Amended Health and Social Services Committee No July 6, 2006 Adopted Regional Council No July 12, 2006

Transcription

1 Amended Health and Social Services Committee No July 6, 2006 Adopted Regional Council No July 12, 2006 # 3 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON Report To: From: Chairman and Members of the Health and Social Services Committee Bob Nosal, Commissioner & Medical Officer of Health Date: June 23, 2006 Re: Report No.: Prudent Avoidance of Pesticides MO RECOMMENDATION 1. THAT Report MO entitled Prudent Avoidance of Pesticides be received for information. 2. THAT a copy of Report MO-36-06, entitled Prudent Avoidance of Pesticides be circulated to each of the local municipalities in Halton Region. REPORT Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide Regional Council with an update on the issue of reducing the use of pesticides for cosmetic or non-essential purposes. Included in this report is current information on the health risks associated with pesticide use; status of municipal regulatory approaches to restrict the use of pesticides on private property; and an update on public outreach and awareness activities in Halton. Background Pesticides are substances intended to kill any species designated a pest including weeds, insects, rodents, fungi, bacteria, or other organisms. The family of pesticides includes herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, and bactericides. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) also includes products which attract, repel and control pests. In July 2000, Council received a report from the Medical Officer of Health (MO-41-00) entitled Health Risks Associated with the Use of Pesticides. Since that time, new research on the health risks of pesticide use has been made available. Additionally, a number of municipalities in Ontario have implemented bylaws restricting the use of pesticides within the municipality and/or requiring public disclosure, whereas others have chosen to focus on educational measures. 35

2 Although there are no pesticide bylaws in Halton at this time, the Region and local municipalities have chosen to implement pesticide reduction policies for municipal lands. Where possible pesticide alternatives are used, while pesticides are used as a last resort to control an infestation. In addition, on June 12, 2006 the Town of Milton Community Services Standing Committee received a report regarding the use of pesticides on municipal lands. A motion for the initiation of a public process to investigate pesticide regulation was made to be taken forward to the June 26 Council meeting. Pesticide Approval Process All pesticides must be registered with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), a division of Health Canada. Before a new pesticide is considered for registration for approved use in Canada, it must undergo extensive testing to determine the potential risks posed to human health and the environment and the pesticide s value. Similarly in 2001 the PMRA initiated a re-evaluation program to review products registered before January 1, Determining the product s approved use includes assessing the efficacy of a product by establishing whether it does what it claims to and at what rate it should be applied. The review does not consider issues such as cosmetic or non-essential use of the products. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to carry out these detailed scientific tests and studies. Although this is similar to the process used in most developed countries in the world, the process has been subject to the criticism of bias. The PMRA reviews all the data submitted (including the raw data) to determine if the product is acceptable for use in Canada, and cross-checks between studies as an additional measure of validation of the final decisions. The Agency is supported by several advisory committees including the Pest Management Advisory Council made up of individuals providing representation from pesticide manufacturers, environmental law, research, medicine, and individuals with appropriate expertise in the area of pesticides and human health. The Agency may also compare its results with regulatory counterparts in other countries such as the U.S. and members of the European Union, to ensure that similar conclusions are drawn from the evaluations. Recent Studies A number of reviews have been released including the Pesticides Literature Review by the Ontario College of Family Physicians and Pesticide Assessment: Protecting Public Health On The Home Turf by Sears et al., and the PMRA s 2,4-D re-evaluation. The Health Department has reviewed these studies, as well as other literature and articles released during this time. The medical literature does not uniformly indicate harm from pesticides nor absolute safety. In the majority of the research that indicates a link between pesticides and health effects, the associations are typically weak, rather than indicative of a strong direct cause and effect relationship. However, a weak effect when exposure is to large segments of the population can still lead to a health burden. There are limitations in most of the studies regarding exposure assessment, study design, and insufficient control for confounders. Studies are conducted on animals as there is no ethical scope to conduct controlled human studies on exposure variables to pesticides. Due to the variety of ingredients, modes of operation, and possible long term health outcomes, risk can vary for different kinds of pesticides. Most of the studies suggest that further research is necessary. 36

3 One example of conflicting studies concerns 2,4-D, the most widely used herbicide worldwide. According to the PMRA 2,4-D Re-Evaluation Report, numerous epidemiology studies on 2,4-D and related chlorophenoxy herbicides have provided contradictory findings with respect to an association between 2,4-D and the development of soft-tissue sarcoma and non-hodgkin s lymphoma. A number of experts and expert panels have examined these studies in detail and have concluded that while some of the studies suggest a possible association between 2,4-D exposure and an increase in these tumors in humans, other epidemiological studies fail to support such an association. The Halton Region Health Department, through the Medical Officer of Health, provided comment in April 2005 to PMRA on the 2,4-D re-evaluation. The interim conclusion of the PMRA s re-evaluation was that the use of 2,4-D to treat lawns and turf does not entail an unacceptable risk of harm to human health or the environment. PMRA has yet to produce a final conclusion. Municipal Bylaws in Ontario Municipalities continue to review options to restrict the use of pesticides on public and private property. There are eight municipalities in Ontario that have implemented bylaws, whereas others have decided to focus on educational measures. In Ontario, there are three key types of pesticide restriction bylaws: a ban, a notification, and a hybrid style. Samples of each of these styles of bylaws, from Caledon, Windsor and Thorold, are included in Attachment 1. Caledon, Windsor, Thorold, Toronto, North Bay, Perth, Peterborough, London and Cobalt have passed and implemented bylaws restricting the use of pesticides. Pesticide restriction bylaws contain wording similar to the following: no person shall apply or cause or permit the application of pesticides within the boundaries of the City. In terms of a notification style bylaw, Windsor is the only municipality in Ontario to adopt this form. A notification bylaw requires that the person applying the pesticide place signs on the property prior to the application, usually at least 24 hours in advance, which are to remain in place a set time after the application. In addition, restrictions are also in place based on weather, air quality index levels, and proximity to open water. Waterloo and Caledon each have a hybrid type of bylaw which combines a ban and notification. During the months of July and August there is a restriction on the use of pesticides, while for the remainder of the year, a notification process is in place. Ottawa, Newmarket, Guelph, Orangeville, Cobourg, Markham, Elliot Lake and Gananoque are currently reviewing their pesticide policies. Of those municipalities directly bordering Halton, Caledon is the only municipality that has passed a pesticide bylaw. Guelph is considering a bylaw, and is currently developing an outreach and education program. Presently Mississauga and Brampton are not actively considering a bylaw and the Peel Health Department has developed an education package to raise public awareness regarding pesticides and alternatives. Hamilton reviewed the pesticide issue in 2005 including having public consultation, however, a pesticide bylaw was not passed. 37

4 It is important to note that all of the bylaws include exemptions under which pesticide use is permitted in certain situations, for example, serious infestations associated with insects (i.e., gypsy moth) or fungi that are identified to be destroying plants or buildings. It should also be noted that the cost and responsibility of enforcing a pesticide bylaw is a significant issue for most municipalities. Although municipalities may have by-laws restricting the use of pesticides, they do not have the authority to restrict the sale of pesticide products at the retail level; this is a provincial responsibility. The only province which has passed legislation that restricts pesticide use is Quebec. The Pesticide Management Code and accompanying regulations place restrictions on the sale and use of various pesticides. The Code prohibits the use of the most toxic pesticides on private, public, semi-public and municipal green spaces, except for golf courses and prohibits the use of almost all pesticides inside and outside child care centres and elementary and secondary schools, and specific rules must be observed when using authorized pesticides. In addition, it is prohibited to sell certain pesticides intended for domestic use as well as to sell fertilizer-pesticide mixtures and mixed packages (e.g. herbicide and insecticide), and to display products intended for domestic use in a way which makes these products accessible to the public. Prudent Avoidance Given the recent literature and the current status of regulatory approaches to restrict pesticide use in the Province, the Health Department continues to support a position of prudent avoidance. Prudent avoidance means relying on natural control and preventative measures, and using chemical pesticides only when all other measures fail. To develop a prudent avoidance program requires engaging in partnerships, and delivering educational initiatives, in addition to promoting pesticide alternatives. This pesticide policy is consistent with positions brought forward in Reports MO entitled Health Risks Associated With the Use Of Pesticides, and MO entitled Pesticides. Public Outreach and Awareness Initiatives The Halton Region Health Department has taken a lead role in delivering an education and awareness campaign to residents and business owners encouraging them to reduce pesticide use. Since 2002, Health Department staff have led the Partners for Naturally Green, a committee with representation from Halton Region, the four local municipalities, and Landscape Ontario. The formation of this intermunicipal group was a result of recommendations from Council in Reports MO and MO Funding was provided by all municipal partners and has supported a number of initiatives in the Halton community. These initiatives have included direct mailings to residents, newspaper and radio advertisements, information pamphlets and lawnsigns, the annual pesticide exchange event, and a point-of-purchase pilot project with a local retailer. In 2005, the Naturally Green program was presented at an Environmental Roundtable in Victoria, B.C. Since this presentation, the Health Department has received interest and inquiries from across Canada and throughout Ontario, particularly on how to deliver a similar campaign in other municipalities. For complete program details, please refer to Report MO In 2006, the partners continue to focus on raising awareness on pesticide reduction. The pesticide exchange events occurred on June 10 th and June 24 th as part of an ongoing partnership with Planning and Public Works, Waste Management staff. This event is designed to encourage residents to turn in their old or unused pesticides (for proper disposal), in exchange for free gardening giveaways and information on growing a healthy lawn. 38

5 In the summer of 2006 the Naturally Green will be recognizing the Region s efforts in maintaining regional properties without the use of pesticides. The committee has developed outdoor plaques recognizing the responsible grounds maintenance employed at three chosen sites; the Halton Millennium Garden (located at the Halton Regional Centre), Post Inn Village (Oakville), and Creek Way Village (Burlington). Although pesticides remain a significant issue for discussion, and considerable interest exists in the community, funding for the Naturally Green campaign has been exhausted. The program is being implemented on a minimal scale with in-kind support from local municipalities in addition to a small fund from the Health Department operating budget designated for advertising of the Pesticide Exchange event. As resources permit, the partners intend to continue with advocacy strategies with the intent to encourage various levels of government to build on current initiatives and continue aggressive research into the relationship of pesticide use and human health. Conclusion The reduction of the use of pesticides for non-essential purposes continues to be a concern raised by many residents in the Halton community. Although recent studies do not conclusively indicate that pesticides present a health hazard, they do warrant a continued need to raise public awareness regarding risks from exposure, including avoiding or minimizing unnecessary exposures especially for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women and children. Prudent avoidance continues to be the recommended strategy of the Health Department. In Ontario, it has been demonstrated that it is the discretion of each individual municipality on how they choose to implement a policy of avoidance, whether it be through the enactment of pesticide restriction bylaws and/or comprehensive education strategies. Halton will continue to promote a policy of prudent avoidance and work with its partners in building on the success of the Naturally Green education and awareness-raising program in the months ahead. FINANCIAL/PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS The 2003 Budget and Business Plan identified the implementation costs for the Naturally Green program to be shared amongst the five Halton municipalities as follows: Halton Region ($40,000) {cost-shared 50% by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care}, City of Burlington ($20,000), Town of Oakville ($20,000), Town of Milton ($10,000), and Town of Halton Hills ($10,000), for a total of $100,000. As the program was not completed until 2005, the 2004 and 2005 Budget and Business Plan included a budget requirement for the projected unspent allocation. Funding for the Naturally Green campaign was exhausted in It is being sustained by in-kind support from staff and local municipalities in addition to a $ allocation from the Health Department s 2006 operating budget designated for advertising of the Pesticide Exchange event Health Department Budget allocations for Naturally Green are expected to be approximately $ for the Pesticide Exchange and the development of new educational material. 39

6 RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN This report addresses the need to work with Halton s local municipalities and other levels of government on issues associated with reducing pesticide use for non-essential purposes. This is part of Goal #1 of the Health and Social services Committee Plan, 2006, to provide accessible, affordable public health and social services to the community, recognizing the diversity of Halton. In addition this program includes continued advocacy efforts with the provincial and federal governments to influence decisions on this important issue. Raising awareness and continued advocacy is consistent with Goal #2, in the Administration and Finance Operational Plan, which states, to strengthen Halton s advocacy efforts through enhanced relationships with other orders of government and government organizations. Respectfully submitted, Mary Anne Carson Director, Health Protection Services Robert M. Nosal MD FRCPC Commissioner and Medical Officer of Health Approved by A. Brent Marshall Chief Administrative Officer If you have any questions on the content of this report, please contact: Mary Anne Carson Tel. # 7863 Dave Stronach Tel. #

7 41 # 3

8 42

9 43 # 3

10 44

11 45 # 3

12 46

13 47 # 3

14 48

15 49 # 3

16 50

17 51 # 3

18 52

19 53 # 3

20 54

21 55 # 3

22 56