August 2006

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri, MPP                                                                                                        

Chair/Président 

c/o Trevor Day

Clerk/Greffier

Room 1405, Whitney Block/Bureau 1405, édifice Whitney

Queen's Park, Toronto, ON  M7A 1A2

Re: Comments in Response to Bill 43 Clean Water Act, 2006

Dear Dr. Qaadri,

On behalf of Pesticide Free Ontario, I am writing to request that, in order to protect current and future sources of drinking water, affirmative, preventative, province-wide legislation be included in the proposed Clean Water Act to stop the use and sale of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, combination pesticide/fertilizer etc.) on urban landscapes.

The National Water Research Institute identifies pesticides, including hormone disruptors, as a threat to our water system. Although the urban use of pesticides is only one of many sources of non-source point pollution in our water, this particular use is both unnecessary and frivolous. We expect the Government of Ontario to aspire to the highest standards of water protection and follow the lead of the province of Quebec that has already passed province-wide legislation to stop the sale and use of these products.

Identifying the problem

Pesticides Found in Urban Streams

Studies conducted by John Struger, Federal Ministry of the Environment, continue to find pesticides in Ontario’s surface waters. The chronic low-level contamination - particularly in smaller urban creeks - supports the hypothesis that they are urban rather than agricultural by source. J. Struger’s conclusion is that the “urban use of pesticides likely contributes to pesticide loadings in urban watersheds.”[1]

This is not a phenomenon peculiar to Ontario as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) – the “gold standard” - shows 300 studies of pesticide occurrence in groundwater and soils. “Pesticides from every major chemical class have been detected in groundwater.”[2]

“Non-point source pollution--or polluted runoff-- is the leading cause of water quality problems in Mississippi.”[3] Pesticides are included in the list of polluted runoff that also includes soil particles, bacteria, fertilizer, pet waste and oil.

Although pesticides found in our water systems do not always exceed currently “acceptable” limits, a growing urban population requires stronger, enforceable regulations to protect current and future drinking water.

Missing or Inappropriate Measuring Tools

Testing is only conducted for active ingredients not metabolites (break-down products) of some current use pesticides. There are no standards or attempts made to test for the synergistic effect of the products used.

In the Great Lakes region, “at present, programs are in place to analyze about half of the pesticides used.”[4] The presence, movement and bioaccumulation of chlorinated and organophosphate pesticides are studied fairly extensively but both chemical classes have been deregistered for use on lawns. There are no standards or monitoring of current use pesticides such as glyphosate (Roundup), a popularly-used urban herbicide, or imidacloprid (Merit) – a product used on lawns for preventative grub control. “Products containing imidacloprid may be very toxic to aquatic invertebrates.”[5]

It should also be noted that the continued presence of organophosphates in surface water would suggest that banned products are still being used up, rather than disposed of appropriately as hazardous waste.

Human Health Impact

There are many routes of exposure from pesticides – from air, food, soil and water. A comprehensive review of pesticide research was conducted by the Ontario College of Family Physicians. “… the review shows consistent links to serious illnesses such as cancer, reproductive problems and neurological diseases, among others.”[6] The study also shows that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides.

Joseph E. Cummins, Retired Associate Professor (Genetics), Dept. of Plant Sciences from the University of Western Ontario states, “that 2,4-D and especially its transformation product dichlorophenol, at levels exceeding 20 micrograms per litre imparts an undesirable organoleptic quality to the water and a number of water supplies and wells have been shut down because of objectionable odours or tastes (WHO Environ. Health Criteria, 29, 2,4-D, 1984). A recent report (Jarvis et. Al. Br. Med. J., 290, 1800-1802, 1985) indicates that waters contaminated with phenol and mixed chlorophenols at about 6 micrograms per litre had significantly elevated incidence of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headache, rash and malaise. Thus, the current evidence from a very large population of people exposed to low levels of phenol and chlorophenols cause significant health problems not just organoleptic problems. The microbial breakdown products of 2,4-D and the products of chlorination of water containing 2,4-D are likely to produce health problems in exposed humans at levels of chemical well below those levels regarded harmless to humans by government agencies.”[7]

We find no reassurance from the Canadian Network of Toxicology Centre’s conclusion that “it did not believe that any increased intake of pesticide residues associated with increased intake of fruits and vegetables poses any increased risk of cancer.”[8]. In the same paper, they report that the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s review of the potential carcinogenicity of 56 different pesticides revealed that, “only 1 had sufficient human data, 2 had limited human data, and the remainder had either insufficient or no human data available. In addition, 26 of the chemicals had inadequate animal carcinogenicity data available, 29 had either limited or sufficient evidence of animal carcinogenicity, and only 1, methyl parathion, had evidence suggesting a lack of carcinogenicity. It’s its overall evaluation, the Agency concluded that it was not possible to classify the potential carcinogenic risk to humans of 35 of these pesticides whereas another 16 were considered to be either probably or possibly carcinogenic to humans, largely on the basis of animal studies; only 1, arsenic and arsenic compounds, had sufficient evidence to conclude that these substances are carcinogenic to humans.”[9] We find it appalling that these products have been deemed “safe” in the absence of appropriate and thorough studies!

Concomitant Pollution from Synthetic Fertilizers

Although there is no measurement of the use of combination pesticide and fertilizer products, their use is widespread by homeowners and the effects are seen in our urban water. “Nitrogen pollution will undoubtedly become and even larger global problem if agricultural and urban development continues in developed and developing countries without the incorporation of safeguards to reduce the amount of nitrogen that enters aquatic environments.”[10]

Monitoring Should Not be Limited to Water

Pesticides have been found in the rain in southern Alberta at levels, in some cases, 10 to 50 times higher than in other locations such as Ontario and Manitoba.[11] They enter the air through application drift, evaporation from sprayed plant and soil surfaces and via erosion dust. The current levels in Alberta are attributed in part to the more arid and windier climate of Alberta but are nonetheless a source of pesticide exposure in Ontario.

Prohibitive Cost for Testing

Our research has shown that testing for the presence of pesticides in water is extremely expensive ($1,000 per sample to test for 36 pesticides). If the use and sale of pesticides for landscaping purposes were no longer allowed the costly monitoring would be unnecessary.

No Effective Provincial Plan to Reduce Non-Agricultural Use of Pesticides

To achieve the highest degree of effectiveness in reducing landscape pesticide use, a combination of “stick and carrot” is necessary.[12] Currently, there is no provincial “stick” to reduce pesticide use. In response to increasing public pressure for municipalities to pass restrictive pesticide bylaws, the landscape industry is attempting to establish an Integrated Pest Management or IPM standard. There is no evidence that such a plan will reduce pesticide use or have a measurable effect on our water quality. The Pre-Pilot study by the Ministry of the Environment found that it was difficult to get homeowners actively engaged to make IPM effective.[13]

A survey of municipal landscape pest control practices conducted by OMAF in 2002 revealed, “Concern … about pesticide contamination of surface and groundwater sources. In general, some municipalities would like to resolve the pesticide issue in a uniform manner, rather than acting individually.”[14] Despite the ruling of the Supreme Court (Spraytech/Chemlawn vs Hudson, Quebec) that affirmed municipal authority to pass bylaws restricting pesticide use, some municipalities are struggling with issues of enforceability since these products are still widely available in stores.

Contamination of Well Water

Although well water is more specifically a rural issue, communities such as Waterloo Region that rely almost exclusively on groundwater to supply urban drinking water are at risk. Unless municipal bylaws are passed, there is currently no legal requirement for homeowners to not use pesticides in Regional wellhead areas. The Well Aware program clearly states that “Wells must be located a safe distance from potential sources of contamination such as fuel storage tanks, stockpiles of chemicals like pesticides or road salt, septic systems, gardens, manure piles, livestock, and roads and driveways.”[15]

The Children’s Health Project refers to Health Canada’s Pesticide Exposure Assessment Study. “Results are still forthcoming from much of this study. However, results from well-water testing showed that 21% of wells tested had detectable (although non –violative) levels of a pesticide, usually atrazine.”[16]

Volume of Use

Canada is one of two countries in the world that does not measure the amount of pesticides used. The only time any measurement on non-agricultural use of pesticides has been conducted was in 1993 by OMAFRA. A whopping 1,302,086 kg of active ingredient only applied by MOEE licensed applicators only was applied in Ontario, 62.5% of that being on residential lawns. [17] This figure does not include homeowner applied pesticide products. The volume of herbicide 2,4-D alone used on lawns was equal to the amount used on corn, the most heavily sprayed crop.

Added Stress and Cost to Water Treatment Facilities

The Canadian Water and Wastewater Association provided testimony to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the report Pesticides: Making the Right Choice for the Protection of Health and the Environment that, “pesticide contamination of drinking water is a real problem...” [18]

Potential Lawsuits

We do not believe that it is the responsibility of our over-burdened judicial system to protect our drinking water. In an article by Washington lawyer, George Mannina Jr, he states, “an Illinois municipal water district which owns and operates a plant providing water to municipal residents and businesses has sued the manufacturers of certain herbicides demanding that the manufacturers clean up all residue from a substance which has found its way into the source of the drinking water and also pay for the costs of installing and operating additional water treatment systems to guarantee the removal of any residue from this herbicide. What makes this case significant is that the plaintiff does not allege the herbicide is being used unlawfully or contrary to the manufacturer's instructions. Nor are there any allegations of a violation of the safe drinking water standards established by EPA or the State of Illinois. Rather, the plaintiff, citing various studies allegedly demonstrating adverse human health impacts of herbicide residue at concentrations less than the existing safe drinking water standards, asserts that the federal and state standards are not protective of human health. The plaintiff then asserts that the herbicide manufacturers are guilty under state law of trespass, nuisance, negligence, and releasing "contaminants" into the environment solely because residue from the herbicide has come to be located in water owned and used by the plaintiff.”[19]

Persistence of Triclosan from Anti-Bacterial Soaps

A 2006 study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health[20] finds that after people flush antibacterial products down the drain, about 75 percent of triclocarban and triclosan compounds survive treatment at sewage plants, one study found. Most of that ends up in waterways and sludge spread on agricultural fields, and may end up on produce. Dr. Rolf Halden, Ph.D., lead author of the study, remarked, "To protect our health, we
mass-produce and use a toxic chemical which the Food and Drug Administration has determined has no scientifically proven benefit. Second, when we try to do the right thing by recycling nutrients contained in biosolids, we end up spreading a known reproductive
toxicant on the soil where we grow our food. The study shows just how important it is to consider the full life cycle of the chemicals we manufacture for use in our daily life." (Source: Chicago Sun Times)

Although our goal is remove pesticides from the urban landscape, we are equally concerned about the presence of these products, pharmaceuticals, the harmful ingredients and their breakdown products in many personal care and cleaning products and agricultural pesticides contaminating our water systems. We defer to others more knowledgeable in these areas for their recommendations but would strongly support any measures to prevent their entry into our drinking water.

Our Recommendation

Stop the sale and use of toxic pesticides used on urban lawns and gardens on a province-wide basis, effective immediately. We refer you to Quebec’s New Pest Management Code[21] as a template for this action.

Sir Crispin Tickell said that, “Change usually takes place for three main reasons. First, through leadership from above by institutions or individuals; secondly through public pressure from below, and thirdly - however regrettably - through some useful catastrophes to jerk us out of our inertia into more sensible courses."

We are asking you to remember the “useful catastrophe” of Walkerton and show leadership to make the changes necessary to protect our precious water.

Sincerely,

Susan Koswan

Pesticide Free Ontario

References