The recent neonics nod has left farmers pleasantly surprised and environmental groups deeply disappointed.
The agricultural industry waited with some trepidation this spring for a ruling by Health Canada on use of neonicotinoid insecticides, which are used to control various production-limiting crop pests. Three years ago the Pest Management Regulatory Agency made a preliminary decision about their use on the farm. Future access to neonics was in doubt for farmers who depend on them to protect their crops.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The PMRA studied the products and their persistence in the environment and a ban, similar to one adopted in the European Union starting in 2013, was thought to be pending.
If that were the case, farmers in Canada would have to accept crop losses in favour of assumed protection of aquatic insects and the animals, fish, birds and insects that rely on them.
When the March ruling arrived, the industry was braced for bad news. But instead, the agency said a complete ban wasn’t required. And, for western Canadian applications to canola seed, the primary use of the insecticide on the Prairies, no change was needed.
Producers and their industry partners had asked for more research to provide a better understanding of the national situation. Some testing of water bodies near southern Ontario fruit and vegetable operations and row crops had shown higher than acceptable levels of the insecticide. Computer modelling indicated significant harm was occurring due to neonics’ persistence in the environment.
Bee producers in Ontario also wanted a ban because they felt neonics were a major cause of colony collapse in that province.
The agricultural industry knew the loss of neonics would be devastating. Its major players insisted that research be employed to back up the modelling before any substantial changes were made. In the meantime environmental groups called for a nationwide ban.
Farm groups suggested that different crops and different regions should be studied separately to avoid the reduced number of options now experienced by European farmers.
Rapeseed production in northern Europe and the United Kingdom has been curtailed in many areas because flea beetles have rendered the crop uneconomical to grow. From a high of nearly two million acres the U.K. grows just over one million today despite increasing regional demands for vegetable oils to feed the growing biodiesel market. Loss of neonics to control flea beetles has forced rapeseed out of many farmers’ rotations.
The PMRA worked with farmer groups to sample water around farmland where neonics were used. Those results were responsible, at least in part, for acceptance of continued neonic use.
It must be a bad year for environmental organizations in Canada. For the second time this spring, good science has prevailed in Canadian agriculture.
First it was the new rules that allow gene editing to be treated like other plant breeding tools. Now neonic regulations have shown at the domestic and international levels that Canada is sticking to its guns about sound science as the guiding principle behind environmental regulations. The threats from neonics were more apparent than real.
It is always better to rely on science, especially when the science of economics might be involved.
Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen and Mike Raine collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
