Attacked for the opacity surrounding the regulation of the herbicide glyphosate in the country, the Trudeau government somehow wanted to buy peace by making scientist Bruce Lanphear the voice and ears of a public concerned about the use of chemicals in the fields, but also in their backyards and their plates. In doing so, he forgot to put out the fire under the saucepan, so that the lid jumped again under the impulse of the very one by whom the appeasement was to come.
Appointed co-chair of the new Scientific Advisory Committee responsible for advising the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) within Health Canada, Bruce Lanphear draws up a damning assessment of his year within the federal apparatus. Not only does the agency overseeing the approval of these products lack transparency, but it seems too easily subject to industry influence. His stunt is reminiscent of that of the director general of the Canadian drug price regulator, last February.
In his letter of resignation, Bruce Lanphear expressed concern that his committee (and his role as co-chair) might give the public a “false sense of security” when he found it impossible to assert that the PMRA was protecting Canadians from toxic pesticides. “Based on my experience over the past year, I cannot give this assurance,” writes the environmental health researcher.
Health Canada, to which the PMRA reports, refutes his reading. Even subject to a transformation to make it more transparent and focus more on the protection of human health and the environment, the agency takes its role as regulator “seriously”. And “the review process for the pesticides it uses remains totally science-based,” adds the federal institution.
Fine, but what science? According to Mr. Lanphear’s observation, the agency would be content with incomplete and rutted science. Otherwise, how can we explain the refusals and the obstacles that the co-president encountered? The researcher gives the example of access – repeatedly denied – to data that led to the authorization of two pesticides: the herbicide glyphosate and the insecticide chlorpyrifos.
There is a possibility that chlorpyrifos may harm the neurological development of children. In 2020, the European Commission (EC) banned all uses. The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) did the same in the United States in early 2022. Canada will eventually follow suit next December. What did we want to hide or protect in the meantime by refusing access to these crucial data to independent scientists? We should know that.
Professor Lanphear also denounces the dynamic that the scientific committee he co-chaired until June 27 has, in practice, a more limited scope than that of the agency’s other advisory committee, the Pest Management Advisory Council (CCLA) on which manufacturers sit. He wonders aloud about the relevance of even counting them around the table.
We understand their discomfort, but it’s hard to see how exercise could completely exclude them. The agricultural world as we know it is intertwined with the agrochemical industry. Arbitrations can only be made with it; the transition to less invasive and safer methods as well. In addition to better support for farmers and reinvestment in research, the balance should be radically changed, starting with the regulatory process.
Currently, the vast majority of studies that Ottawa relies on come from manufacturers. This is unacceptable ; Bruce Lanphear is right to say it loud and clear. His rant is not isolated. The other co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee, Valérie Langlois, told Radio-Canada that she supported the opinions of her colleague. She even says she understands his decision.
The full professor at the National Institute for Scientific Research (INRS), however, believes that her committee still has enough free rein to make a difference. Changing ways of doing things is long and difficult; changing mentalities is even more so. Health Canada has asked the members of the scientific committee to be “patient”, and it is with this hope that Valérie Langlois intends to stay.
Basically, the co-chairs reproduce the dilemma that tears anyone who wants to change things. Is it better to act from the inside or from the outside? Electric shocks are good – this one had them, because the alarm bells had to be sounded to arouse the public from their torpor. But long-distance races, from the inside, are just as important, because they allow you to keep your eyes on the objective: here, dusting off an obsolete system.
It is high time, indeed, to reverse the charges so that our regulatory system protects Canadians first and industry second. The opposite should never have been accepted.