TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998
BOARD OF HEALTH
REPORT No. 13
1Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto
2Interim Arrangements for the Provisions of Animal Sheltering and Related Services for Wards 19 to 26
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 13
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 November 25, 26 and 27, 1998
1
Phasing Out Pesticide Use in the City of Toronto
(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.)
The Board of Health recommends the adoption of the report (October 30, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health
subject to:
(1)amending Recommendation No. (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 No. (2).
(2)amending Recommendation No. (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 No. (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 No. (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 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 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:
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 (i.e. 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.
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
(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.)
2
Interim Arrangements for the Provisions of
Animal Sheltering and Related Services for Wards 19 to 26
(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Board of Health recommends the adoption of the report (October 30, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health.
For the information of Council, it is advised that a technical amendment has been made to the report (October 30, 1998)
from the Medical Officer of Health by clarifying that the escape clause of the agreement, referred to in the second
paragraph under the category "Comments" on page 18 of this report, provides for termination with 120 days notice, and not
one month's notice as indicated.
The Board of Health submits the report (October 30, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health.
Purpose:
To provide an interim arrangement for the provision of animal sheltering and related services for Wards 19 to 26, pending
the results of a comprehensive review of options for the long term provisions of animal services in the City.
Source of Funds:
Funds in the amount of $728,000.00 need to be provided in the 1999 Toronto Animal Services Budget to cover a 12-month
extension of the animal sheltering agreement with the Toronto Humane Society. This represents the same amount budgeted
in 1998.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Chief Administrative Officer and the Medical Officer of Health be authorized to extend the
existing contract to December 31, 1999, between the Toronto Humane Society and the City of Toronto for animal
sheltering services for Wards 19 - 26, upon the same terms and conditions, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
Background:
In all Wards of the City except Wards 19 to 26, animal sheltering services are provided by a municipal animal centre
owned and operated by the City. The dogs, cats, raccoons and skunks from Wards 19 to 26 are housed by the Toronto
Humane Society (THS) under an agreement with the City which expires on December 31, 1998.
At its regular meeting on March 27, 1998, the Board adopted the March 12, 1998 report from the Chief Administrative
Officer and the Medical Officer of Health entitled "Interim Arrangements for the provision of animal services in 1998"
which included the recommendations that:
(1)The 1998 revised budget of $4,205.6 thousand as outlined in the report be adopted;
(2)The Board of Health adopt the Interim Plan to deliver animal services, as outlined in that report;
(3)The Chief Administrative Officer and Medical Officer of Health be authorized to take the necessary steps to extend
the existing sheltering services contract with the Toronto Humane Society to December 31, 1998 pursuant to the City's
purchasing policy; and
(4)Under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer, resources be provided from Finance, Audit and the
Amalgamation Office to conduct a comprehensive review of options for the delivery of animal services across the City.
At the regular meeting of the Board of Health, on July 27, 1998 the Medical Officer of Health provided the Board with a
report titled "Provision of Animal Sheltering Services for Wards 19 to 26" (dated July 14, 1998). The Board adopted the
staff recommendations that:
(1)The Board receive the report for information and recommend the appropriate option for sheltering of animals from
Wards 19 to 26 to City Council, following the planned review of animal services.
(2)In the event that the planned review of Animal Services is not completed by October 1, 1998, the Board recommend to
Council a six-month extension of the existing agreement with the Toronto Humane Society until June 30, 1999.
Comments:
At this time the City has not received the report from an outside consultant with recommendations that will indicate which
of a number of service options would best serve the residents of Toronto. Considering that the public has requested in the
past to be provided with an opportunity for input into a variety of animal service issues, six months maybe too short period
of time to receive public input and develop strategies for implementation of any of the recommendations from the review.
Therefore, it is recommended that the contract be extended for a period of 12 months until December31, 1999, instead of
the 6-month period proposed as an option in the July 14, 1998 report.
The agreement contains an escape clause which provides either party with the ability to terminate the agreement with 120
days notice. As such, the City would not be "locked in" to December if final decisions and implementation thereof can be
achieved before the end of the year.
Conclusions:
At present the sheltering of animals from Wards 19 to 26 is being handled by the Toronto Humane Society under an
agreement with the City. The overall review of animal services, currently being conducted, may provide a number of viable
options which may offer different advantages and disadvantages. A 12-month extension of the sheltering agreement with
the Toronto Humane Society is recommended, pending final decisions by Council and subsequent implementation.
Contact Name:
James H. Bandow
Toronto Animal Services
Toronto Public Health
Ph:392-6767
Fax:392-0087
(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing
Clause, in that he has a financial interest in a company that does business with the Toronto Humane Society.)
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN FILION,
Chair
Toronto, November 10, 1998
(Report No. 13 of The Board of Health, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on
November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)
