Many prairie producers have lost patience with the federal government, no longer willing to extend it the benefit of the doubt when new policies are proposed.
We’re trying hard to resist this throw-up-your-hands attitude, but it’s not always easy.
Take the government’s recent pledge to ban cosmetic pesticide use on federal land.
The commitment is part of Ottawa’s efforts to meet its obligations under the Global Biodiversity Framework, which it signed late last year.
The cosmetic pesticide use ban in particular is part of a commitment to reduce pesticide risk by half.
One could argue that it’s not a bad idea to limit the use of pesticides to food production instead of running the risk of overuse simply to keep lawns free of dandelions.
However, a cosmetic pesticide ban, as reasonable as it may sound, could also have serious implications for farmers. That’s because the Pest Management Regulatory Agency has already reviewed these pesticides and deemed them safe. If they’re safe, then why ban them?
It may seem like nit-picking, but the consequences are serious. If we start banning safe pesticides for some purposes, we could be planting a seed in the public’s mind that maybe they’re not that safe after all. Does it open the door to future demands for more bans, such as for agriculture?
Some might dismiss these concerns as speculation, but paying attention to them is the kind of forward thinking we should expect from our governments.
Ottawa might see banning cosmetic pesticide use on federal land as low-hanging fruit in its efforts to meet its biodiversity commitments, but the long-term impact on public attitudes could be catastrophic.
One might find it easier to give the feds a break If this was the only questionable move they’ve made recently, but it’s not.
The government’s steadfast refusal to exempt grain dryer fuel from the carbon tax readily comes to mind, but there are other examples as well.
In 2021, following intense media pressure in Quebec, the PMRA stopped assessing requests for increases to maximum residue limits on pesticides.
The agency has now lifted that pause for many chemicals, but not for glyphosate.
Bibeau told The Western Producer in an interview last month that the government received more than 20,000 submissions on the effective but much-maligned herbicide during a recent consultation and decided to hold off on approving new increases.
That sounds to us like the government may be caving in to public pressure. Bibeau as much as admitted to the Producer that this is a possibility when she said that while the government bases decisions on scientific evidence, public concern does play a role.
And then there’s the lambda-cyhalothrin mess.
The PMRA has decided that it’s OK to apply the popular insecticide on crops used for human food but not animal feed. Many crops eaten by humans also have byproducts that are fed to livestock, putting producers in a real bind this summer as they decide whether it’s safe to spray.
The frustrating part of this story is that the PMRA seems to have dug in its heels and is refusing to change its mind, even though the logic behind the decision is questionable.
The upshot is that the federal government’s regulatory powers have a major impact on farmers’ livelihood, and it’s time it does a better job of getting it right. Paying more attention to the science — and common sense — is a good place to start.
Karen Briere, Bruce Dyck, Barb Glen, Michael Robin, Robin Booker, Laura Rance and Mike Raine collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
