CHO - Ottawa - Pesticide Reduction Strategy

Submission to the
Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee
City of Ottawa
by

www.healthyottawa.ca
Regarding the
2004 YEAR-END REPORT ON CITY OF OTTAWA PESTICIDE REDUCTION STRATEGY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY
prepared by
Meg Sears (M.Eng., Ph.D.)
May 5^th, 2005
The CHO recommends that the City of Ottawa:
Enact a pesticide bylaw soon, to come into force in 2006.
Continue a public education campaign regarding pesticides and sustainable landscaping practices.
Ask the Province of Ontario to pass a Pesticide Code similar to Québec's, to restrict sales and non-essential use of toxic chemicals.
Introduction
The Coalition for a Healthy Ottawa (CHO) is a coalition of individuals, health care professionals, scientists, and health and environmental organisations working to reduce the cosmetic use of pesticides in Ottawa. The CHO supports healthy, sustainable landscapes by encouraging non-toxic pest management strategies, and seeking a bylaw restricting the cosmetic use of pesticides.
The 2004 Year End Report demonstrates that City staff have been working hard to educate people regarding pesticides, but are not making desired progress. Measuring pesticide use is difficult, time-consuming, and inaccurate and/or meaningless if there is no legal requirement for reporting pesticide sales or use. However, it is abundantly clear that most Council-required targets are far from being met.
The goals of pesticide reductions for a healthier City can only be achieved with the support of a bylaw.
First, the Cheers
Kudos to staff for managing to get some numbers from the pesticide industry. Working with nothing but good will, with no law requiring disclosure, the lawn care industry released hard data about the pesticides they spread. The fact that the lawn care companies spread 5 tonnes a year of purified poisons a year on lawns is reason for alarm, particularly since the industry is apparently not at all interested in reducing this.
Kudos to staff for organising many seminars, and making a lot of relevant, interesting information available.
Kudos to staff for surface water monitoring, although severe constraints meant that this monitoring is very limited. A major pesticide, imidacloprid, and an important breakdown product, couldn't be monitored because analysis is too expensive.
Targets
Council set targets for pesticide reduction. This means that a baseline and an endpoint have to be measured. Without reliable data at both ends, this exercise is meaningless.
However, even if the targets were to be met (they won't be), the result is Council would still sanction tonnes of toxic chemicals continuing to be spread on Ottawa turf every year. There would be no reason to believe pesticide reductions would be sustained even though safer alternatives exist. This would be unwise, because medical literature tells us that there is no safe level of exposure to pesticides, and you can't predict the toxic consequences of the myriad chemicals in the environment.
Residences - 2002 was the first year of the City's education campaign, but when City staff polled residents to determine how many people used pesticides during 2002 and 2003, use had gone up after two years of "education". At that point the baseline year was switched from 2002 to 2003. Of course, a higher baseline means a higher "acceptable" pesticide use. Given the doubtful reliability of this measurement, it is troubling that no polling was done in 2004, to verify methodology and previous results. However, counting users is quite meaningless, because it does not differentiate between someone using a tiny amount of pesticide to get rid of a patch of poison ivy, and someone dumping half a bag of left-over "weed and feed" on their lawn, regardless of whether or not weeds are there, just to "green it up". In summary, both the baseline and the final measurements are highly questionable and not quantitative. This polling is of little value.
Hospitals and schools were mostly pesticide-free in 2002, so this 100% reduction target was relatively easy to meet, and is the only one to be met. Nevertheless, it is worrisome that although only 2% of the daycares that responded to the questionnaire used pesticides, barely half of the questionnaires were returned. It is highly likely that those concerned about the issue and not using pesticides would be much more inclined to return the form, so possibly up to half of the daycares may be using pesticides.
Commercial properties – there is no baseline measurement, and the staff report that they will not be able to measure usage on these properties.
Lawn care companies service some homes and some commercial properties, but certainly not all. They have provided data about pesticide use.
The only audited numbers indicate that 5 metric tons of pesticide active ingredients were applied to Ottawa lawns in 2003. The industry then concocted a scenario of maximum possible pesticide applications for the land area they are contracted to care for, even if there was no indication of a pest problem. This is also flawed because there are no regulated maximum numbers of applications for many pesticides, so the pesticide postulations are arbitrary. As well, more potent and persistent pesticides are replacing ones that require higher application rates, so a measurement of total weight of active ingredients is not an indication of potential toxicity.
The industry reached the extraordinary conclusion that they could increase pesticide applications from 5 to 73 tonnes of purified poison per year, and still attain Ottawa's pesticide reduction targets. Clearly this sector is not committed to meaningful reductions. The reduction observed between 2003 and 2004 can be explained by switching to imidacloprid, an insecticide that is more persistent and potent, so smaller quantities are effective.
Education
Education is key to changing landscaping practices. Ottawa staff have initiated excellent programs, and good information is available on the website. Staff would like to increase the number of homeowners, condominiums and commercial properties switching to safer landscaping methods.
After decades of citizens' efforts, and three years of the City's pesticide education program, the only way to catch the attention of those not already committed is to pass a bylaw, to take effect in 2006. Without a bylaw, the education campaign amounts to "preaching to the choir".
Timing
What are we waiting for? Nothing of meaning or value
A poll of residents, with no data regarding quantities of pesticides, and
More data from the lawn care companies that have demonstrated little intention to reduce pesticide use.
What will we gain by passing a bylaw now rather than later?
An international study demonstrated that an education campaign will be much more effective in the context of a bylaw.
Eliminating non-essential pesticides and sustainable landscaping is important for:
protection of public health;
environmental protection and pollution prevention; and
sustainability of Ottawa with respect to water, energy use and greenhouse gases.
These issues are associated with substantial costs, both short and long-term, and are national and international responsibilities.
An effective pesticide-reduction initiative is cost-effective for the population because it prevents health care costs and lost productivity. Importantly, it forestalls untold misery of victims of the ill effects of pesticides.
Effective pesticide reduction involves altered landscaping practices that will improve water quality, increase storage of carbon dioxide in soils and biomass, and increase biodiversity. Increased biodiversity has a myriad of benefits from aesthetic such as increased song-birds, to practical such as increased mosquito predators that will protect us from vector-borne diseases.
Urgency - People are being harmed.
Many CHO members identify pesticides as being harmful to their personal or family's health. Health care professionals and CHEO are supporting the CHO because in their professional opinion it is both plausible and probable that pesticides are contributing to health problems, including respiratory problems, allergic reactions, autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes, neurological problems such as Parkinson's Disease, autism and attention deficits, reproductive difficulties and birth defects, and multiple chemical sensitivities.
Pesticides polluting our environment harm society and put us at increased risk of diseases.
Pollution is ongoing, pervasive, and serious. The Surface Water Pesticide Monitoring Program revealed that pesticides from Ottawa turf are contaminating surface water at levels harmful to aquatic species. Pesticides move from the point of application into our homes as well as our waterways.
The impairment and "dumbing down" of society as a result of chronic exposure to the "chemical soup", and particularly to neurotoxic insecticides, may be a serious threat to our future.
The ecological ramifications put people at increased risk of vector borne diseases such as West Nile virus. Prevalence of organophosphates in the environment could render the pesticide malathion ineffective against adult mosquitoes. Impaired immunity across society puts us at increased risk of a pandemic.
Attachment 1
Pesticides and Health
Pesticides have cumulative, multigenerational destructive impacts on human health, especially on the physical, emotional and mental development of children.
Pesticides are linked to birth defects and interfere with sexual development. They also trigger allergies, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, genetic damage, cancer and other health problems. Health problems may be inherited by the children and become magnified with successive generations.
Pesticides have been detected in the body tissues of virtually all people tested. The only exceptions were Indian tribes in the depth of the Amazon jungle, at the time still protected from global pollution by a dense forest canopy.
Our youngest generation is already exposed to pesticides not only prenatally but even before conception. Pesticides have been detected in fluid surrounding eggs of infertile women, who were residents of major Canadian cities and who had no history of unusual exposure to these substances. The common herbicide 2,4-D has been measured in semen. Landscaping pesticide have been measured in children and adults not known to be exposed to them.
Pesticides and other pollutants penetrate the placenta – the fetus’ protective shield. A Canadian-USA study detected pesticides in the amniotic fluid in 1/3 of human pregnancies.
Today children are born with a deposit of toxic pesticides and other foreign chemicals caused by dumping of the maternal lifelong storage of pesticides, (so called "body burden") into the body of the developing child.
Prenatal life and early childhood are especially vulnerable periods because cells are dividing rapidly and detoxifying enzymes have not yet developed. Chemical disruption of critical events during development can result in life-time impairments.
Pesticide exposure levels are higher in children in relation to their body weight than in adults. This is because children proportionally have greater surface area, breathe more air; consume more foods and drink more water; their detoxifying enzymes have not yet fully developed; their skin is thinner and more permeable; and their activities increase exposure to pesticides on the ground.
Resources
Pesticides Literature Review. April 23, 2004
By Dr. Margaret Sanbord, Dr. Donald Cole, Dr. Kathleen Kerr, Dr. Cathy Vakil, Dr. Luz Helena Sanin, Dr. Kate Bassil. available at: http://www.ocfp.on.ca/english/ocfp/communications/publications/default.asp?s=1#EnvironmentHealth
Pesticides and Human Health
This is an essential resource for physicians and other health providers for understanding the chronic health impacts of pesticides.
Written by Gina Solomon, M.D., M.P.H., Oladele Ogunseitan, Ph.D., M.P.H., and Jan Kirsch, M.D., M.P.H. -- and reviewed by nine health professionals -- this extensive review study, culled exclusively from peer-reviewed published medical data, delivers a sobering and overwhelming diagnosis that public health institutions, regulators and policymakers are largely unaware of pesticides' many deleterious effects.
http://www.psrla.org/pesthealth.htm
Health Effects of Pesticides
Acute effects of pesticide exposure range from irritation of the nose, eyes and throat, burning, itching and rashes, to difficulty breathing, nausea, vomiting, headaches and general malaise¹. In the longer term, scientific studies reveal links between pesticide exposure and higher risk of leukemia², non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma³, soft tissue sarcomas⁴, neuroblastoma⁵ and prostate cancer⁶. Children are particularly susceptible to harm from pesticides, even before birth and possibly before conception⁷. Pesticides may cause birth defects⁸, developmental delays, hyperactivity, behavioural disorders, motor dysfunction⁹,nervous system disruption¹⁰ and immunotoxicity¹¹. These translate into cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, Parkinson's disease, autism and attention deficits, lower IQ and hypothyroidism. Harm from pesticides is responsible for high social and monetary costs¹².
References:
1 Reigert,J.R. and J.R.Roberts. 1999. Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Fifth Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Briggs, S.A. 1992. Basic Guide to Pesticides: Their Characteristics and Hazards
2 Leiss, J., Savitz D. 1995. Home pesticide use and childhood cancer; a case control study. Am J Public Health 85:249-52 and Daniels O., Savitz D. Pesticides and childhood cancers. Environ Health Perspect 105(10).
3 Cox C. 1995. Dicamba. J Pesticide Reform 14(1). and Morrison, HI et al. 1992. Herbicides and cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst: 84 (24) 1866-8.
4 Dick J. et al. 1997. Pesticides and cancer. Cancer Causes and Control 8:420-43; and Smith, JG and Christophers, AJ. 1992. Phenoxy herbicides and chlorophenols: a case control study on soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Br J Cancer 65 (3): 442-48; and Ma X. et al. 2002 Critical windows of exposure to household pesticides and risk of childhood leukemia, Environ Health Perspect 110(9):955-60; and Hardell L, Eriksson M, Nordstrom M. 2002. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma May;43(5):1043-9
5 Daniels JL, et al. 2001 Residential pesticide exposure and neuroblastoma. Epidemiology. 12(1):20-26.
6 Van Der Gulden et al. 1996. Farmers at risk for prostate cancer. Br J Urology 77 (1): 6-14.
7 Zahm, SM and Ward, MH. 1998 Pesticides and Childhood Cancer. Environ Health Perspect 106(Suppl 3):893-908
8 Brender, JD, Suarez, L. 1990 Paternal occupation and encephaly. Am J Epidemiol. 11:517-21. and Sever LE et al. 1997. Reproductive and developmental effects of occupational pesticide exposure: the epidemiological evidence. Occupational Medicine; State of the Art Reviews. 12 (2): 303-25.
9 Guilette, EA et al. 1998. An anthropological approach to the evaluation of preschool children exposed to pesticides in Mexico. Environ Health Perspect. 106: 347-53.
10 Ecobichon D. 1994. Organophosphorus ester insecticides. In: Pesticides and Neurological Diseases (Ecobichon DJ, Joy RM, eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL; pp 71-250.
11 Voccia,I et al. 1999. Immunotoxicity and pesticides: a review. Toxicol Ind Hlth. 15: 119-32.
12 Muir, T and Zegarac, M. 2001 Societal Costs of Exposure to Toxic Substances: Economic and Health Costs of Four Case Studies That Are Candidates for Environmental Causation. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Supplement 6.