Canada is ‘among the worst’ for pesticide rules

Canada falls behind nearly 90 per cent of countries in the world when it comes to banning harmful pesticides, including the European Union and Brazil.

Pesticide bans are enacted by identifying dangerous “active” ingredients, the chemicals that make them effective, not specific pesticide brands. Pesticide products containing those ingredients can be barred from use if deemed dangerous by Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Canada’s reluctance to ban harmful pesticide chemicals puts us far behind most other countries in the world.

"We like to present ourselves to the world as being environmentally sensible and really on the ball but actually, we're more talkers than doers," said doctor and past founding president of the Canadians Physicians for the Environment Warren Bell.

The European Union alone has banned or not approved the use of 383 active ingredients, only 28 of which have been banned or prohibited in Canada. Even Brazil's pesticide rules are more stringent than Canada's: The country has banned 131 active pesticide ingredients, nearly five times more than Canada, according to an analysis by Université du Québec à Montréal professor Louise Vandelac.

Pesticides widely used in Canada that are banned in other countries include atrazine, a pesticide that affects the immune system and hormones, which has been banned in Europe since 2004. Canada also lagged years behind the EU in prohibiting harmful pesticides like neonicotinoids, which devastate insect biodiversity, and some pesticides toxic to humans like chlorpyrifos, which officials only banned after years of warnings from their own scientists.

"Bad systems generate bad results — and the system for pesticide regulation in Canada is a bad system," said Bell.

Canada is "among the worst" countries when it comes to effectively regulating pesticides, said Vandelac, adding she is "astounded" by the lenient regulatory approach highlighted by Canada's position far behind other countries. The government should consider more independent research in its evaluation, instead of the current model where officials rely on pesticide companies to provide health and safety data, she said.

Canadian officials take a permissive stance and allow pesticides unless there is proof the chemicals cause harm to the environment or human health, explained Ecojustice lawyer and pesticide specialist Laura Bowman.

In theory, Europe and Canada have similar approaches. Both jurisdictions assess the toxicity of pesticides against the risk that chemicals will leach into the environment or poison people. They diverge when it comes to the risk threshold where they decide a pesticide is too dangerous: Where Europe will err on the side of caution, Canada will not ban a pesticide unless there is "rock solid" proof of harm, she said.

Canada’s mediocre data on pesticide use makes it difficult to gauge where and when pesticides are used and what harm to the environment and human health they might be causing. The government only has rough data to assess how many pesticides are sold in the country each year and doesn't track where or how the chemicals are used. Without this information, it is difficult for regulators to properly assess pesticide risk.

Federal officials have come under fire this year for chronic transparency problems and a lack of independence from pesticide companies. In August, Simon Fraser University professor and public health expert Bruce Lanphear resigned from a prestigious position offering scientific advice to the PMRA citing difficulties accessing the agency's health and environment data and the influence of industry lobbyists.

Last spring, Canada's National Observer exposed roadblocks Canadians face in accessing the agency's health data about pesticides. It also revealed two recent instances where officials refused to seek or assess health data about dangerous pesticides that were eventually banned.

Canada's position tends to be: "We don't have very much information about exposure, so we can assume that not many people are exposed," Bowman said. "That's a function of institutional culture and it's driven by trade pressure" as well.

The U.S. sits with Canada near the bottom of the list when it comes to regulating pesticides, according to Vandelac. That is no coincidence: Canada typically follows the U.S.'s lead in its regulatory decisions around pesticides, Bowman said. Regulators are under "a lot of pressure" to be lenient with their pesticide rules to help the agriculture, forestry and pesticide industries remain competitive.

A spokesperson for Health Canada said in a statement that Canada "remains a world leader in pesticide regulation and its pesticide review process is stringent and fully rooted in science." The organization works closely with regulators in other countries, they said, and is currently in a "transformation process" that will "scan scientific information on a continuous basis … to respond to risks in a timely manner."

Bell remains unconvinced. Canadian officials have a culture of claiming the country is "doing a great job" of keeping Canadians safe, especially compared to the U.S., where social ills like mass shootings are common. But while "we don't shoot people," Canada's pesticides and rules mean Canadians don't "have the (safety) information needed to make good judgments about what they're doing with their lies," he said.