Professor Christy Morrisey published several papers showing high levels of neonicotinoids in Canadian wetlands, including imidacloprid. She also provided unpublished data to Health Canada.
A ban was proposed in 2016 by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada, partly based on her data. It found “the continued high volume use of imidacloprid in agricultural areas is not sustainable”. (PRVD 2016-20)
But then the PMRA turned around and gave the unpublished data to Bayer, without the consent or knowledge of Morrissey. Bayer commissioned a report that called Morrissey’s studies and data “irrelevant” (because GPS coordinates for testing had not been provided).
Bayer also redid her testing, but under different conditions, and provided new water monitoring data that inflated the sample size to lower the concentrations.
Then, in 2021, the PMRA reversed its proposed ban, citing in part the Bayer provided data (Re-evaluation Decision RVD 2021-05 May 19, 2021).
Breach of Principles
This behaviour by PMRA constitutes a breach of scientific and regulatory principles. Scientific data should not be shared without consent. A registrant is allowed to make “representations” regarding additional data (the Act s. 19), but not take possession of the data or reperform the studies.
The PMRA has gone too far, and these breaches indicate it is working to promote continued pesticide use. As reported by Marc Fawcett-Atkinson, PMRA colluded with Bayer to silence Morrissey.
And it’s not only Bayer: Syngenta provided reports that influenced PMRA decisions as well, as was recently reported concerning the neurotoxin abamectin.
Three Years Since Objections filed
Professor Morrissey filed a notice of objection on July 18, 2021, within the 60 day window allowed following the approval decision (the Act s.32). She made 14 objections, including:
There is evidence the PMRA exerted prejudice in the selection of inappropriate water monitoring data largely produced by industry and disregarded or removed independent peer reviewed water monitoring data.
The notice of objection can be viewed here: Notice of Objection.
The law requires the Minister (PMRA) to provide written reasons “without delay” if the Minister is going to reject the objections. Or, if the objections raise a “scientifically founded doubt about the validity of the evaluation” and if “the advice of expert scientists would assist in addressing the subject matter of the objection”, the Minister is to establish a review panel (Review Panel Regulations s.3)
The Minister has not yet responded to Morrisey’s objections. It has been over 3 years.
Health Canada not inclined to establish a panel
The Minister does not appear to want to establish a review panel. Health Canada hasn’t called for a panel in accordance with the Act in 22 years.
This failure has been in the courts since 2019, in the “merry go round” case of Safe Food Matters v. Canada (Attorney General), which has gone all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal and back down to PMRA and the Federal Court. In that case, PMRA refused two times to establish a panel to review the objections of SFM to the 2017 registration of glyphosate, and SFM is still fighting to make its case.
Transformation Agenda didn’t transform PMRA
The timing of Morrisey’s filing was roughly the same time as the government’s project to “Transform” PMRA. In summer, 2021, PMRA proposed to increase the allowable maximum levels of glyphosate in food (MRLs), unbeknownst to the Ministers at the time, and the public was enraged. The government “paused” the increases, and set out on its “Transformation Agenda”.
Three years later, $42 million later, nothing has been transformed. PMRA received almost 20,000 comments from the public on the glyphosate increases, dismissed 94% of them, and intends to carry on as usual, stating:
“the current MRL setting process protects human health and does not require changes” (June 26 2024 report to Science Advisory Committee).
A working group that was called for and populated mostly by industry members, and chaired by an official who has an “irresponsible attitude” to pesticide rules, drove the MRL agenda. No changes to the current regime are in the works.
Takeaways:
- PMRA still “protects the pest industry more than it protects Canadians” (quote from Bruce Lanphear on his resignation from the Science Advisory Committee)
- It breaches scientific and regulatory norms;
- It empowers industry to undermine good science;
- It will likely never call for establishment of a review panel;
- Government attempts to transform the agency have not worked.
Conclusion – Disband PMRA
On pesticides, the primary mandate of the Minister is to prevent unacceptable risks to Canadians and the environment from the use of pesticides (s.4 the Act). The Morrissey file shows the PMRA is doing the reverse, even after attempts at reform.
Perhaps it’s time to disband the PMRA.
