‘To say nothing is not public service’: former Agriculture Canada official raised red flags on pesticide

By Marc Fawcett-Atkinson | News | May 16th 2024

National Observer

A former official in Canada's agriculture ministry accused the federal pesticide regulator of failing to assess the health risks posed by the controversial herbicide glyphosate, a key ingredient of Roundup, months before leaving the ministry.

The concerns from David Cox, who at the time was deputy director at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), were revealed in a trove of emails distributed to high- and mid-level AAFC officials — including deputy minister Stefanie Beck — in June and October 2023. They were obtained by Canada's National Observer through an access to information request.

"I am not an expert but I do believe in raising red flags where I see large-scale risk exposure and peer-reviewed papers stating there are harms. To say nothing is not public service," wrote Cox in a June 14, 2023 email distributed to eight senior AAFC officials, including Beck. A spokesperson for AAFC said this week that Cox no longer works for the ministry.

Researchers have found that glyphosate, which is commonly labelled both an herbicide and a pesticide by the industry, can cause cancer, is toxic to the nervous system and harms animals' gut bacteria. The chemical is considered to be potentially carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. A recent Health Canada study concluded that the average Canadian has small amounts of glyphosate in their urine.

According to Cox's June 14, 2023 email, up to 90 per cent of Canadian "fields and horticulture crops, and their soils, have long-term exposure from ongoing" glyphosate use.

Nonetheless, according to the government's sales report, the chemical is by far Canada's most common herbicide, with over 50 million kilograms of the herbicide sold in Canada in 2020. It is used by farmers to kill weeds and logging companies to eradicate deciduous trees from their cutblocks. Pesticide regulators in Canada, the U.S. and the European Union have deemed glyphosate-based pesticides to be safe, despite a fast-growing body of research about the chemical's danger.

The revelations come as Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) — an agency within Health Canada — has doubled down on allowing glyphosate use in recent years despite lawsuits, sustained political criticism and growing global concern about the chemical's health impacts.

In a Thursday statement, AAFC said the "government of Canada takes pesticide safety very seriously and is committed to protecting the health of humans and the environment, including wildlife. To be used in Canada, a pesticide such as glyphosate must undergo a highly regulated, science-based risk assessment to ensure that it meets Health Canada’s human health and environment protection requirements."

A recent report by Aimpoint Research, funded by global pesticide giant Bayer, found that eliminating the pesticide's use would raise U.S. farmers' production costs by about $1.9 billion. Researchers have found that eliminating the current widespread use of glyphosate is possible, though they note the shift would require planning and efforts to support farmers in the transition.

E-mails reviewed by Canada's National Observer show that a former official within Agriculture Canada had repeatedly warned senior ministry officials about the potential harms of the popular herbicide glyphosate, as shown in research.

Primarily penned by Cox, the trove of emails also included a note written by Myriam Fernandez, an AAFC researcher specializing in organic agriculture. The messages show both employees raised the alarm about the health risks posed by glyphosate, citing emerging research about the chemical's role in harming the nervous system and pregnancy and potentially causing cancers.

In the June email, Cox wrote that "glyphosate concerns me as I receive peer-reviewed journals and papers from [AAFC researchers]" that run counter to the federal government's policy to consider the chemical to be safe. The findings, he suggested, left him concerned that Canadian agricultural policies and regulatory decisions for the chemical were failing to reflect the most modern research on the product's toxicity.

Cox continued sounding the alarm in a subsequent email sent on October 13, 2023 to Tom Rosser, AAFC's assistant deputy minister of market and industry services and Donald Boucher, AAFC director-general of sector development and analysis. In the note, he reiterated being "truly concerned about the growing peer-review literature about glyphosate health and environmental risks to the public."

He wrote that AAFC had become "too reliant or complacent" on the ability of Canada's regulator to properly evaluate glyphosate. That could lead the agency to overlook emerging science about the product's health impact and international efforts to rein in its use, potentially creating a "risk red flag scenario," he said.

Vietnam is the only country to have fully banned the chemical. Sri Lanka tried in 2015 and backed down in 2021; France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany have partially prohibited it. Germany and Mexico have pledged to fully ban the pesticide, but have not yet done so. It was almost banned across the EU last year, but the bloc's pesticide regulator renewed the pesticide's registration last year.

Cox noted that Canada's continued use of glyphosate — and AAFC's lack of a plan to help farmers use less of it — exposed Canada to future financial and trade risks if other countries ban products exposed to the chemical.

"For your sakes, please take this seriously if you haven't yet. Never been clear to me if these [concerns] are dismissed because of the policy paradigm driving the biotechnology agenda … or that I am seen as an organic arguer defaming [glyphosate]. I am just revealing context based on evidence I get from various sources," he wrote.

The documents released in the access to information request included a Jan. 18, 2023 email Cox and other AAFC staff and people involved in Canada's organic sector received from AAFC researcher Fernandez. The message included an 2022 study of glyphosate's health impact and noted that Fernandez was "gathering scientific publications on glyphosate impacts on the health of humans."

Cox forwarded the email to Rosser and Boucher and said he would add them to Fernandez's mailing list distributing new research about the health impacts of glyphosate. The documents do not include any response from either official.

"I wish that those opposed to organic agriculture, and who still believe that glyphosate is 'just like water,' would take the time to do a simple search for this type of peer-reviewed scientific publications, and read them," Fernandez wrote.

The revelations come amid growing concerns about Canada's pesticide regulator's ability to protect Canadians from harmful pesticides, including glyphosate.

Last year, Canada's National Observer found the agency had for years downplayed health and environmental concerns from its own scientists about the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos. The agency also downplayed the health risks of the pesticide dimethyl tetrachloroterephtalate (DCPA) in the wake of an emergency warning from the EPA about the chemical.

The agency's transparency has also come into question after prominent health researcher Bruce Lanphear resigned from a scientific advisory position with the PMRA last year due to transparency issues. In his letter of resignation, he lambasted the organization's "obsolete" approach to pesticide regulation.

Moreover, in 2022, a coalition of health and environmental groups led by Ecojustice challenged the government's decision to renew glyphosate-based herbicide "Mad Dog Plus." The case alleges the government failed to assess research on the chemical's health risks published since it was re-approved by the regulator in 2017.

That case comes on the heels of a 2022 ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal that found the PMRA failed to justify its 2017 decision to re-approve the chemical.

"Interesting to see a deputy director at [AAFC] raising red flags," said Laura Bowman, an Ecojustice lawyer and pesticide expert. "The irony is that as more evidence piles up on glyphosate risks, the harder it is for regulators to keep up. That's why we brought the registration renewal litigation."

Cassie Barker, the senior program manager for toxics at Environmental Defence, was succinct about the implication of Cox's efforts to raise red flags about glyphosate.

"That's wild. I'm glad to hear it," she said.

DDT Pollution Dumped off Los Angeles Coast Has Not Broken Down Decades Later, Scientists Find

Eco Watch

The pollution is even worse than earlier feared. Story here.

RELATED: Research Suggests Our Past, Prolific Use Of The Insecticide DDT May Still Be Contributing To A Scourge Of Modern-Day Diseases Related To Obesity.

Some revolutionary advice for producers of seedless watermelon - and perhaps other fruits and vegetables, too!

by Larry Powell

A wild bee on a sunflower. A PinP photo.
 

For two years, US researchers studied the impact that both bee pollinators and beetle pests had on seedless watermelon.

        What they found was striking.        

Flea beetles feast on turnip-tops in Manitoba, A PinP photo.

    In both years, pollination by the bees was “the only significant factor” in both fruit set and marketable yield - even when compared to the harm done by the pests. Not only that, the wild bees increased those yields anywhere from one-&-a-half to three times more than honeybees.

    So the researchers conclude; If you want better yields, it’s more important to protect the bees that pollinate them than to kill the pests which eat them! 

    “These data," they state, "advocate for a reprioritization of management, to conserve and protect wild bee pollinations, which could be more critical than avoiding pest damage for ensuring high yields.”

    But the lead author of the study, Ashley Leach, is hesitant to extrapolate those findings to other crops like grains and oilseeds, so dominant on the Canadian prairies, for example. 

    He tells me in an email; "Our findings are intricately linked" to crops reliant on pollination (like seedless watermelon).

    "The pest we studied can have a variable effect of yield," Leach told me. 

    "However, multiple studies have found that insecticides may negatively impact pollinators so any reduction in insecticide spray could potentially impact yield and associated pollinator health outcomes. 

    "I wouldn’t recommend growers stop applying insecticides unless they don’t see a loss in yield, or they have another pest management practice in place."

    The findings are published in the “Proceedings of the Royal Society.”

Spraying herbicides from helicopters? Concerns mount over plans for southern B.C. forests

The Narwhal

The huckleberry. A Wikimedia photo.

To the forestry industry these plants are pests, but for berry pickers they are important foods and medicine. Story here.

RELATED:

Contaminants found in traditional berries of First Nations people in Manitoba, but still declared to be safe to eat. (Video).

Bees are dying from toxic chemicals and the feds won't save them.

The National Observer

A PinP photo.

After years of review, Ottawa recently approved a common class of pesticides known to harm pollinators like bees and other insects. Story here.

RELATED: 

Plight of the Humble Bee. Canadian regulators refuse to protect precious pollinators from known toxins.

Health Canada approves another product known to be deadly to beneficial organisms.

The Western Producer

Members of the "neonic" family are known mass-killers, esp. of pollinators such as honeybees. "Karen" holds dead bees at Hayes Valley Farm.

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has announced that neonicotinoid insecticides are not a threat to aquatic insects when used as a seed treatment on canola and in many other instances. Details here.

A third of global farmland at 'high' pesticide pollution risk

PHYS ORG

A public domain photo.

A third of the planet's agricultural land is at "high risk" of pesticide pollution from the lingering residue of chemical ingredients that can leach into water supplies and threaten biodiversity, according to research published Monday. Story here.

Residues of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides (known as "Plant Protection Products," or PPPs), being found in pollen and nectar, are "a significant stressor" for bees and other pollinators.

Environmental Research

   

Popular insecticides harm birds in the United States

Nature Sustainability

The increased use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the continental United States may have impacted bird populations and reduced bird diversity, according to a paper published this week in Nature Sustainability. 

Overall tree swallow populations declined by 49% between 1966 and 2014, according 

to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. A PinP photo.

Bird biodiversity is declining at a marked rate. Bird populations in the United States have decreased by 29% since 1970, which has been attributed to various factors including the increased use of pesticides in agricultural production. Nicotine-based pesticides — known as neonicotinoids — have been used increasingly in the United States over recent decades.  Previous research has shown that neonicotinoids are potentially toxic to birds and other non-target species. However, the impact of these pesticides on bird diversity in the United States is unclear. 

Madhu Khanna and colleagues studied the effects of neonicotinoids on birds in the United States from 2008–2014. They analysed data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey to identify county-level changes for four different bird species groups — grassland birds, non-grassland birds, insectivorous birds and non-insectivorous birds — and combined this with county-level data on pesticide use. 

The authors found that an increase of 100 kg in neonicotinoid usage per county, a 12% increase on average, contributes to a 2.2% decline in populations of grassland birds and 1.6% in insectivorous birds.  By comparison, the use of 100 kg of non-neonicotinoid pesticides was associated with a 0.05% decrease in grassland birds and a 0.03% decline in non-grassland birds, insectivorous birds and non-insectivorous birds. Since impacts accumulate, the authors also estimate that, for example, 100 kg neonicotinoid use per county in 2008 reduced cumulative grassland-bird populations by 9.7% by 2014. These findings suggest that neonicotinoid use has a relatively large effect on population declines of important birds and that these impacts grow over time. The authors also found that the adverse impacts on bird populations were concentrated in the Midwest, Southern California and Northern Great Plains.

RELATED:

New Studies Show Farm Chemicals Are Affecting More Than Bees. Bird Populations are Declining, Too. Is modern agriculture's hold on nature becoming a death grip?

Agrochemicals speed the spread of deadly parasites

CLIMATE&CAPITALISM

The schistosoma parasite worm. Image credit -
David Williams, Illinois State University.

Even low concentrations of pesticides can increase transmission and weaken efforts to control the second most common parasitic disease. Details here.

Toxic Tides - The Tragedy of Fish Farming Everywhere

One of the biggest challenges facing the aquaculture industry everywhere, is Lepeophtheirus salmonis, the sea-louse (below).

It's a parasite which attacks both farmed and wild salmon, causing lesions and infections which stunt their growth. But the costs of de-lousing are high. And so are the losses suffered by the industry in the marketplace. Many lice can actually kill many fish.

Sea lice, Lepeophtheirus salmonis, on farmed

Atlantic salmon, New Brunswick, CA. Photo by 7Barrym0re 

To fight back, the fish-farmers dump pesticides into the waters (below). But, because they’re released directly into the environment, they not only kill the lice, but place beneficial, “non-target” organisms at risk, too. And several of these live in the open ocean, beyond the confines of the farms.

The latest (but not the only) cautionary tale about the wisdom of this practise, has just emerged from Norway. 

A team of researchers there exposed (in the lab), an important food source for the fish, to varying levels of hydrogen peroxide (H202).  It's the active ingredient in several such products.

The  food source was a zooplankten called Calanus spp. 

It's abundant in coastal waters where many salmon farms are located and is a key component in the North Atlantic food web. It's important, not only to young farmed fish, but to wild herring and cod, as well. 

The lab results were convincing.

In just one hour, at only 10% of levels the farmers would apply, 92% of the juvenile Calanus spp. and all of the adult females died. And, at much lower doses (1% or less), the ability of the organisms to take in oxygen was greatly reduced. Their “escape response” was destroyed, making the likelihood of them being eaten by predators, "extremely high." 

The researchers concluded, "Present recommended levels of application underestimate the impact of the pesticide on non-target crustaceans." 

A SERIOUS DISEASE OF CHINOOK SALMON, ORIGINATING FROM FISH FARMS IN NORWAY, HAS NOW SPREAD TO WILD SALMON OFF THE BC: STUDY.

I interviewed the lead author of the study, Rosa Escobar Lux of the Marine Austevoll Research Station, Norway.

PinP: Do you have any evidence that the abundance of Calanus spp. may be affected to the degree that the fish themselves are becoming "food-deprived?" 

Dr. Escobar Lux: "No. Our experiments were done in a laboratory which can answer some of our questions but it does not give definite answers to what is happening in the wild.  Also, there's a need for dispersion models to help us understand the real magnitude of the effects."

The findings of her team were published recently in the Canadian science journal, FACETS.

Is evidence of harm confined to the lab?

Another study from Norway published just last month, takes us beyond the lab, into open waters (or "the wild" as Dr. Escobar Lux puts it). It reveals, elevated levels of the pesticide diflubenzuron (DFB) are being found in commercially-valuable northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) in Norwegian fjords. Salmon farms there use a medicated feed containing that product. Lab tests have shown it can be lethal to the shrimp, and actually becomes more toxic in warmer waters. This raises added concerns in a world that is heating up fast.

Many Norwegian fishers report, they're catching fewer shrimp in fjords where salmon farms are operating. Experts want further studies to find out if shrimp populations are already crashing. 

And yet another recent study reaches a similar conclusion, that 

hydrogen peroxide's toxicity may already be making itself felt in the open ocean, on northern shrimp. Conducted by mostly Norwegian researchers, they find hydrogen peroxide may be causing "gill damage and delayed mortality" to the shrimp, more than a kilometre from fish farms there.

Even older studies, some done in Canada, point to several other marine creatures being vulnerable to aquacultural pesticides, too. These not only include zooplankten like the kind already referred to, but commercially valuable catches such as lobster and shrimp!

Last year, experts "rounded up" those studies and combined them in  a single, "systematic and exhaustive" review. 

They concluded that hydrogen peroxide wasn't the only suspect product. Three others, cypermethrin, deltamethrin and azamethiphos - each used extensively in the industry - had similar effects. 

The review concludes, "Aquaculture has consequences for the environment. Salmon and trout cage culture has required the use of large quantities of pharmaceuticals. Our results show clear negative  effects at concentrations lower than those used in treatments against sea lice in all of the species studied." 

Despite all of this, in 2016, quite some time after much of this research was known, Health Canada granted "full registration for  the sale and use" of pesticides using hydrogen peroxide as their active ingredient" for the treatment of sea lice on Atlantic salmon reared in marine aquaculture sites." That was at least five years after the first warnings about the pesticides I was personally able to find…warnings that our government officials must have been aware of. 

A year later, the Department also registered azamethiphos for an identical use, giving identical reasons for doing so. 

In its documents approving registration of both products, Health Canada concludes, "Under the approved conditions of use, the products have value and do not present an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.  <They are> relatively benign products that pose little or no risk to salmon, the marine environment, non-target species, or human health." 

It went on to recommend that the industry, facing one of its worst years for sea lice that year, be allowed one treatment more of H202 than was usually allowed. 

In addition to H202, Canada has, for at least a decade, also permitted the use of deltamethrin, at least in Atlantic Canada.  Cypermethrin, however, is prohibited. 

In the course of my investigation, I was only able to find out how much hydrogen peroxide is being used in aquaculture.

Health Canada figures (see table) show more than one million kilograms were sold in 2016. That placed the active ingredient among the top ten best-sellers that year (9th). It did not register in the top ten the following year. (The government counts products sold for aquaculture as "agricultural."

This image shows how industry applies pesticides within their operations.

If that figure sounds high, amounts used in Norway - the world's largest producer of farmed Atlantic salmon - are "through the roof" by comparison. One source says, the industry in that country applied 132 million kilograms of H202 between 2009 and 2018. That would be at least than 13 times more per year than the Canadian usage!

So why do regulators continue to register these products?

The importance of aquaculture to human society is widely recognized. In their own studies, the researchers describe it as "One of the best prospects to help meet the growing need for protein in the human diet." 

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization estimates, almost 19 million people worked in that sector in 2015. The world now produces about as much farmed fish as that taken in the wild. Once non-fish products (plants, shells and pearls) are added in - more than 100 million tonnes, or US$163 billion dollars worth of products, were produced by "ocean-farming" that year. It's considered the fastest-growing source of food for human consumption and is made up mostly of "finfish" such as the Atlantic salmon.

In Canada, government figures show, aquaculture employed 14 thousand people, full-time in 2009. For some reason, it's the most recent figure available. In 2013, production in the sector was valued at almost $1 billion. This country is ranked as the world's 4th-largest producer of farmed salmon. 

The website of the Canada Food Inspection Agency proudly states:

"Canada is one of the world's most trusted and respected food suppliers, trusted to provide safe and wholesome products and respected for our commitment to global food security. Canada's strong regulatory system forms the basis of this positive reputation."  (Emphasis mine.)

Are there better ways?

Researchers with Fisheries and Oceans Canada are among those looking for alternatives. They're trying to find out whether physical light traps and biological filters may be able to attract and remove the sea lice from the farms. There's no sign, yet that such methods are about to replace that heavy pesticide use, however. 

Meanwhile, research published about five years ago, seems to put an even finer point on the importance of finding alternatives - not just to pesticides - but to aquaculture itself!  Growth of the industry could actually be worsening the problem. Since sea lice numbers are proportional to fish size, "expanded salmon farming has shifted the conditions in favour of the parasites. Salmon farms are often situated near migrating routes of lice in the open ocean." 

And, as if that weren't enough, the lice are now showing resistance to three of the five compounds being used against them.

On January 11th, I e-mailed Canada's Minister of Health, Patty Hajdu (responsible for the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency); Fisheries and Oceans Minister, Bernadette Jordan and the "Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance," to comment on my story. 

I did not get a substantive response.

                                                            -30-

How Has This Pesticide Not Been Banned? Opinion.

The New York Times
Government scientists say chlorpyrifos is unsafe. And yet it’s still in use. Details here.

A "crop-duster" sprays a pesticide believed to be chlorpyrifos
on a canola crop in Manitoba. Circa 2006. A PinP photo.

A related story that may interest you:

Thirteen years after the pesticide chlorpyrifos (Lorsban) sickened a Manitoba family, Health Canada is proposing it be severely restricted in Canada. The European Union will ban it in the new year. 
by Larry Powell

Thirteen years after the pesticide Lorsban sickened a Manitoba family, Health Canada is proposing it be severely restricted in Canada. The European Union will ban it in the new year. by Larry Powell

In the fall of 2006, Loyd Burghart told his story to "Planet in Peril." Burghart, a livestock farmer in the Swan Valley of western Manitoba, said he, his wife, Donna and their four children inhaled fumes from the chemical, Lorsban (chlorpyrifos) which a neighbour had been sparing on a nearby crop. (Many farmers in that part of the province had done the same that year, in an effort to control a severe infestation of  Bertha Army worms.) 

Some time after the incident, Burghart, his wife 
and one of their children, pose by a mother sow and 
piglets in their yard. A PinP photo.

The spray had left Burghart's entire family with severe symptoms. He says he, himself, was left writhing with severe pain in his eyes. 

It's not immediately known how many other Canadians have suffered in similar incidents. But it's hard to believe this was the only case. (Burghart was also worried how the chemical might impact the health of his animals and their feed.)

Health Canada announced recently it will propose that Lorsban be banned for "almost all agricultural uses." It will still be allowed for things like mosquito control. The pesticide has been linked to developmental problems in humans. 

And, it has just been announced that the European Union will ban it next year, as well. 

Lorsban is described as a "broad spectrum insecticide," used to control bugs in cereals, oilseeds, grains, fruits and vegetables.