When the federal government unveils new pesticide regulation legislation next autumn, chemical manufacturers expect it will straddle a line between the farmer need for products and lobbyists’ demands that public safety dictate fewer chemicals.
“I think the government has indicated it will strike a reasonable balance,” Crop Protection Institute of Canada president Lorne Hepworth said in a June 21 interview.
He based his opinion on a response health minister Allan Rock presented to a largely anti-pesticide report prepared last year by the House of Commons environment committee.
Read Also
Increasing farmland prices blamed on investors
a major tax and financial services firm says investors are driving up the value of farmland, preventing young farmers from entering the business. Robert Andjelic said that is bullshit.
The committee report recommended the gradual phasing out of lawn chemical use in urban areas and introduction of the “precautionary principle” into the registration approval process for new chemicals.
Canadian Alliance critics and the pesticide industry accused the committee and Toronto Liberal chair Charles Caccia of being biased against the use of pesticides.
Many of the Liberal committee members have indicated they prefer a move to organic agriculture.
Rock, in his response to the committee, agreed with its concern about public health implications of pesticides, but he also said scientific assessment must be the basis of any new law and agricultural interests must be considered.
“Prominent in the government’s thinking is the importance of a strong scientific foundation for pest management regulation and the recognition that scientific knowledge continues to evolve rapidly,” he said.
Rock promised more flexibility and transparency in pesticide regulations.
All of this has been encouraging to Hepworth, who represents an industry worried that anti-chemical lobbyists will push governments to more stringent regulations.
“I thought it was a very balanced and scientifically sound approach but it also recognized the political realities of this file,” he said. “It gives us some comfort.”
It has been more than 30 years since the pest control legislation was first approved. The government has been under environmentalist and opposition pressure to update it and to recognize that pesticide use causes health problems.
On June 13, the last day of parliamentary sittings before the summer break, Conservative MP John Herron said it was time the country had a pesticide law that requires testing the toxicity of pesticides against the health of vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly.
Health minister Rock replied that changes are in the works and they will reflect some of the committee’s concerns.
Hepworth saw the government response as positive because it insisted on more transparency and suggested reduced chemical use is one part of the solution but also reduced risk is the key.
It could mean that faster approval of less toxic new chemicals is part of the government plan.
“We take comfort from the fact that while yes, the focus will be on risk reduction, that does not necessarily relate to use reduction, though in some cases it may,” said the former Saskatchewan agriculture minister. “There is an emphasis on risk reduction but there also is a recognition of the other side of these products, the beneficial side.”
