Glyphosate is scientifically safe, but politically a landmine

Shannon Sereda, Director, Government Relations, Policy and Markets | Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide as an active substance in plant protection products, and likely the most polarizing among stakeholders. The European Union (EU) has long been in turbulence surrounding the registration, renewal and deregistration of the chemistry that was set to expire in the EU in December 2022. Recently, the EU executive granted a temporary one-year approval extension of glyphosate, despite a lack of agreement among members states. Shedding light on the fact that even while the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy seeks to reduce all pesticide use by 50 per cent by 2030, and that many special interest groups call for an outright ban, the EU Commission is not ready to let the licence lapse altogether. Perhaps because of the lack of alternatives and compromises to productivity losing a product like glyphosate could mean for European agriculture.

While no pesticide regulatory authority in the world has found the scientific basis to consider glyphosate a risk to humans at the levels in which they are exposed — unfounded public opposition still remains and finds its way into political influence which is continually putting the products containing the active ingredient at risk.

Earlier this year, the Alberta Wheat and Barley Commissions participated in a research study being conducted by Harm Van Rees, an Australian researcher, agronomist and 2020 recipient of the Australian Grains Research Development Corporation (GRDC) Excellence Award. Van Rees is conducting a cross-jurisdictional study to determine the viability for Australian farmers to maintain current levels of production without, or with reduced amounts of glyphosate amidst mounting pressures like those in the EU and around the globe. As part of his study, Van Reese visited farmers and researchers in Spain, France, Germany, Holland, the UK, the USA and Canada to gain an understanding of the current farming systems in these different regions and discuss perspectives on the trade-offs that would come along with a reduction or loss of glyphosate as a critical crop protection tool, and what viable alternatives exist if any. While the conclusions of his study are still forthcoming, the study prompted an introspective dialogue between the commissions’ agronomy and policy teams and farmers as political pressure mounts in Canada.

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada said of a 2017 re-evaluation assessment of glyphosate, “our scientists left no stone unturned in conducting [the] review”, which arrived at a final decision to continue registration of the product based on evidence that products containing glyphosate did not present unacceptable risks to human health or the environment when used according to product label directions.

Despite this scientifically rooted finding – in August 2021 Canadian federal ministers charged with health, environment and agriculture put a pause on the regular, scientific review process to set safe levels (maximum residue levels (MRLs)) of pesticides, such as glyphosate, on food products. MRL’s are set collaboratively with the U.S. and other global trading partners to ensure pesticide use is safe and globally accepted for trade. This marked an unprecedented political intervention into a scientific process that some feel was influenced, without scientific basis, by the public.

The cascade of pressures continued into 2022 with the first ever intervention on a PMRA decision by the federal court of appeal, in which the PMRA was offered guidance to assist in the reconsideration of the decision and its communication, including defining the role of a review panel in such decisions. This may have prompted the creation of the PMRA’s Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) as part of their Transformation Agenda which many perceive to be undermining a regulatory process meant to be free of bias and influence. Later in 2022 a private members bill (Bill C-287) was introduced by Fredericton MP Jenica Atwin, into the House of Commons for no less than an outright ban on glyphosate, despite her own government’s earlier decision on its safety. Lastly, the EU introduced a ‘mirror clause’ that intends to insert reciprocity of standings into trading agreements, meaning that all EU trading partners, including Canada, would need to reciprocate the same or similar environmental standards and policies as the EU.

As we charge into 2023 the commissions continue to navigate the political landmines that seek to remove this important tool from farmers’ toolboxes, all the while reminding governments and stakeholders of the consequences to this path. Glyphosate has been instrumental in allowing farmers to use modern, sustainable practices. As governments around the globe turn their focus to achieving aggressive climate change targets – glyphosate again will factor into the conversations but this time related to: reducing emissions by allowing for continued adoption of conservation cropping, improving soil organic carbon, reducing erosion, ensure food security and improving water retention all the while allowing farms to remain resilient and sustainable into the future.