Critics want ‘mature’ discussion about pesticide

Canada must start having 'mature' conversations about reducing glyphosate and other pesticide use after revelations that the country's agriculture department downplayed warnings about the controversial chemical, advocates say.

Last week, Canada's National Observer revealed David Cox, a former deputy director at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, had last year raised "red flags" about the federal government's failure to assess health risks posed by the controversial herbicide glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup, before leaving the ministry. The trove of emails were obtained through an access to information request.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are by far Canada's most widely-used pesticide, with over 50 million kilograms of the chemical sold in Canada in 2020. Farmers use it to kill weeds, and it is sprayed across forest cut blocks in most provinces except Quebec to kill deciduous trees. A recent Health Canada study found that the average Canadian has some amount of glyphosate in their urine.

Researchers have found the chemical, which is both a pesticide and herbicide, can cause cancer, is toxic to the nervous system and harms animals' gut bacteria. Glyphosate is considered to be potentially carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and can harm male fertility.

“Our regulatory systems are supposed to take into account new evidence and adjust regulatory decisions, if needed, as new evidence comes up,” said Lisa Gue, national policy manager for the David Suzuki Foundation. The trove of documents seem to imply a “very concerning institutional culture that is more interested with defending the status quo than taking an impartial public interest view of emerging science,” she said.

Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) re-approved the use of glyphosate in 2017, despite pressure from health and environmental groups to restrict or ban the chemical. In the years since, hundreds of scientific studies have emerged that suggest the chemical poses a more serious health risk at lower doses than previously thought.

In a statement, the PMRA said that "to the best of our knowledge, PMRA officials have not been approached by Mr. Cox to discuss his concerns."

The agency's 2017 re-evaluation of glyphosate was based on "a review of the available data, which included published scientific literature, industry supplied studies and information from other regulatory authorities… Since completion of the re-evaluation in 2017, Health Canada has continued to monitor the scientific literature as well as information from international scientific organizations and/or regulatory authorities," it noted.

Critics suggest this could mean Canada's existing risk mitigation rules aren't strong enough to protect public health and should be reviewed in light of new science. Faced with reticence from the PMRA to initiate this type of review, a coalition of environmental groups sued the agency in 2022 for failing to review new research about the chemical's harmful impact before approving a glyphosate-based pesticide.

The same year, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in a separate case the PMRA failed to properly justify its 2017 decision to re-approve glyphosate.

Gue noted the pesticide's health impacts aren't the only concern. In 2022, Canada joined a global biodiversity pledge calling for a drastic reduction in the risk to biodiversity posed by pesticides — including glyphosate. Part of meeting that target requires farmers to use fewer pesticides, mitigating the threat they pose to ecosystems. That shift has the additional benefit of reducing costs for farmers, she said.

"AAFC should be taking this new science [on glyphosate] seriously and moving to be at the forefront of research and practical support for alternatives," she said.

Her concerns echoed those raised by Cox in the trove of emails. Roughly 90 per cent of Canadian fields are contaminated with glyphosate, he noted. If the E.U. or other countries decide to implement more stringent rules for the pesticide on food imports, thousands of farmers with contaminated fields could be unable to export their produce — and the federal government would need to bail them out, he warned.

Cassie Barker, the toxics program manager for Environmental Defence, agreed. Canada's current sustainable farming strategy "does not read as serious" in terms of transitioning farmers away from the pesticide, she said. Cox's rare display of internal pushback is vital, she said, because Canada needs to wean itself off the chemical, reducing the risk it poses to human health and the environment.

"I'm glad to hear it," she said.

For her part, Gue said Canada needs to have "some courage" and undertake the process of reducing pesticide risk — likely by reducing their use. Farmers need "proper support" to achieve this, she said — but so far, politicians have been reluctant to have a "mature" conversation about the problem.

"There can be great reticence on the part of all politicians to suggest any type of conflict with agricultural interests," she said.