Pesticide residues an export issue

By 
Reading Time: 2 minutes

Published: February 18, 1999

DAUPHIN, Man. – Bruce Dalgarno uses a stark metaphor to describe a threat to Canada’s export of agricultural products.

Dalgarno likens Canadian agriculture to the Titanic on a crash course with a sinister iceberg. The iceberg is the threat of lost export markets due to growing concern about food safety, including pesticide residues.

“I think we’re already into the ice field,” said Dalgarno, vice-chair of the Canola Council of Canada. “We’ve already had a few little bumps and bangs.”

Dalgarno was speaking at the Challenges of Production seminar held two weeks ago at Dauphin, Man. He talked about the risk to Canada’s canola industry and what is being done to keep that product flowing into the United States.

Read Also

A locally bought frozen ham from a pig born, raised, slaughtered and its meat sold within Manitoba.

Trade war may create Canadian economic opportunities

Canada’s current tariff woes could open chances for long-term economic growth and a stronger Canadian economy, consultant says — It’s happened before.

There’s a need to standardize pesticide use in Canada and the U.S., Dalgarno said. However, that will mean a gradual shift in the types of pesticides now available to canola growers.

“I think we can miss the iceberg and make it safely to port, but it’s going to take some careful steering to make it through this.”

Dalgarno pointed to the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act as a flashpoint in the issue of standardization. The act, signed by president Bill Clinton in 1996, set out new safety standards for pesticide residues in food, whether imported or produced domestically. It was passed unanimously by Congress.

The FQPA looks at human tolerance to pesticides and what products can heighten exposure to each pesticide. Chemicals that have not been evaluated according to that measurement could be deemed unsafe under the FQPA.

Chemical companies might opt to drop some of their pesticides rather than go through the re-approval process. Other products won’t stand up to the scrutiny of countries concerned about pesticide residues.

“Lindane is going to take a hit worldwide by the year 2002,” Dalgarno said, noting that 18 countries don’t allow its use while another 10 countries have restricted its use.

Lindane is on the list of persistent organic pollutants. In other words, it’s viewed as a chemical that will gradually accumulate in the environment.

Granular forms of Furadan are being phased out of the market, although producers have been given time to use existing stock. Birds that eat the granules could die.

New pesticides are coming, but it’s not clear how their cost will compare to products they’re replacing.

On another front, Dalgarno said efforts are under way to encourage integrated pest management in prairie canola crops, bringing together several approaches including genetics, pesticides and biological agents. It could help curb costs to farmers while reducing health and environmental risks.

It would also put canola growers on better footing as the industry tries to chart a course through an ice field of potential trade restrictions.

“It would show the EPA that we don’t spray every acre with every pesticide at the full rate.

“Due to economics, we don’t go out and spray pesticides just for the sake of spraying.”

About the author

Ian Bell

Brandon bureau

explore

Stories from our other publications