A new report urges the federal government to a take a different approach to regulating the next generation of pest control products.
On Nov. 8, the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) published a report called Regulating Gene Edited Organisms for Pest Control.
The CCA said these new technologies, broadly described as gene editing, may require a new model for regulation, where more groups are involved.
“There is more to regulatory oversight than approval,” the report said. “The governance of these technologies will require the federal government to work closely with (provinces), regional and municipal actors and Indigenous rights holders.”
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
That doesn’t mean a rural municipality in Saskatchewan will make its own regulations, but it should be part of the process.
“You cannot expect a municipality to have the capacity to make their own exclusive (decision),” said Robert Slater, chair of the scientific panel that issued the report and a public policy and regulatory expert from Carleton University.
“But the municipality or the local government, or Indigenous government, can make an important contribution by explaining what their values are. What they would accept. What they would accept as a solution. What the risks are, that they may not accept…. It’s a tiered approach.”
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency asked the CCA to assemble a panel and write a report on regulating gene editing for pest control.
In general terms, gene editing refers to biotechnologies that alter the genes of pests to kill them or control their population.
One gene-editing technology is called a gene drive.
That’s where scientists edit the genes of a target pest, such as a mosquito, so the genetic change is passed on to the next generation.
With mosquitoes, scientists have altered genes so the offspring are sterile. If that genetic change is transmitted through multiple generations and becomes widespread, it could eliminate the species.
As a Canadian example, it might be possible to edit the genes of the flea beetle, a major nuisance for canola growers, so that the next generation cannot reproduce.
Given the power of the technology, gene drives are highly controversial.
Slater said Canada lags behind other countries in research of gene editing and pests.
“The majority of (research) is in the (United States) and Europe. They’re spending great sums of money and mobilizing (scientists) to try to answer some of the fundamental questions and issues,” he said.
“There’s very little work actually underway in Canada.”
He added Canada must invest in such research to understand the benefits and the risks.
“The science is fundamentally new… and we have very limited experience of its application,” he said.
“There isn’t a huge amount of evidence to give you the sort of assurances… to make the decisions that regulators like to make.”
Traditionally, regulators such as Health Canada and the PMRA have used the best available science to evaluate the safety of a pest control product. That process involves consultation, but the final decision is grounded in the scientific evidence.
The CCA report said that approach may not work with gene-editing technologies because it may be difficult to build public trust.
More groups, regions and voices should be involved in the regulatory process, possibly through advisory committees.
“There is an opportunity for Canada to be a leader in advancing inclusive and sustained public engagement practices,” the report said, “which can be replicated by jurisdictions around the world.”
