In a decision released Wednesday morning, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency removed the registration to spray dicamba on dicamba tolerant soybeans after the crop starts growing.

Bayer sells corn and soybean seed under the Roundup Ready XTend brand, which is tolerant to both dicamba and glyphosate, allowing Canadian farmers to spray the crop and control weeds during the growing season.

Bayer assessing PMRA proposal

In an email to the Western Producer, Bayer Crop Science Canada said it is still assessing the PMRA’s proposed special review decision and the potential impact on the agriculture industry.

“Bayer stands behind the safety of our products, including dicamba, which is an important herbicide for Canadian farmers,” Bayer said.

“Dicamba complements glyphosate as a critical crop protection tool by controlling certain glyphosate resistant weeds and providing consistent broadleaf residual weed control. Dicamba is a significant tool for growers and was applied to 9.3 million acres of Canadian crop land in 2024 (Source: Ag Data).”

The PMRA has been conducting a special review on the risks of spray drift and volatilization of dicamba. Using Health Canada language, it was looking at the “potential risk to non-target terrestrial plants from the use of commercial dicamba products.”

Impacts on soy, corn

In its proposed special review decision, posted online Sept. 17, Health Canada said its decision will have the following impacts on soybean and corn growers in Canada:

•  Removal of over-the-top applications to dicamba tolerant (DT) soybeans after the crop starts growing (post-emergence). Currently, dicamba products can be applied once before planting or emergence and up to two more times post-emergence.
• Cancellation of its use for DT soybean seed production

New label requirements include:

• Avoid application when temperatures exceed 25 C because warmer temperatures can cause dicamba to volatilize and move off-site.
• Lower the maximum plant height for application on DT field corn crop from 76 centimetres to 50 cm. This will help reduce the chance of pesticide drift to nearby plants and align with the current application height limit for non-DT field corn.
• Update the size of spray buffer zones for crop and non-crop areas, ranging from one to 115 metres for field sprayers and from 45 to 800 metres for aerial application.

Risk of spray drift and volatilization

Health Canada evaluated the risk of spray drift and dicamba volatilization, where the herbicide evaporates from the soil or plant tissue following application.

Agency scientists concluded that “dicamba has the potential to volatilize and move off-site throughout the entire growing season.”

Further, Health Canada studied incidents where dicamba applied to DT crops caused damage to nearby agricultural fields or plants.

From 2015-25, there were 101 reported cases of damage to non-target plants, “89 per cent of which involved just five commercial products with registered uses in DT crops,” Health Canada said.

Some pesticide application experts believe that the risk of volatilization from dicamba is too high and cannot be properly managed. Others say that newer dicamba products are less volatile.

Under the proposed Health Canada decision, soybean growers could still apply dicamba to DT soybeans before seeding or before the crop emerges from the ground.

However, there are no permitted uses in dicamba tolerant soybean seed production.

All uses of dicamba on crops that are not-tolerant of the herbicide, such as cereal crops and lowbush blueberries, are still permitted if the proposed label amendments are implemented.

Health Canada will accept written comments on this proposed decision until Nov. 1.

The post Health Canada proposes new restrictions for dicamba on soybeans appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In a letter shared with media and addressed to Greg Orencsak, deputy minister of Health Canada (the agency that oversees the PMRA), CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle called the initiatives “rushed through” and said the agency had “little regard for the negative impact they will have on the competitiveness of the agriculture sector.”

Agriculture has often pushed back against PMRA changes that would impact crop management tools that industry argues it needs to remain competitive on a global stage, as well as the agency’s approvals process, which industry often says is too slow.

The letter, dated Jan. 29, called for an immediate pause to a number of initiatives; including changes to fees, oversight policies and various other regulatory changes.

“An immediate pause is necessary to assess the detailed impact of these measures on the agriculture industry at a time when it is already facing extreme uncertainty,” Petelle wrote.

In an email to Glacier FarmMedia, Erin O’Hara, CropLife Canada’s vice-president of communications and member services, noted the urgency of the request and likened the call to capital gains tax changes, which have also raised considerable consternation in the agriculture sector.

“While trying to mitigate the risks from this threat, political and business leaders alike agree that Canada must put a greater emphasis on the things within its control to boost productivity and competitiveness at home,” she wrote.

Changes at the PMRA

The federal agency’s review was announced in August 2021, and the federal government said the goal was to improve the agency around four pillars:

• improved transparency,
• increased use of real-world data and independent advice,
• strengthened human health and environmental protection through modernized pesticide business processes and
• a targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act.

The government said they aimed to make it easier for the public to get involved in decision making and increase transparency in their operations.

One step was the creation of the Science Advisory Committee on Pest Control Products in Canada in early 2022, which CropLife Canada objected to.

Speaking to the Manitoba Co-operator at the time, CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle worried that politics could override science, as he claimed it had already in the European Union.

“Their [EU] system is completely driven by politics and the science is routinely ignored,” Petelle said. “Again, I am not saying we’re there, but this is a very troubling development.”

The post CropLife Canada calls for halt to Pest Management Regulatory Agency changes, cites tariffs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In a letter shared with media and addressed to Greg Orencsak, deputy minister of Health Canada (the agency that oversees the PMRA), CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle called the initiatives “rushed through” and said the agency had “little regard for the negative impact they will have on the competitiveness of the agriculture sector.”

The letter, dated Jan. 29, called for an immediate pause to a number of initiatives; including changes to fees, oversight policies and various other regulatory changes.

“An immediate pause is necessary to assess the detailed impact of these measures on the agriculture industry at a time when it is already facing extreme uncertainty,” Petelle wrote.

In an email to Glacier FarmMedia, Erin O’Hara, CropLife Canada’s vice-president of communications and member services, noted the urgency of the request and likened the call to capital gains tax changes, which have also raised considerable consternation in the agriculture sector.

“While trying to mitigate the risks from this threat, political and business leaders alike agree that Canada must put a greater emphasis on the things within its control to boost productivity and competitiveness at home,” she wrote.

Changes at the PMRA

The federal agency’s review was announced in August 2021, and the federal government said the goal was to improve the agency around four pillars:

• improved transparency,

• increased use of real-world data and independent advice,

• strengthened human health and environmental protection through modernized pesticide business processes and

• a targeted review of the Pest Control Products Act.

The government said they aimed to make it easier for the public to get involved in decision making and increase transparency in their operations.

One step was the creation of the Science Advisory Committee on Pest Control Products in Canada in early 2022, to which CropLife Canada objected.

Speaking to the Manitoba Co-operator at the time, CropLife Canada president and CEO Pierre Petelle worried that politics could override science, as he claimed it had already in the European Union.

“Their [EU] system is completely driven by politics and the science is routinely ignored,” Petelle said. “Again, I am not saying we’re there, but this is a very troubling development.”

The post CropLife Canada calls for halt to Pest Management Regulatory Agency changes, cites tariffs appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The company had said last November it wasn’t yet sure those products would be available this year under an approaching deadline following a 2021 re-evaluation of lambda-cy by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

The PMRA’s re-evaluation decision cancelled the product’s uses on all feed crops, condiment-type mustard, bulb vegetables, lettuce and some oilseeds effective 24 months from its decision date, thus setting a deadline of April 29, 2023.

The list of affected oilseed crops does not include canola/rapeseed, flax or oilseed mustard — but the ruling would prohibit those crops’ use as livestock feed.

Adama said Wednesday its decision to relabel the products “comes after several months of consulting with retailers, farmers and industry organizations on the implications” of the PMRA re-evaluation.

“After a great deal of discussion and consideration, we have confidence in our retail partners to provide good advice to growers and we trust growers themselves to use the product responsibly and within permitted guidelines,” Adama Canada general manager Cornie Thiessen said in a release.

“The bottom line for growers is to read the labeling guidelines carefully. Talk to your full-service input retailer and to your crop buyers so you can make an informed decision about if and when to apply the product.”

Adama had said in November the cancellation of lambda-cy’s use on crops destined for feed was especially raising red flags for farmers, who “have questioned whether it is feasible to use the product at all considering how difficult it is to trace where crops will be used after they leave the farm.”

READ MORE:

• How to manage without lambda-cyhalothrin in 2023
• Farmers discuss how lambda-cyhalothrin regulation changes will affect them in 2023
• Insecticide restriction pushes growers to older chemistries

Lambda-cy is a Group 3 synthetic pyrethroid contact insecticide used to control a broad range of pests at their small larvae nymph and adult stages.

Other products affected by the PMRA’s ruling include Syngenta’s insecticides Matador, Voliam Xpress, Endigo, Warrior and Demand CS, Intervet Canada’s Saber pour-on and ear tag products and Sharda Cropchem’s Labamba insecticide.

Syngenta, like Adama, launched a product recall to “amend existing labels” ahead of the April 29, 2023 deadline.

However, Syngenta also said in November it has decided not to sell lambda-cy products at all in Western Canada in 2023, though it will continue to sell Matador in “horticultural markets” in Eastern Canada.

Syngenta said via email that decision was meant “to avoid any confusion and to support 2023 business planning with our customers.”

It also said it had filed a submission to PMRA seeking reinstatement of as many livestock feed crop uses as possible and “will continue to support this submission until completed.”

Provincial agriculture ministers from Saskatchewan and Alberta last month also called for PMRA to reconsider its re-evaluation decision, saying it “leaves farmers with one fewer tool to address potentially destructive pests.”

Grasshoppers, in particular, are likely to be a significant concern again this year following “continued drought” in parts of those provinces, ministers David Marit and Nate Horner said in a statement.

The PMRA decision “could also mean the inability for canola producers to sell their products as livestock feed, which could impact availability for cattle and lamb producers,” the ministers said.

Horner and Marit said they have written to the federal health and agriculture ministers urging them to encourage the PMRA to reconsider.

“It is possible for the PMRA to enact an emergency reinstatement of the product’s use to ensure our farmers can use it for the coming growing season and give it time to make a more informed decision, but we would need that immediately,” the ministers said.

“With extreme flea beetle pressure, hotspots for grasshoppers and cutworms across the Prairies and forecasted outbreaks, the lambda-cyhalothrin decision could severely impact our yields, our livelihoods, feedstocks and food prices,” Alberta Canola chair Roger Chevraux and SaskCanola chair Keith Fournier said in the provinces’ joint release on Feb. 24.

“Lambda-cyhalothrin has a significant market share, and it will strain farmers to source alternative products.”

Noting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not imposed similar restrictions on lambda-cy use, the canola grower commission chairs said PMRA “needs to base its decisions on sound science and be aligned with our largest trading partner.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Adama’s lambda-cy products to be available this year appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The decision is a victory for environmental activists who have fought to stop the use of the chemical that is applied to crops ranging from corn and soybeans to Brussels sprouts and broccoli.

“EPA is taking an overdue step to protect public health,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan. “Ending the use of chlorpyrifos on food will help to ensure children, farmworkers, and all people are protected from the potentially dangerous consequences of this pesticide.”

Chlorpyrifos has been used as a pesticide since 1965 on farms and in non-agricultural areas such as golf courses, according to the EPA.

However, applications have declined due to state restrictions, reduced production and the development of alternative products, the agency said.

The EPA banned the use of chlorpyrifos in 2015 under President Barack Obama after the agency decided it could not be certain whether exposure to the chemical in food and water would be harmful. But President Donald Trump’s EPA reversed the decision and said there was not enough evidence to link exposure to chlorpyrifos to children’s health issues.

“EPA is finally following its own findings on this poisonous pesticide,” said Allison Johnson, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Last year, California prohibited farmers from using chlorpyrifos products and manufacturers from selling them due to health concerns.

Corteva, the world’s largest manufacturer of the chemical, in 2020 said it would stop producing chlorpyrifos because of declining sales.

Cancelled in Canada

Registered in Canada since 1969, chlorpyrifos is used to control certain cutworms in corn and potatoes, midge in wheat, and grasshoppers in cereal crops and canola.

Sold in Canada at the farm level under brand names including Corteva’s Lorsban, Adama Canada’s Pyrinex, Cheminova’s Nufos and Ipco’s Citadel, the chemical’s product labels also make note of its “acute mammalian toxicity.”

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) launched a environmental re-evaluation of chlorpyrifos in 2018, and found “risks of concern” to “beneficial arthropods, birds, mammals and all aquatic biota.”

PMRA’s re-evaluation decision in December 2020 cancelled nearly all outdoor uses of the chemical, except for use in greenhouse ornamentals; control of Japanese beetle larvae in outdoor ornamentals; elm bark beetle and mountain pine beetle control; mosquito control; and non-residential “structural” uses.

Companies holding chlorpyrifos registrations in Canada for cancelled uses can sell the product until December this year, after which retailers may sell it until December next year, and end-users may apply the product until December 2023.

Two agricultural uses were to get an extension on those deadlines: alfalfa looper control in canola and darksided and redbacked cutworm control in garlic.

Those two specific uses “were found to lack suitable alternatives,” PMRA said in its decision, and those cancellations were to be “delayed for an additional two years to allow growers to find pest management solutions.”

Health Canada also said it planned to separately update its assessment for human health concerns related to chlorpyrifos, as “new studies related to human health assessment have been generated.”

In May this year, however, PMRA said the human health assessment was “no longer needed,” after it issued a data call-in notice to registration holders for the chemical and registrants “failed to satisfy the data requirements.”

Thus, the agency said, all pest control products containing chlorpyrifos are now included in the same cancellation schedule — including for alfalfa looper control in canola and darksided and redbacked cutworm control in garlic.

The last date of use for all current chlorpyrifos products and uses in Canada is now set at Dec. 10, 2023.

— Reporting for Reuters by Tom Polansek in Chicago. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff. Updated to include PMRA’s May decision.

The post U.S. to ban use of chlorpyrifos on food crops appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“Our biggest concern with this regulatory proposal is that it would take immediate effect… and could make some current tank mixes that are being used illegal, for all intents and purposes,” said Shannon Sereda, government relations and policy manager for Alberta Wheat and Alberta Barley.

“It could potentially make unavailable to farmers certain mixes that they’re using on a regular basis.”

The two commissions, along with the Grain Growers of Canada, have sounded an alarm with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) about a proposed regulation that states “if a label contains no guidance related to tank mixing, then tank mixes will not be permitted.”

That’s not the way the current guidelines have worked since they were brought into effect in 2009, said Sereda. Under those guidelines, farmers could use unlabelled tank mixes of pest control products within the registered use pattern for each tank-mix partner.

If that were to change under the new proposal, she said, producers would have less flexible pest control options and have to make more passes in a field.

“Tank mixes are widely used in cereals,” said Sereda. “It provides some flexibility for farmers to be able to use products in a mix.”

And going through a regulatory process to amend the labels would not only be costly, but lengthy.

“Our concern, of course, is that the PMRA is already very backlogged and under-resourced when it comes to the existing and cyclical re-evaluation process that’s in place,” she said.

“We worry about how long it would take for any labelling amendment to actually take effect and what kind of resources it would draw away from the PMRA.”

And the concern is not because farmers don’t see the value the agency provides as a regulator, she added.

“(Farmers) understand the need to adhere to a science-based approach because our reputation is staked on the safety of our grains.”

But the proposed change appears to be administrative rather than based on any specific safety concerns.

“Farmers have been using these products for over a decade now under the existing guidelines, and there hasn’t been any risk or safety concerns identified,” said Sereda.

“Their role as a regulator is around risk to the environment and to human health, and in this case, it doesn’t appear that there has been any detection of risk for the usage of these tank mixes. It’s simply a novel interpretation of legislation that hasn’t changed in many years.

“We worry that they maybe don’t understand the implications of this fully.”

That view was echoed by Grain Growers of Canada president Jeff Nielsen in his letter to the agency.

“Until now, the PMRA’s interpretation of the Pest Control Products Act has allowed the use of tank mixes that are not specifically excluded on approved labels, as long as the directions on each individual label are otherwise followed,” the Olds-area producer wrote. “This has stood the test of time and should be reaffirmed.”

The PMRA should reconsider the proposed changes and adhere to the guidelines that have been in place since 2009, said Sereda.

“That’s consistent with other jurisdictions — the U.S. allows flexible labelling on registered tank-mix partners as well. So we’d like to see the guidelines stay in place.”

Farmers who are concerned about the proposed changes should contact their MLAs and MPs, she said.

“We have raised the issue with our provincial minister as well, and we’ll continue to monitor and investigate what the potential implications could be,” she said. “But at this point, we don’t really have any timelines on when the decision is going to be made.”

The post Agency mixed up about tank-mix labelling, say grain groups appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

BASF Canada Agricultural Solutions on Monday announced approval from Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) for broflanilide, a GABA-gated chloride channel allosteric modulator.

In other words, Group 30 chemicals stick to their target insects’ central nervous systems and kill them with convulsions and hyperactivity.

BASF plans to launch broflanilide in Canada for the 2021 growing season in two products: Teraxxa F4, a combination insecticide/fungicide for cereals, and Cimegra, an insecticide for potatoes and corn.

Previously registered products for use on wireworm have “intoxicated” the pest, “leaving a potential for their recovery,” BASF said, whereas broflanilide “targets all wireworm larval stages, which helps suppress and control potential seasonal recovery of wireworm populations.”

“Growers have struggled with wireworms in cereals for years, with available products deterring, rather than eliminating wireworms,” Chris Hewitt, seed treatment and inoculant marketing lead at BASF Canada, said in a release.

The company bills Teraxxa F4 as “a powerful new tool for cereal growers, especially those in Alberta and Saskatchewan, who have battled significant crop damage and loss due to wireworms in recent years.”

The product is to be sold as a premix of the new insecticide with four fungicide actives — pyraclostrobin, triticonazole, metalaxyl and fluxapyroxad — adding “broad spectrum protection against seed- and soil-borne diseases.”

Cimegra, meanwhile, is expected to offer “in-season management and reduction” of chewing insects, including wireworm in corn and potatoes as well as corn rootworm in corn.

The product offers “a unique mode of action that delivers lasting efficacy with no known resistance, making it an excellent new tool for the management of wireworms,” Allison Friesen, technical market specialist for insecticides and seed treatment at BASF Canada, said in the same release. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Wireworms a target for first Group 30 insecticide in Canada appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Corteva, spun off last year after a merger of Dow Chemical and Dupont, said declining sales drove its decision to end production and officials continue to believe chlorpyrifos is safe.

The company’s move reflects a shift toward newer products in the $14.5 billion global agrichemicals industry amid increased regulatory restrictions on chlorpyrifos (all figures US$). Environmental groups have pushed regulators to ban uses of the 55-year-old pesticide over concerns it harms people and wildlife.

“We’ve made the difficult decision to stop our manufacturing of chlorpyrifos,” Susanne Wasson, president of Corteva’s crop protection business, told Reuters.

In the U.S., Corteva’s biggest market for chlorpyrifos, demand is less than 20 per cent of what it was during its peak in the 1990s, the company said. Industry sales were $350 million in 2005, down 45 per cent from 1990, according to Corteva.

By volume, estimated use dropped to under five million pounds in 2016 from about 13 million in 1994, U.S. Geological Survey data show.

Re-evaluation

In Canada, chlorpyrifos has been registered since 1969 and is used to control certain cutworms in corn and potatoes, midge in wheat, and grasshoppers in cereal crops and canola.

Sold in Canada at the farm level under brand names including Corteva’s Lorsban, Adama Canada’s Pyrinex, Cheminova’s Nufos and Ipco’s Citadel, the chemical’s product labels also make note of its “acute mammalian toxicity.”

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) launched a re-evaluation of chlorpyrifos in 2018. Last summer the agency published a proposal calling for cancellation of almost all uses of chlorpyrifos except in mosquito control and non-residential indoor and outdoor “structural” use.

PMRA’s document acknowledged the product’s “value to agriculture and other sectors” but also proposes to cancel “almost all agricultural uses” except in outdoor and greenhouse ornamentals. The agency’s final re-evaluation decision is still pending.

Sales

Lorsban is also up against competition from various generic versions as well as other insect controls such as genetically engineered crops, treated seeds and other chemistries.

Demand for chlorpyrifos is expected to drop further amid regulatory restrictions, including an EU decision to ban uses of the pesticide, Corteva said.

On Thursday, manufacturers must stop sales in California under an agreement with the state, which says chlorpyrifos is harmful. California farmers cannot possess or use chlorpyrifos products after Dec. 31.

“Children and farm workers in California will no longer be exposed to this neurotoxic pesticide that can permanently impair the brain and nervous systems,” said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, an activist organization.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reversed a ban on chlorpyrifos use on farms under President Donald Trump, saying there was not enough evidence to link it to children’s health problems.

Corteva said it will continue to support chlorpyrifos in an EPA review.

“We believe in the product,” Wasson said.

Corteva previously agreed to sell chlorpyrifos assets in India and has assessed its portfolio to ensure it is the best owner of businesses. Sales in its crop protection unit dropped three per cent to $6.26 billion in fiscal year 2019.

— Tom Polansek reports on agriculture and ag commodities for Reuters from Chicago. Includes files from Dave Bedard of Glacier FarmMedia.

The post Corteva to stop making Lorsban appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The federal health department said Friday it has reviewed eight notices of objection received after it released its final re-evaluation decision on glyphosate in April 2017.

The objections were filed with Health Canada in June and July that year by individuals and on behalf of groups including Safe Food Matters, Right On Canada, Environmental Defense Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation, among others.

Health Canada, in a statement Friday, said its scientists “assessed the validity of any studies” raised in the objections, “to determine whether any of the issues raised would influence the results of the assessment and the associated regulatory decision.”

The department also noted “concerns raised publicly about the validity of some of the science around glyphosate in what is being referred to as the Monsanto Papers.”

However, Health Canada said, “we have concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data.”

Furthermore, the department said, “the objections raised did not create doubt or concern regarding the scientific basis for the 2017 re-evaluation decision for glyphosate.”

That re-evaluation, launched back in late 2009 as per routine federal practice for registered pesticides in Canada, ruled in 2017 that products containing glyphosate are “not a concern to human health and the environment” when used following updated label directions.

Crop chemical companies in 2017 were given until late April this year to revise their glyphosate product labels as per Health Canada’s ruling.

Health Canada’s “overall finding” from its re-examination of glyphosate found the product is “not genotoxic and is unlikely to pose a human cancer risk.”

Dietary exposure, via food or drinking water, associated with the use of glyphosate is “not expected to pose a risk of concern to human health,” the department said at the time.

Occupational and residential risks linked with use of glyphosate are also “not of concern, provided that updated label instructions are followed.”

Each notice of objection is to receive a separate response from the department, which will be posted publicly Monday in the public registry of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA).

Health Canada said Friday its scientists “left no stone unturned in conducting this review,” having access to “all relevant data and information from federal and provincial governments, international regulatory agencies, published scientific reports and multiple pesticide manufacturers. This includes the reviews referred to in the Monsanto Papers.”

It also had access to “numerous individual studies and raw scientific data during its assessment of glyphosate, including additional cancer and genotoxicity studies.”

To help ensure an “unbiased assessment” of the information, Health Canada said, it chose a group of 20 of its own scientists, none of whom were involved in the 2017 re-evaluation, to evaluate the eight notices of objection.

‘Actual risk’

Glyphosate, which Monsanto (now part of Bayer) first brought to market under the Roundup brand in 1974, has run up against new scrutiny from a human health angle in the past few years.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization, announced in a 2015 report that it would move glyphosate into its Group 2A — “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

More recently, a California jury last summer found in favour of a school groundskeeper’s claim that glyphosate-based herbicides had caused his cancer and Monsanto failed to warn consumers about the risks. The jury awarded him US$289 million, later reduced to US$78 million.

Health Canada’s re-evaluation, while not related to the IARC report, had described the IARC reclassification of glyphosate as “a hazard classification,” not a health risk assessment.

“This means that the level of human exposure, which determines the actual risk, was not taken into account by IARC.”

‘Industry-manipulated’

The Western Canadian Wheat Growers, in a separate release, said it was “pleased and proud” with Health Canada’s announcement Friday.

“The defense of many modern agriculture practices, like the use of crop protection products, has been exhausting these past few years and its refreshing to see science win this battle,” WCWG director Cherilyn Nagel said in the release.

“The strong language used in the Health Canada statement is clear and it has certainly renewed my faith in our regulatory system.”

Several of the groups who filed objections said jointly Friday they were “disappointed” by Health Canada’s decision, which they said was reached “despite concerning evidence that industry-manipulated science features in the assessment.”

“We maintain that the scientific process at Health Canada appears to have been compromised by manipulated data and flawed analyses,” Annie Berube, director of government relations for Equiterre, said Friday in the groups’ release.

“Today’s decision continues to entrench glyphosate-based agriculture in Canada at the expense of our health and the environment. Meanwhile, other countries like France are implementing plans to phase out glyphosate and encouraging healthier, more sustainable food production.”

Right On Canada, in a separate release last month, noted several groups have called on federal Health Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor to hold a “new, independent review” of glyphosate. The groups alleged Health Canada’s 2017 review was “scientifically defective and ethically tainted.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Health Canada dismisses glyphosate objections appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency on Tuesday issued proposed decisions on clothianidin and thiamethoxam that would extend the products’ existing conditional registrations as seed treatments and foliar- and soil-applied pesticides in field crops, to the end of 2019.

Clothianidin, under its current conditional registration, is marketed in Canada as insecticides and seed treatments under brand names including Poncho, Prosper, Nipsit, Titan and Sepresto. Thiamethoxam’s conditional registration covers products such as Cruiser and Helix.

The agency’s proposed decision stems from the re-evaluations of neonic pesticides it announced in 2012, with an eye on the chemicals’ “potential risk to pollinators in light of international updates to the pollinator risk assessment framework.”

PMRA on Tuesday also announced proposed re-evaluation decisions for clothianidin and thiamethoxam based on its pollinator risk assessments.

For clothianidin, the proposed pollinator re-evaluation calls for the phase-out of its foliar application to orchard trees and strawberries and to municipal, industrial and residential turf sites. It also proposes to reduce pre-bloom applications for cucurbit vegetables (cucumbers, squash, et cetera) from two down to one.

The re-evaluation also calls for added “protective label instructions” for cereal crop uses of clothianidin.

For thiamethoxam, the proposed pollinator re-evaluation calls for the phase-out of foliar and soil applications to ornamental crops that would result in pollinator exposure; of soil application to berry crops, cucurbit crops and fruiting vegetables; and of foliar application to orchard trees.

Foliar application of thiamethoxam to legumes, outdoor fruiting vegetables and berry crops would no longer be permitted before or during bloom, PMRA said.

PMRA’s proposals are now up for a 90-day public comment period, running to March 19, 2018. The agency’s final decisions on the products are due to be published in late 2018.

Recent separate assessments of a third neonic, imidacloprid, found it to be turning up in waterways at levels harmful to aquatic insects, leading PMRA to propose a three- to five-year phase-out of all agricultural uses and a “majority of other outdoor uses” of the product.

The proposal for imidacloprid went through a 120-day public comment period ending in March this year, to be followed by a final PMRA decision on the use of imidacloprid in Canada late next year. PMRA said it also expects to publish a proposed decision on imidacloprid pollinator safety in March 2018.

Clothianidin and thiamethoxam have also been found to occur “frequently and at comparable levels to imidacloprid” in certain waterbodies in areas of intensive agriculture, PMRA said Tuesday.

Consultation is expected in July on proposed measures for clothianidin and thiamethoxam to protect aquatic life. Final decisions on such measures are expected to follow in January 2020.

“Decade of overuse”

The Ontario Beekeepers’ Association on Thursday ripped PMRA’s proposal to continue registration for clothianidin and thiamethoxam “against overwhelming scientific evidence showing acute and chronic effects on bees.”

PMRA’s decision, OBA said, also flies in the face of “the experience of Ontario beekeepers whose bees continue to suffer from a decade of overuse of neonicotinoids on soy, corn and winter wheat.”

Noting PMRA’s plans to call for new labelling on field crop seed treatments, related to reducing dust at planting, OBA said dust from planters represents “less than five per cent of the pesticide applied to seed.”

By focusing its attention to crop dust, OBA said, PMRA “perpetuates the myth that neonicotinoids could be safe for bees if applied properly at planting time.”

Ontario in 2015 moved to limit access to neonic-treated seed only to farmers “who can demonstrate they need protection from the pests targeted” by the products in question, OBA noted.

“Ontario beekeepers are hopeful that Ontario’s Class 12 legislation will allow farmers access to crop protection in a way that also protects our vital insect pollinators,” OBA president Jim Coneybeare said in the association’s release Thursday.

“The only group that could possibly benefit from PMRA’s decision are the manufacturers of these pesticides.” — AGCanada.com Network

The post Two neonics set for three-year extensions on registration appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.