PMRA changes are long overdue - WP editorial

PERHAPS the biggest failure of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency – and by most accounts there have been many – is its leaders’ refusal to recognize there is a problem at all.

Two weeks ago, the latest report filed by federal environment commissioner Johanne Gélinas cited a long list of PMRA shortcomings.

The complaints are all too familiar.

This report is the fourth in the past 15 years condemning the PMRA for its inability to fix longstanding problems.

In addition to official reviews, the agency has been attacked by the House of Commons agriculture committee, pesticide manufacturers, the Horticultural Council of Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and Farmers of North America (a bulk buying organization.)

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

The diversity of the complainants in itself should set off alarm bells in the PMRA.

The criticisms cite the agency’s missed targets designed to speed up new product evaluation, its tardiness in re-evaluating products approved before 1994 and delays in meeting its promise to retest old pesticides on the market.

It is also accused of issuing temporary permits too readily for products that have not been tested in Canada.

Products granted temporary permits have been approved in other jurisdictions, usually the United States, so they pose little threat to human health or the environment.

The response from PMRA leaders has been utter denial.

Last December, PMRA executive director Claire Franklin told the House agriculture committee to “just fasten your seat belts because in the next year, you’re going to see some really significant progress (on greater access to pesticides).”

Almost a year after those comments, the Grain Growers of Canada last week repeated the criticisms that Canadian farmers lack access to the same chemicals as their American counterparts because the PMRA is too slow or makes it too costly for chemical companies.

This shows a need for progress in standardizing Canadian chemical regulations and testing with the U.S. Chemical companies are slow to apply for registration in Canada for small crop chemicals because the market size isn’t worth the cost.

It would be advantageous for Canada to work on an agreement with the U.S. in which each country agrees to co-ordinate chemical testing to reduce duplication and accept one another’s results.

And it’s time to make the agency more accountable to the minister in charge of Agriculture Canada. The agriculture committee has suggested that a minor-use chemical adviser and a pesticide adviser be appointed and set up to act independently of the agency, reporting to ministers or Parliament.