From Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency:

The PMRA has completed its re-evaluation of 2,4-D, a herbicide commonly used to control weeds. This section contains all of the relevant materials about the re-evaluation of 2,4-D.

To get all the documents related to the re-evaluation, click here.

A press release from Crop Life Canada: Leaked Liberal pesticide plan - bad public policy, says CropLife Canada:

The Ontario Liberals’ leaked election promise to ban the use of lawn and garden pest control products on a province-wide basis would be both unnecessary and costly if it were to become law, says CropLife Canada.

“Banning lawn and garden products, which are already thoroughly scrutinized and regulated at the federal and provincial levels, would be an extremely expensive and an wholly unnecessary exercise,” said Peter MacLeod, Managing Director CropLife Canada.

“This is purely about politics, not sound public policy.” MacLeod noted that all pest control products are stringently regulated by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which carefully reviews the health and environmental safety of all products before they can be sold or used in
Canada.

The full release available here: Leaked Liberal pesticide plan - bad public policy, says CropLife Canada

The Edmonton sun discusses new PMRA registrations:

It might generate the biggest buzz among retail mosquito-control products.

That’s what Joel Gosselin is hoping, as his Winnipeg company touts a garlic-heavy repellent called Mosquito Barrier that has brought at least a sweet early smell of success.

The product has become the first such control product registered under a new organics classification by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the so-called “natural” substance - initially developed years ago in the U.S. - has been on some store shelves north of the border for the past couple of weeks.

“This opens up a whole new ball game, where people can use something natural,” Gosselin, president of Viceroy Distributors, told Sun Media yesterday of its potential for warding off Winnipeg’s nuisance bloodsuckers.

For the full article see: Garlic spray all the buzz in war on mosquitoes

An article from Canada on harmonization of U.S./Canada pesticide law:

The safety of pesticides in Canada is partly in the hands of U.S. regulators as the two countries forge ahead with plans to harmonize their pesticide-review processes.

News of the effort comes as a growing chorus of scientists south of the border raise the alarm about plummeting standards and rampant corporate interference in the U.S. regulatory process under the Bush administration.

Joint pesticide reviews were flagged as a “key milestone” of the 2005 Security and Prosperity Partnership, a broad-ranging plan to promote trade by streamlining regulatory protocols across North America.

For the full article see: Environmentalists baffled by pesticide-reviews process

Some information from Health Canada on the Grower Requested Own Use (GROU) program:

Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is pleased to notify Canadian growers that the Grower Requested Own Use (GROU) program will be implemented by July 2007. The identity of eligible products and the application process will be posted on this webpage and shared with grower associations in the coming weeks.

A pilot project for GROU was conducted in late 2006 where 8 products were found to be eligible after an analysis of the information provided by pesticide manufacturers. These products were part of a list of 12 priorities submitted by grower groups. It is anticipated that the 8 products from the pilot as well as other potential candidates will be eligible for importation once program processes are finalized.

The GROU program was created for the benefit of Canadian farmers. The program will allow farmers to import the US version of Canadian-registered products for their own use should they be available in that market at a lower price. The PMRA will also work with grower groups to develop a process to select and prioritize the products for consideration under GROU.

In addition, PMRA intends to implement, in July 2007, the new data protection policy which will facilitate the registration of generic pesticides (Protection of Proprietary Interests in Pesticide Data or PPIP). PMRA expects to begin accepting applications for generic pesticide registrations using the new policy in July 2007.

With this decision, the PMRA will not consider applications for new products under Own Use Import (OUI). However, products that were being contemplated for OUI could be submitted for consideration under the GROU program or the new data protection policy once these programs are in place.

PMRA will re-open the OUI process if pesticide manufacturers are not willing to provide the information necessary to process GROU applications.

More information available at Health Canada.

Agcanada.com discusses pesticide labels and maximum residue limits and their impact on exporters/importers:

We all know what happened to the Canadian beef industry when BSE was discovered in Canada. Canadian grain producers could face the same consequences if they ignore their customer’s limitations on pesticide residues.

Most countries have set maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides on agricultural products and for unapproved genetically-modified seed. The MRL for malathion on canola seed in Japan is 0.5 parts per million (ppm), for example. As with BSE control measures, these may seem extreme. The health risks of having a sample of canola with one ppm instead of 0.5 ppm of malathion is minute, but 0.5 ppm is the allowable limit Japan has instituted and unless the exporter can provide canola within that MRL, Japan is not interested in purchasing.

The costs of exceeding the MRL for any agricultural product can be huge. First, the sale of the product is lost. Second, all costs of finding a new market or disposing of the product must be borne by the seller. Third, and most costly, future sales of the product are jeopardized. The world grain trade is extremely competitive and other countries are eager to gain a foothold in a new market should another country fail to meet the buyer’s requirements. The Japanese market is our number one export market for canola, importing about $450 million worth of canola a year. It is a market we cannot afford to lose.

This is not just scary talk. Chris Anderson, program manager for the Canola Council of Canada, says Japan has rejected 2 recent shipments because the canola exceeded an MRL. In 2003, a French shipment of canola to Japan was rejected because MRL testing revealed the presence of an unapproved insecticide. Japan refused to take the $6 million shipment and it cost the shipper another $2 million in demurrage, shipping, and handling fees to find an alternative market. French farmers have lost millions more because Japan no longer has the confidence that French canola will meet its standards. Australia has also suffered under Japan’s close scrutiny. Just last year, part of a cargo of Australian canola had levels of fenitrothion insecticide that exceeded Japanese limits and had to be destroyed. The cost to the Australian shippers amounted to $11 million, and all future canola shipments from Australia will be subject to increased testing.

Since “the customer is always right”, it is up to Canadian farmers to make sure the agricultural products we sell do not exceed MRLs of the importing country. It is virtually impossible for a farmer to know the MRL for all pesticides for every importing country. After all, the U.S. regularly tests imported grains for 396 different pesticides. The U.K. conducts tests on foods for 28,000 additives. The only way farmers can prevent accidentally exceeding a pesticide MRL is to strictly follow the pesticide label as per use, timing, and withdrawal period. Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency has tested all pesticides registered for use in Canada and has made sure that by following the label directions, pesticide residues will be below MRLs of importing nations.

More on NAFTA labeling of pesticides, which we brought to you last week with NAFTA: First Harmonized Label for Pesticide Product Available. The Billings Gazette discusses the new NAFTA pesticide label:

Environmental regulators in the United States and Canada have developed a joint label for farm chemicals that officials say could save American farmers millions of dollars.

One industry official said the move gives chemical companies more flexibility to respond to the marketplace. He also said it is a step toward reducing regulatory differences between the two countries.

The Environmental Protection Agency and its Canadian counterpart on Friday announced the first North American Free Trade Agreement label, for a herbicide marketed as Far-GO in the United States and as Avadex in Canada. It can be used for weed control for a wide range of crops, from wheat to sugar beets.

American farmers have long wanted to import chemicals from Canada because they say they are often cheaper north of the border, but so-called “harmonization” bills have failed in Congress. North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said one of the roadblocks in Congress was the perception that a joint U.S.-Canadian label would be too cumbersome to create.

See the full article here: NAFTA label made for farm chemical.

NewsBlaze.com discusses U.S./Canadian harmonization of pesticide labeling:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency have given the first joint approval of a North American Free Trade Agreement harmonized label for a pesticide product. The pesticide product is called Far-Go Granular Herbicide in the United States (EPA reg. 10163-287) and Avadex MicroActiv Herbicide in Canada and is registered for use on wheat, barley, beets, lentils and peas.

“As a result of extraordinary collaboration and leadership on the part of governments, growers, and pesticide producers, now joint U.S./Canadian pesticide labels are a reality,” said EPA Assistant Administrator Jim Gulliford. “Joint approvals maintain high safety standards, help ensure producers have pest control tools available, and advance the goal of a North American market for pesticides.”

Learn more about pesticide labeling harmonization from the full article: First Harmonized Label for Pesticide Product Available.

New Pest Control Products Act comes into force on June 28th, 2006

The New Pest Control Products Act, published in 2002 by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), received Royal Assent on December 12, 2002, and comes into force on June 28th, 2006.

To view the new regulations visit: New Pest Control Products Act.

To view the order bringing the new regulations into force visit: Order Bringing the New Pest Control Products Act into Force.

More on the potential ban of 2,4-D in Canada:

The department’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency is expected to issue a final ruling on the safety of the herbicide, which is used to kill dandelions and other broadleaved plants, in early 2007. It issued a preliminary assessment indicating it favoured continued use of the product in February, 2005. A Health Canada spokeswoman said the government sent out the report in error. The department subsequently asked Weedman to take the report off its website, and the lawn company complied.

Edith Lachapelle, the spokeswoman, said she can understand why some people might accuse the agency of bias because the report was released but said, “It was a mistake.”

The herbicide is the target of an aggressive campaign by environmentalists and public health advocates, who say it is hazardous to spray 2,4-D close to homes, and an equally aggressive lobbying effort by some lawn-care companies defending its continued residential use.

See the full article: Globe and Mail.