James Pascual
Farmers Forum
Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, has been a vital tool in modern agriculture for several decades. However, calls for its ban have intensified in recent years, fueled by environmental concerns and disputed claims about its potential health risks. Despite these arguments, banning glyphosate in Canada would be a shortsighted and detrimental decision.
That said, environmental activists’ ongoing crusade to ban glyphosate has reached a critical stage as the case is before the Federal Court in Toronto. The Canadian organization, Safe Food Matters, is leading the charge and is supported by Environmental Defence, Friends of the Earth, and the David Suzuki Foundation. Their objective is to shift pesticide oversight from the government-controlled Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to an external panel more aligned with their ideology-driven science.
They are facing more than a slight hiccup along the way. The overwhelming scientific consensus supports the safety of glyphosate when used as directed. Regulatory agencies around the world, including Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), have extensively reviewed the scientific evidence and repeatedly affirmed its safety for use in agricultural practices. These assessments are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed studies that span decades of research.
Here are three reasons why glyphosate is beneficial to farming.
- Agricultural efficiency and sustainability
Glyphosate plays a crucial role in modern farming practices by effectively controlling weeds. Its use allows farmers to adopt conservation tillage methods, reducing the need for excessive plowing and tilling. This practice helps prevent soil erosion, improves water retention, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
- Economic implications
Glyphosate is widely used by farmers across Canada, contributing to increased crop yields and lower production costs. Banning the herbicide would force farmers to turn to costlier alternatives, leading to higher production expenses and potentially impacting food prices.
- No alternative solutions
It is crucial to recognize that no perfect alternative currently exists. Many of the proposed alternatives are less effective, more expensive, and may require higher application rates, leading to potential environmental risks and increased chemical usage. Instead of outright bans, efforts should focus on promoting sustainable farming practices, encouraging research and development of safer alternatives, and ensuring proper education and training on glyphosate use.
Now for the case against glyphosate. In an affidavit filed on behalf of the activists, Jason MacLean, an environmental and policy law specialist from the University of New Brunswick, launched two main attacks on the PMRA. MacLean accused the regulatory agency of regulatory capture by the pesticide industry and claimed that it does not rely on real science. However, these allegations lack substantial evidence and are considered to be malicious and unproven by industry experts.
The PMRA has repeatedly defended its conclusions that glyphosate is safe, including a comprehensive review in 2019 that dismissed activist attempts to overturn a 2017 approval decision. The agency’s review considered the entire body of relevant data and concluded that the concerns raised by the activists lacked scientific support.
The activists’ case has faced previous setbacks. In 2019, their request for an independent review panel was rejected by Justice Sandra Simpson, who found no scientifically well-founded doubt to justify such a panel. The Federal Court of Appeal later sent the issue back to the PMRA for reconsideration, but the agency once again concluded that activists’ claims lacked scientific foundation. In a 33-page letter, the PMRA noted that the activists’ science claim “does not raise scientifically founded doubt as to the validity of the evaluations … regarding the health risk assessment for glyphosate.”
Undeterred, Safe Foods and its associates have now resorted to raising allegations of regulatory capture that were not previously presented.
But experts argue that the body of research contradicting the activist claims against glyphosate’s health and environmental risks is extensive and robust. While there is ongoing debate about the herbicide’s potential risks, scientists advocate for continued research to accurately identify and address any legitimate concerns. Prominent studies, such as a 2020 paper published in the Environmental Pollution journal, argue against a ban on glyphosate and emphasize the need for monitoring its toxicity and developing alternatives where necessary.
The activists primarily highlight the claim that glyphosate causes cancer in humans, relying heavily on a 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). However, subsequent scrutiny of the report has revealed flaws in the assessment of cancer risks. Many studies indicate that direct exposure to glyphosate may present some risks, particularly in industrial settings, but the evidence is inconclusive regarding indirect exposure through food consumption. Nonetheless, activists are hanging on to that 2015 study.
