WESTERN PRODUCER — Health Canada said last week it will resume evaluations of increased maximum residue levels for pesticides, but that doesn’t include glyphosate.
Agriculture minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said the government received more than 20,000 submissions on glyphosate during consultations on increasing MRLs and hasn’t made its way through all of them.
The prospect of more information is another reason to hold off, she said.
“There are significant studies being done right now in different countries so we want to have access to these additional data,” she said in an interview. “So for this reason, we do not expect to take a decision on changing the MRL on glyphosate before 2024.”
But CropLife Canada said that decision is more political than scientific.
President Pierre Petelle said the hold placed on MRL increases in August 2021 appears to have been based solely on public concern about glyphosate in Quebec.
“The whole purpose of freezing MRL increases period…was politically motivated before the last election and they never gave a scientific rationale for why they would just pause any increases on any MRLs for such a long period of time,” he said after last week’s announcement.
He said it’s unclear which MRL increases will be approved. Ministers said more complex products would need more scrutiny.
Petelle said that left industry confused.
“They didn’t provide any clarity as to what was actually unfrozen or not. What we read into that is if it’s politically controversial they’re just not going to publish them even though the science is crystal clear, the safety assessments have been done,” he said. “We translated complex into controversial, is the actual term they meant to say.”
A backgrounder issued with the June 21 news release and announcement said an MRL will only be increased if scientists at Health Canada determine it is safe.
“Lifting the pause is important to allow people in Canada to maintain a reliable access to affordable and nutritious food, provide predictability for farmers to access the required tools to fight against new pests, and facilitate trade, which is central to support food security,” it said.
The government announced the decision as part of what it called a stronger pesticide review process and a Pest Management Regulatory Agency transformation agenda.
Health Canada, Agriculture Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada are all involved in what they’re calling a sustainable approach.
The government has committed to eliminate pesticide use for cosmetic reasons on federal lands as part of its commitment to Target 7 of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Canada agreed to the framework in December 2022 at the COP 15 in Montreal.
Bibeau said Target 7 aims to decrease pesticide risk to biodiversity by at least half but that does not mean pesticide use will be reduced by half.
“If we reduce significantly the use of pesticides for non-essential, cosmetic use, that will be a good step in the right direction to reduce the overall risk,” she said. “Having said all of this, I want to reassure farmers we have no intention of putting a ban on pesticides for agriculture.”
The minister said she didn’t want this to be painted the same way as reducing emissions from fertilizer use.
“We acknowledge that farmers need pesticides. It’s one of the tools in their toolbox,” she said. “We recognize they are professionals. They are trained to use pesticides the right way. Pesticides cost money so they don’t use more than needed, and they have an integrated management approach.”
Bibeau said alternatives and new technologies and practices will come along to add to the toolbox.
It’s also a matter of food security, she added.
“We have to use all our tools in terms of pesticides and fertilizer and many others the best way possible, the most sustainable way possible, to increase our yields and feed a growing global population and to ensure farmers’ livelihood as well. They have to be productive and competitive,” she said.
Petelle said there isn’t a molecule that’s been more studied than glyphosate and MRL assessments are straightforward and done by regulators around the world. Other countries have continued to approve MRL increases for many products while Canada was on hold and he said Canada can’t talk about sticking to science if it isn’t.
The Canada Grains Council also said the government has to make sure its actions are science-based.
The council is concerned the gradual resumption of MRL increases is based on public opinion, not science.
“By persisting with the pause there is an increasing risk of Canada’s trading partners perceiving it as an intrusion of ideology into policymaking, contradicting our message to other countries,” said president Erin Gowriluk.
And she said the ban on cosmetic use on federal land has the potential to undermine the government’s own recognition that pesticide use in Canada is approved after rigorous testing and assessment.
Bibeau said the government bases decisions on scientific evidence but public concern does play a role.
The government spent $50 million in the last couple years to give PMRA more resources to access independent data and undertake research.
She said PMRA should be more transparent about its process and results and will have more information on its website in future.
Last week’s announcement included the release of a Notice of Intent from PMRA after a review of the Pest Control Products Act. The act will not be opened but the government is consulting on regulations online until Aug. 19.
It is seeking feedback on facilitating access to confidential test data, increasing transparency for MRLs on imported food and authorizing the health minister to require available information on cumulative environmental effects and strengthening consideration for species at risk during assessments.
