Safe Food Matters is standing strong in its challenge over dismissed objections and failed risk assessment
By Mary Lou McDonald, President, Safe Food Matters
Glyphosate was re-registered by Health Canada in 2017, and Canadians were granted 60 days to file any objections. The Pest Control Products Act (the Act) permitted this pursuant to its mandate to “facilitate public participation in the decision-making on pesticides”. Safe Food Matters Inc. filed a notice of objection (NoO) on June 27, 2017.
The Notice of Objection
There were nine objections in the notice. They followed three themes.
- Pre-harvest spraying of glyphosate on crops raises a health risk that wasn’t examined in the scientific assessment. Consumption of these crops (like chickpeas) has increased significantly since the assessment.
- The ten-fold safety factor to protect children had not been applied.
- The labels for how to spray weren’t good enough to protect Canadians from the risks.
When we submitted the objections, we thought Health Canada’s pesticide regulator, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), would actually consider the objections from the perspective of protecting Canadians.
Were we naive? Perhaps, but after all the Act says their primary mandate is to “prevent unacceptable risks to individuals and the environment from the use of pest control products” (s. 4 of the Act). It is supposed to ensure that “no harm to human health, future generations or the environment will result from exposure to or use of the product,” taking into account the label directions (s. 1(2) of the Act).
This case has taught us PMRA is protecting its pesticide approval, not Canadians.
First Response Up to Court of Appeal
In 2019, the PMRA responded to our NoO — two years after we submitted it — and PMRA basically just provided arguments to dismiss the objections. They didn’t appear to seriously consider them.
We were very disappointed, and a little surprised. (Again the naivety). We believe in the law and doing what’s right, so we filed for judicial review of their rejection. In other words, we sued them. Little did we know this would be the beginning of a long journey.
We lost on the first round in federal court, but appealed and won big time on the appeal! The Federal Court of Appeal ordered the PMRA to look at the objections again, but this time to follow the Court’s guidance — to look at the objections again through the protective scheme of the Act and explain how they did so with reasons.
Second Response and Current Case
The PMRA did not, in our view, follow the Court’s guidance. They sent us a 23-page response letter on September 29, 2022 that just came up with some new reasons for rejection, rehashed some old ones, and provided window dressing to respond to the guidance.
(It so happens we received this response just days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew their assessment of glyphosate, for the reason that Courts had struck down the EPA’s health assessment as “arbitrary” — a very interesting fact because the PMRA and the EPA worked together very closely on their glyphosate assessments under a Re-evaluation Work Plan, as shown by an Access to Information Request. PMRA has never explained why its assessment should stand in the face of the fall of EPA’s.)
The PMRA, in their response, didn’t just miss the boat on the guidance. They also came up with completely new criteria for filing a notice of objection, which would make it very difficult for anyone to object to their scientific assessments in the future. The criteria required the objector to not only bring scientific objections, but also show that the objections relate to a new area of risk not previously examined globally. The PMRA had no basis in law, past practise, or otherwise for pulling these criteria out of their hat.
We think these new criteria are telling. They show us that the PMRA’s focus is on approving pesticides at the international level.
So we sued them again, and this is our current glyphosate lawsuit, case T2292-22 , with Laura Bowman as counsel. Intervenors are Environmental Defence and Friends of the Earth Canada, represented by Ecojustice. We claim that the PMRA response was unreasonable, and procedurally unfair. I have provided them with my affidavit, and we expect to have a court date set in the coming months. PMRA chose to not file an affidavit in support of their case.
Our Take
With respect to the three themes set out in our NoO, here is what we saw from PMRA:
Pre-harvest spraying: Head in the Sand
In response to our objection that pre-harvest spraying raises a risk they should look at, they said spraying isn’t registered for desiccation (which we challenge), only for weed control, so they don’t need to look at the risk from pre-harvest spraying on crops. Sounds to us they are saying that pre-harvest spraying on crops is not in fact happening because they say so.
Children’s Safety Factor: Misstatement, Misleading Conclusion
In response to our argument that they did not apply the tenfold safety factor to protect children, they said they re-ran the assessment based on new assumptions (which they did not justify) and that the newly calculated margin of exposure exceeded the level of 100, “indicating that the aggregate risks were shown to be acceptable.” But the newly calculated margin of exposure, when it came to children 1-2 years old, was only 98 – not 100 – by their own calculations. The risks were thus not acceptable based on their own criteria. See my affidavit, section on “aggregate risk to children” para. 96 start.
Labels: Unverified Assumptions
On labels, we said they don’t assure safety because there is disconnect between the time of glyphosate spraying and the levels that can occur, especially for “indeterminate” crops that keep on producing seeds. These crops are always vulnerable to attracting high levels. The PMRA’s response was just the labels say what they say. It is implicit in their response that they think these directions are safe.
However, studies show otherwise – even when labels are followed, there are high levels. The labels have never been verified to ensure correlation between the time of spraying and the levels in particular crops. In fact, Health Canada used a 1989 “white bean” study as support for registering pre-harvest use on beans and chickpeas, but this study had samples with high levels that were discarded, so the study is flawed, meaning the entire registration for beans and chickpeas is built on a house of cards. In addition, Europe has banned pre-harvest spraying on field crops. See my affidavit, paras. 129, 131, 135, 141.
Importance of Case
Meanwhile glyphosate has become a hot political issue in the United States, and the Government of Canada seeks to eliminate re-evaluations altogether and with it the opportunity for public comment on pesticides that have registered on the market. PMRA has been presented with the Ramazzini study, which shows that glyphosate and glyphosate products cause cancer. In December 2025, groups asked for a special review of glyphosate, including environmental and health groups, but PMRA has not yet responded.
We think this case is important because it is a current, long-standing challenge to the registration of glyphosate in Canada. Our ask is for the establishment of a review panel – independent of PMRA – to look at our objections; this panel could formally recommend that the 2017 registration of glyphosate in Canada be struck down or amended.
It is also important because we are exposing how PMRA is working to protect glyphosate, rather than Canadians and the environment.
We have a theory about PMRA – they are exhibiting “Institutional Inertia”. As an institution, they are have one goal: to continually approve, approve, approve pesticides and be in line with other approvals at the international level. Institutional Inertia for International Approvals.
It is time these structural issues were addressed, and we believe our legal challenge can help. Please stay tuned!
