(Gord Johns is my MP (NDP ))
NOTE I didn’t include this: 2018-04-12 Lawsuit blaming pesticides for bee deaths will go ahead, CP (neonics, imidacloprid, PMRA)
Dear Gord,
SUBJECT: The neonic named imidacloprid
I appreciate the information in your reply to my communication of April 30, 2018 (copy at bottom).
Please consider:
- The PMRA quote provided in your reply is from March 7, 2017.
- Your email to me is dated May 16, 2018, more than a year later.
You correctly represented the situation at March 7, 2017:
- The NDP believes that the Agency’s decision regarding imidacloprid is based on science and aims to protect our environment. We hope that in this case, science and environmental protection will continue to take precedence over the economic interests of major corporations that design pesticides.
- Re the “Agency’s decision” you wrote: “Here are comments made by the PMRA’s Executive Director before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the Agency’s decision to withdraw the pesticide imidacloprid
The situation as at May 16, 2018, is incorrectly represented. From the documentation below:
So: the decision told to the Standing Committee March 7, 2017 was retracted. In June 2017 – – don’t expect a decision until at least December 2017. In November 2017, don’t expect decisions until at least December 2018.
Imidacloprid has NOT been “withdrawn”, as you were led to believe. If the industry has its way, imidacloprid will not be de-registered.
The re-evaluation process commenced in 2013. The maybe-December 2018 date means it will take at least 5 years to arrive at a decision for the one neonic. The PMRA speaks of “3 to 5 years” for “phase-out”, if the decision is to de-register.
Reminds me of mecoprop. The re-evaluation led to de-registration with a 9-year period to allow the manufacturer to sell off existing product. So, for 9 years, consumers would read the label “Safe if used according to label instructions“. But the re-evaluation was that the chemical is NOT safe.
If the product is tainted beef, for the protection of the public, the meat has to be immediately removed from the shelf. The difference in the two products: the effects of the chemicals don’t show up immediately, people can’t readily observe cause-and-effect health relationships. The PMRA has a “let them eat cake” attitude toward citizens.
In the (information below), you will find CONTEXT, and the situation, as at May 16, 2018.
Thank you for your relentless efforts in support of the Common Good.
Forgive me – – there is TOO MUCH information below. I come from the Prairies. A figure from the 1990’s: one third of the chemicals (agricultural/horticultural) sold in Canada are sold in Saskatchewan. You can imagine that when an attempt was made to get a pesticide bylaw in Regina (1990’s) CropLife Canada (lobbyists for a corrupt industry) immediately dispatched a Team to Regina to work behind the scenes to ensure there would be no such bylaw.
It is irrelevant that the levels of developmental problems in children, of childhood cancers, of other cancers and diseases in the Province have been normalized. Entire industries have grown up around them. Songbirds like the Meadow Lark that were abundant in my childhood are today a rarity. I know whereof I speak: we raised money to bring Dr. Elizabeth Guillette from the University of Florida to give a presentation to Regina City Council. Her research into the effects of agricultural chemicals on children is heart-breaking. A corrupt and corrupting industry, a corrupted regulator are the culprits. If justice existed in Canada, they would be in jail.
Best wishes,
Sandra Finley
= = = = == = = = = = =
I understand why you would believe that imidacloprid was withdrawn. You quote Richard Aucoin, Director:
One of the key outcomes of PMRA’s re-evaluation of the neonic imidacloprid was the conclusion that the use of imidacloprid in Canada is causing harm to aquatic environments. » Mr. Richard Aucoin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada), March 7, 2017
Also, the Globe&Mail had reported earlier, November 23, 2016 (article: “Health Canada plans to phase out controversial pesticide“):
Health Canada said Wednesday it wants to phase out a controversial pesticide that’s come under increasing scrutiny because of its possible role in the decline of the bee population. But the new federal phaseout is being done because of the risk to aquatic insects, not pollinators.
Health Canada said in a news release that the current use of the pesticide imidacloprid is “not sustainable” and that the levels found in waterways and aquatic environments “are harmful to aquatic insects” including mayflies and midges, important food sources for fish, birds and other living things.
Bayer Crop Science is the major manufacturer of the neonic imidacloprid.
CropLife Canada is the lobby machine for the chemical-biotech industry in Canada. Bayer is a member. CropLife International is a mother organization.
The PMRA began its evaluation of imidacloprid at the very latest, in 2013. By the end of 2016, the PMRA made an announcement – – Canada would do a phaseout:
- based on the science
- aided (I would guess) by what was happening in Europe. The results of that: in April 2018, the member states of the European Union made a decision to ban the three main neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam) for all outdoor uses. France had already passed a law to phaseout all neonics; they begin phaseout in September, 2018.
A phaseout of chemicals that are known to be killing pollinators and songbirds is a GLOBAL issue. People around the Planet have banded together in an informed and sane voice to insist on phaseout. (Judging from your reply, I think you know and support that effort.) By September 2014 – –
Seattle Joins the Growing List of Cities To Ban Bee-Killing Pesticides
I found in this posting, a list of Canadian provincial governments and municipal bans on pesticides Where Can Bans be Found (in Canada)? https://pesticidealternativesnl.wordpress.com/rest-of-canada/
I don’t know to what extent the Canadian bans are enforced, but they are there for citizens to call upon, if needed. The Seattle posting infers that American communities and jurisdictions that have enacted pesticide bylaws in the past, have effectively created a ban on the bee and songbird-killing Neonics.
The PMRA is in bed with the chemical-biotech corporations. Because of weak or non-existent federal regulatory capacity (corruption), numerous jurisdictions across Canada found it necessary to step into the breach and pass local bylaws to protect the health of the community. Hudson, Quebec was the first such municipality. The industry backed a legal challenge to a bylaw that outlawed certain of their products. The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court ruled that municipalities have the right, indeed the responsibility, to pass bylaws for the protection of residents.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
So what’s going on at the PMRA (Health Canada)?
Begin with just one reputable source to support that the PMRA initially did the right thing – a phaseout of imidacloprid.
For those who don’t know:
Then we have (you are the source!):
The industry launches an all-out effort and we have:
2017-06-08 Health Canada holds off on neonicotinoid ban, Western Producer
Health Canada won’t issue a final decision on whether it will ban imidacloprid for at least six months, says a horticultural industry representative.
6 months means: a decision at the end of 2017. So the decision announced in March was retracted, according to the source.
More damning research on neonics:
2017-11-13 Neonics linked to songbird deaths, Western Producer
The PMRA puts off and puts off.
2017-11-30 Imidacloprid decision expected Dec. 2018, Western Producer
“Once this information is reviewed, the proposed decisions will be subject to a public consultation period and final decisions are anticipated by December 2018.”
So: the decision told to the Standing Committee March 7, 2017 was retracted. In June 2017 – – don’t expect a decision until at least December 2017. In November 2017, don’t expect decisions until at least December 2018.
The PMRA main source of information for citizens, on the status of Neonics in Canada:
“Update on the Neonicotinoid Pesticides, Government of Canada” website. (Dated December 2017).
Note: During the public consultation for imidacloprid, approximately 46,000 comments were received. (emphasis mine)
By March 2018 the Industry has a study in place:
2018-03-09 Study says neonicotinoid ban not the answer, Western Producer
No surprise. The “told” and “not told”:
We are told:
- . . . said Warren Ward of the Canola Council of Canada during the University of Saskatchewan’s Soils and Crops event in Saskatoon.
- In response to the PMRA decision, Agriculture Canada established a multi-stakeholder forum on neonicotinoids, which lead to the development (of) the EMWG.
- The Environmental Monitoring Working Group (EMWG) was set up to monitor the presence . . .
- Provincial and Canadian grower associations provided most of the funding for the EMWG.
There is plenty of documentation on my blog, more than the following:
We are not told (related to the preceding 4 points):
that CropLife Canada, the industry’s lobby machine, sits on the PMRA’s Advisory Council, beginning at least as early as 2006.
RE #1: The chemical-biotech, industrial agriculture corporations, beginning with Monsanto in the early 1980’s, took over the University of Saskatchewan Agricultural College. They provided (in 1980 dollars) $11 million towards the construction of a new College, and they fund research.
RE #4 (the funders of the EMWG): “Grower associations”, like the Canola Council of Canada, are well-resourced because of a system of “check-off fees” collected from farmers per bushel (or metric equivalent) of crop sold. The “crop science” corporations like Monsanto, Bayer, etc. wield influence. The gifts flow two ways. One example: Ernie Sirski (MB, Canola Council) and his wife went to Spain, compliments of Monsanto. The Canola Growers subsequently reciprocated – they intervened on the side of Monsanto in the Supreme Court of Canada when Monsanto took SK farmer Percy Schmeiser to court. This is old, but well written and still applies: 2002-12-09 What happens when farm leaders meet agri-business? Winnipeg Free Press, Professor Arthur Schafer
The corruption in the industry is long-standing. Little, if anything, has changed. CropLife remains on the PMRA Advisory Council. You may want to glance at some of the following:
2006-11-07 (14) How good are fine words when CropLife is on the PMRA Advisory Council?
Has a list of about a dozen numbered examples of outrageous breeches by industry members, you may wish to skim the list.
2006-12-08 (15) Renowned cancer scientist (Sir Richard Doll ) was paid by chemical firm (Monsanto)
For 20 years. And he delivered.
The CCCSCP story is a travesty beyond description.
I said there was a conflict-of-interest, which there was. For that, I received a letter from Wolf’s lawyer, ending with “. . . we wish to put you on notice that any further similar actions by yourself will result in legal action being commenced against you without further notice.
Please govern your actions accordingly.
I hurled back a challenge to the intention of the letter which closed the matter.
(This posting):
2018-05-17 Letter to my MP: No, the neonic imidacloprid has NOT been “withdrawn” in Canada.
—–Original Message—–
From: Gord.Johns (my MP)
Sent: May 16, 2018 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: Canada should ban bee-killing neonics in 2018!
Dear Sandra,
Thank you for taking the time to write to us about the decision made by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) regarding the use of the neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid.
Like you, the NDP wants decisions to be science-based and we want to ensure that our environment and human health are not being compromised.
In November 2016, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published the results of its risk assessment of imidacloprid. Following that assessment, the PMRA proposed that most agricultural uses of imidacloprid be phased out over a three to five year period, depending on the availability of adequate alternatives. Here are comments made by the PMRA’s Executive Director before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food regarding the Agency’s decision to withdraw the pesticide imidacloprid:
«As part of our broader, cyclical re-evaluation of the three major neonics, we are conducting an examination of all the available science—this is both published and proprietary information—regarding risks to the aquatic environment. These risks are evaluated in the context of how neonics are used in Canada and all the available information. This includes actual levels found in water by federal and provincial governments and academic sources in Canada. We have completed our review of the risks to the aquatic environment of the neonic imidacloprid, one of the three neonics, and the reviews of two other neonics are in progress. One of the key outcomes of PMRA’s re-evaluation of the neonic imidacloprid was the conclusion that the use of imidacloprid in Canada is causing harm to aquatic environments. » Mr. Richard Aucoin (Executive Director, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada), March 7, 2017
The NDP believes that the Agency’s decision regarding imidacloprid is based on science and aims to protect our environment. We hope that in this case, science and environmental protection will continue to take precedence over the economic interests of major corporations that design pesticides. The Agency must continue to make science-based decisions and pursue its regular re-evaluation of pesticides that may be harmful to humans or the environment.
We thank you again for contacting us.
Yours sincerely,
Gord Johns, MP Courtenay-Alberni
—–Original Message—–
Sent: April 30, 2018 1:36 PM
To: The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Minister of Health; Johns, Gord – M.P.
Cc: Prime Minister’s Office
Subject: Canada should ban bee-killing neonics in 2018!
Dear Minister Petitpas Taylor,
As the minister responsible for pesticide regulation in Canada, please cancel the registration of all neonics in Canada without further delay.
Neonicotinoid insecticides contaminate the environment. They represent a major worldwide threat to biodiversity and ecosystems and ecosystem services.
I support the PMRA’s proposed phase-out of the neonic imidacloprid, but I’m concerned about the timeline. The PMRA evaluation found imidacloprid contaminating Canadian waterways at levels harmful to aquatic insects that are important food for fish, birds and other animals. Delaying action for another three to five years, as proposed, would allow this chemical to continue to accumulate in the environment and prolong risks to many beneficial species.
Furthermore, comprehensive action is needed on all neonics, as chemicals in this class have similar and cumulative effects.
The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that neonics pose a serious danger to bees. EU member countries are expected to approve a proposal to ban neonics in a vote later this spring. France already passed a law to phase out all neonics, starting in September 2018. Parallel comprehensive action is needed in Canada to protect pollinators, ecosystems and food security.
Sincerely,
Sandra Finley
CC: The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister