Email shows 'irresponsible attitude' by senior official to pesticide rules, say observers

An email from a high-level official in Canada's pesticide regulatory agency is raising eyebrows for what observers say it reveals about the agency’s pro-pesticide bias.

The official comments that the appointment of four researchers to a scientific advisory board might anger the Big Ag lobby.

The email, obtained by Canada's National Observer was sent in 2022 by Jason Flint, a director general in Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency to Tom Rosser, currently an assistant deputy minister at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC). The comments followed the first meeting of a scientific advisory committee created by then-minister of health Jean-Yves Duclos to help the regulator update its practices.

Flint's notes outline how the presence on the committee of four Canadian experts in public health, sustainable agriculture and toxicology may frustrate agricultural lobby groups. Notably, the document suggests that one of the researchers, University of Saskatchewan professor Christy Morrissey, is "seen as biased" by Croplife Canada, the main lobby group for synthetic pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers.

"There were a few comments and questions by the members that may generate concern among ag stakeholders," he wrote. "It is my expectation that ag stakeholders will be reaching out in the near future to voice their concern."

The email also recalls questions raised in the meeting by Bruce Lanphear, a professor of public health at Simon Fraser University, about the agency's assumption that low levels of exposure to pesticides is safe – an assumption that emerging research suggests is often untrue. The questions "will create further uneasiness," Flint wrote. The email also notes that his presence on the board "may be seen as activists taking control" due to Lanphear's past efforts calling for stronger pesticide rules in the U.S.

In a recent email exchange with Canada's National Observer about Flint's comments, Lanphear wrote that his "goal – as a scientist-advocate — is to protect Canadians from toxic pesticides. Who is Flint trying to protect?"

Laura Bowman, a lawyer at Ecojustice who specializes in pesticides, echoed Lanphear.

"It is disappointing to see [Flint] concerning himself with whether the chemical pesticide industry will like the advice of fully independent scientists," Bowman wrote in an email. "The scientists on the advisory committee are independent experts that were appointed by the Minister and it is not the PMRA’s job to second-guess them."

An AAFC spokesperson said in a statement that the federal government "is supportive of science and evidence-based decision making. One of its roles is to work with industry stakeholders, portfolio partners, other departments, and other levels of government to address issues that may impact competitiveness." Flint did not respond to questions sent to his Health Canada email.

At the time, Flint was "an employee of AAFC on temporary assignment. He was not working with Health Canada, the PMRA or the [Scientific Advisory Committee] at that time," the AAFC spokesperson said.

Federal lobbying records also show a "Jason Flint" registered as a lobbyist from 1996 to 2005 and working for BIOTECanada, a national biotechnology industry association.

Criticism has been growing toward the regulator's transparency and its effectiveness at protecting Canadians from harmful pesticides. The scientific advisory committee referenced in the email was convened to address some of these concerns.

Instead, the committee became its own source of controversy after Lanphear publicly resigned his position as co-chair in August 2023, citing the agency's minimal transparency and reluctance to change its "obsolete" approach to regulating pesticides. In his resignation letter, he wrote he worries that the committee provides a "false sense of security" that the regulator is protecting Canadians from pesticides.

In an interview with Canada's National Observer last summer, he said his resignation decision came after months of being refused access to key health and safety data that the committee needed to evaluate the effectiveness of Canada's pesticide rules due to "legal constraints," and being blocked from proactively helping the agency rework those rules while watching pesticide industry representatives shape regulations instead.

In his more recent correspondence, Lanphear added that his concern there are "no safe levels" of exposure to pesticides in the light of emerging research was likely "creating uneasiness" because it questions the "basic assumption" there are acceptable levels of exposure — an assumption regulators cite to downplay evidence to the contrary.

Canada's pesticide rules require the government to take a so-called "risk-based approach." That approach evaluates the likely risk the use of a pesticide, according to its label, poses to human health and the environment — not whether it could cause harm. But growing concerns that being exposed to small amounts of pesticides can cause health problems over time have pushed some researchers — including Lanphear — to criticize the approach.

Even some federal officials have called on the government to be more cautious in its pesticide regulations. Last month, Canada's National Observer reported that former AAFC deputy director David Cox repeatedly raised concerns within the ministry about Canadian farmers' widespread use of glyphosate, the herbicide key to Roundup.

Last year, Canada's National Observer found the agency had for years downplayed health and environmental concerns from its own scientists about another toxic pesticide, chlorpyrifos. The agency also downplayed the health risks of the pesticide dimethyl tetrachloroterephtalate (DCPA) in the wake of an emergency warning from the EPA about the chemical.

Viewed in this context, Flint's email is not surprising, wrote Morrissey, the University of Saskatchewan professor he named as being perceived as “biased,” in a recent email to Canada's National Observer.

"I don't think this is news that the agriculture industry and notably Croplife have long-standing issues with me and other scientists that conduct research that has shown that certain pesticide products are harmful to human and environmental health," she wrote.

"My reason for joining the scientific advisory committee is to improve [the regulator’s] transparency and accountability to ensure the best available science is used to inform pesticide registration decisions. It's what Canadians expect."