When the Canadian Cancer Society launched a conference on the “connection between pesticides and cancer” in mid-November, it released a poll that reflected widespread public unease.
Sixty percent of respondents said they were concerned about pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables.
Seventy-four percent said they would support stronger federal regulations to reduce the use of pesticides in food production.
“Now more than ever, Canadians are concerned about the food they eat and how it affects their health including cancer risk,” the society’s senior director for cancer control policy and information, Heather Logan, said in a statement issued at the conference.
Read Also
British Columbia farmers to receive increased AgriStability supports
B.C. farmers to receive bump in AgriStability compensations due to weather concerns, international trade instability
The cancer society, long opposed to cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides on city lawns, is turning its sights on agricultural use.
Ron Bonnett, vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a conference speaker, was worried that the fix was in.
“I was certainly concerned that this could be part of a move toward making life more difficult for farmers and I’m sure there were people in the audience who expected the evidence would contain a number of smoking guns,” he said. “But expert speaker after expert speaker said there is no hard proven line between pesticide and herbicide use and cancer.”
Lorne Hepworth, president of CropLife Canada representing agricultural chemical manufacturers, reached the same conclusion.
“What we heard is that our farmers are doing a fantastic job of responsible use of the product and our regulatory and testing system is a world leader,” he said.
However, the cancer society was not ready to declare pesticide use safe.
“At this point, we are just analyzing the presentations and we hope to be able to make our position public early next year,” said society communications director Alexa Giorgi.
Its official position is that scientific evidence does suggest a link between pesticide exposure and cancer.
“Studies show that pesticide exposure is associated with cancer risk for adults and children,” it says on its website. “Although the evidence is not yet conclusive, it is growing and suggestive.”
But so far, it has said potential dangers from agricultural use are outweighed by the benefits of the fruits and vegetables that are produced.
Still, pesticide drift, residue and runoff are a human health hazard.
Last week, the Globe and Mail newspaper weighed in with a charge that the cancer society is being inconsistent by condemning one kind of use but not another.
If use of chemicals for aesthetic reasons is bad because bystanders can be harmed, then agricultural use that is far more intensive must also be dangerous, it said.
This leads Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter to worry that public opinion could start to shift.
“A lot of the criticism is based on emotion and misinformation and I think if it gains momentum, it is worrisome,” Easter said.
“But I also think there is a role for increased use of organic farming and doing research on increasing productivity so that as many chemicals do not need to be used. But if the cancer society came out against it, it would be a powerful voice.”
New Democratic Party agriculture critic Alex Atamanenko was much less defensive about criticizing agricultural chemical use. His party promotes organic agriculture and he said there are clear links between chemical exposure and cancer.
“Our society is permeated with chemicals and cancer rates are rising and that is not coincidence,” he said. “I think we have to look at whether there is a resolution to this that does not unduly hurt our farmers.”
Hepworth warned that politicians should not pander to public opinion on chemicals but base their laws on scientific results.
