDonald, Operations Co-ordinator, Parks and Recreation (gave a presentation);

-Mr. Douglas Bryant, Senior Scientist, CanTox;

-Mr. Velden Sorensen, Director of Development, Bayer Inc.;

-Ms. Wendy Rose, Executive Director, Urban Pest Management Council of Canada;

-Mr. Tony DiGiovanni, Executive Director, Landscape Ontario;

-Mr. Daniel Passmore;

-Mr. Gerald Boot, President, Boots Landscape and Maintenance; and

-Ms. Janet May, Toronto Environmental Alliance.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (December 14, 1998) from Mr. Rich Whate, Toronto Environmental Alliance, requesting that Council promote a pesticide-free environment and forwarding recommendations with respect thereto.)

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN FILION,

Chair

Toronto, November 10, 1998

(Report No. 14 of The Board of Health, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)