Representatives from multinational chemical manufacturers are descending on the House of Commons on Tuesday for hearings into a proposed phaseout of a pesticide linked the global decline of honeybees.

The substance, imidacloprid, is part of a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. It is now used to control insects on crops as well as on lawns. In households, neonicotinoids can be used to control ticks, fleas and lice on cats and dogs.

Last year, Health Canada proposed to ban the pesticide through a three- to five-year phaseout, noting that it was being found in levels that were harmful to aquatic insects.

"These insects are an important part of the ecosystem, including as a food source for fish, birds and other animals. Based on currently available information, the continued high volume use of imidacloprid in agricultural areas is not sustainable," the Health Department said in November.

"The environmental assessment also found that there is a potential risk to birds and small mammals from feeding on seeds that are treated with imidacloprid, however, it is expected that good agricultural practices and equipment could reduce this type of exposure."

The federal government said it didn't identify any human health concerns associated with the pesticide if it was being used "according to current label standards."

Scheduled to testify before the Commons agriculture committee on Tuesday are representatives from pesticide manufacturers Bayer and Syngenta, as well as from CropLife, an industry lobby group that represents a number of chemical companies including Bayer, Monsanto, Dow and DuPont.

Officials from Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency will also appear at the hearings in the morning. But environmental organizations, who are scheduled to appear on Thursday, are questioning why the pesticide industry needs to be there.

Environmentalist criticizes 'industry lobbying effort'

John Bennett, a senior policy advisor with Friends of the Earth Canada, said the phaseout should be a purely scientific decision, without political interference or lobbying from industry. He questioned why the House committee would weigh in on the ban.

“They shouldn’t be messing in an administrative decision, especially a scientific one,” he said. “Why are they doing it? The only conclusion is that it’s part of an industry lobbying effort,” he said. Friends of the Earth was one of several organizations that signed a joint press release on Monday questioning the format of the House committee meetings.

Imidacloprid can linger in the environment for as long as 18 months after it is sprayed – four times as long as pesticides like Monsanto’s Roundup, Bennett said. Despite that, pesticides containing the chemical are widely used in Canada:

“These pesticides are practically sprayed on everything you eat that isn’t marked organic – almost every feed corn, every soy bean, every potato,” he said. “It’s really good at killing the insects that chomp into the crop, but it’s also really good at killing everything else as well."

Environmental groups generally welcomed the regulatory agency's decision, but many, including Friends of the Earth, favoured an immediate ban instead of the three- to five-year phaseout plan, which Bennett called a “slow motion ban.”

“The irony of these (neonicotinoid) pesticides is that they are targeted – they were not supposed to kill everything,” Bennett said. But research has shown that the chemical, which is found in several brands of common pesticides, can destabilize entire ecosystems by killing insects that are important food sources for animals, including fish, birds and frogs. Research from scientists at Harvard has also pointed to imidacloprid as the likely cause of the global decline in honeybees.

“This could have significant implications for biodiversity in Canada. This could create dead zones,” Bennett said.

Ban is 'a done deal almost," says Liberal MP Pat Finnigan

Liberal MP Pat Finnigan, who chairs the committee, told National Observer that the decision to ban the pesticide appeared to be “a done deal almost,” but that industry representatives had contacted the committee and asked to present their concerns. He said the committee will provide testimony for that public review, but the choice to ban or not will be up to scientists at the PMRA.

“All studies that we’ve done, we try to get a balanced view of different opinions on the topic,” Finnigan said. “The industry side are saying that there is no other product that will do it, and it will cost them greatly and incur crop loss; the other side is saying it’s valuable to ban that product because it’s having a detrimental effect on bees and other organisms.”

Representatives from the David Suzuki Foundation and Équiterre are among the environmentalists scheduled to testify at a second hearing on Thursday. Two industry associations representing Ontario agricultural producers will also testify, including the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, which has opposed the ban.

Imidacloprid is one of three neonicotinoid pesticides that the PMRA is currently reviewing. Vancouver and Montreal have already banned imidacloprid, and Ontario and Quebec have also introduced plans to reduce the use of the pesticides.

Members of the public or any other interested parties have until March 23 to provide comments or suggestions to Health Canada before it finalizes its decision.

Investigative journalism has never been more important. Will you help?

Subscribe

Comments

Some neonicotinoids were banned in Germany in 2008 due to honey bee loss. Why has it taken till 2017 for Canada to catch up. The European Union restricted its use in 2013. Why are we so far behind? Is it due to the fact that Health Canada replies on industry opinions to write regulations? And why rely on industry when logic will tell you that their opinions are biased.
Once again follow the dots and it leads back to a voting system that allows one party rule over all. During the Conservative/Harper dictatorship this issue was swept under the rug. All the science from sources like the Suzuki Institute were ignored. All the while our honey bees died. whole colonies wiped out. Follow the dots right back to our undemocratic voting system which allows 100% of the power on only 39% of the vote. Totally undemocratic. Decisions should be made according to science, not an industry fact sheet or a political system that puts
industry first bees second.

If the ban isn't a "done deal", then how much were the Feds bought for this time?

Is the Trudeau government reverting to Harperism, welcoming lobbyists with pocketsful of money over accepting the undeniable proof of facts and science?

Time will tell.

The link for comments or suggestions to Health Canada doesn't go anywhere.

If the government was serious about Science Based Decisions, they would not need to hold these hearings to begin with, they would just ban them immediately, since it is unethical and unjustified to continue widespread extermination of imperilled species and ecosystems just so a multinational mega-corporation gets richer. To have the chair of the PMRA, Pat Finnegan justify allowing these corporations and even lobbyists to be involved is outrageous. "We try to get a balanced view of different opinions on the topic." This is the opposite of scientific decision making, which deals in proven facts, rather than political decisions based on big donors.

The Liberals broke all time records with the number of lobbyists they met with before their first budget last year and with cash for access, the PMO increasingly refusing to say who Trudeau is even meetings with in the public release of his schedule,, the huge disparity between the number of meetings with environmental or animal preservation groups or Indigenous groups, etc, and the easy, frequent, cozy access that corporations and their lobbyists have with all levels of government. Liberal coffers in BC and federally are overflowing because their support is for sale. The bill on genetic rights is the latest and after numerous industry and lobbyist meetings, their support turned to trying to entirely gut it. When that failed, Trudeau claimed it was "unconstitutional" and is trying to get rid of it. When bought, he is very loyal.

Today's must read