|
Glyphosate Objectors’
Concerns Are Heightened Following Replies from Health Canada (being released January
14, 2019 online)
Responses Dismiss Key
Science and Lack Transparency
Canadians at Risk,
With no Independent Review of Roundup Herbicide
For Immediate Release
Ottawa, January 14, 2018 – Today,
Health Canada is releasing online, responses to eight objections to
re-registration of glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide). Government
responses leave objectors more concerned than ever.
Cancer, chronic disease and food quality were inadequately or inaccurately
addressed by Health Canada (see Additional Information below).
Prevent Cancer Now and other health and environmental groups, university professor and researchers, are disappointed that an
independent panel will not scrutinize Canada’s primary pesticide, despite a
history of scientific interference and bias (see
media release).
In briefings by PMRA
officials on January 11, 2019, responses to questions from objectors revealed
that public health, toxic metals in food and soil quality were summarily
dismissed as being outside of the scope of pesticides assessment (see below).
Instead of an independent
investigation of the re-registration of glyphosate, twenty Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA) staff examined the work of their colleagues, based
upon objections submitted in 2017. In briefings, objectors were told of
rigorous scientific reviews, but there was no mention of key, current, relevant publicly available research.
Glyphosate is the world’s
most-used herbicide. Canadian
sales data places glyphosate in its own open-ended
category – since 2007, more than 25 million kilograms are sold annually.
Quotes from Objectors and Experts
“Young Canadians are getting
sicker, with chronic diseases earlier in life. Glyphosate effects on gut microbes
can contribute to bowel, immune, metabolic and neurological conditions that cost
society dearly, and the healthcare system billions of dollars. When Health Canada
dismisses relevant science as out of scope, the goal to protect human health cannot
be met,” said Dr. Meg Sears, Chair
of Prevent Cancer Now.
“Acting only when extreme
effects are seen in animals doesn’t protect human health. Even small effects
can result in large impacts across the entire population,” cautioned Dr. David Bowering, former Medical Health Officer, Northern Health, BC.
The World Health
Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found that
glyphosate probably causes human cancer.
Health Canada responded that the IARC assessment is not relevant because it
identified a hypothetical hazard rather
than an exposure-associated risk. While IARC does not conduct a formal risk
assessment, the panel does examine hazards in human, real-life studies. It is
disingenuous to characterize findings of an IARC panel as irrelevant to
everyday exposures, particularly when data on Canadians getting cancer was
included in the IARC review.
“Multiple epidemiologic
studies have indicated links between glyphosate and increased susceptibility to
development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, myeloma, as well as multidrug resistant
bacteria. This is of sufficient concern that it warrants that an independent
panel be struck to review the science backing the PMRA’s claim that there is no
need to re-review this issue. What level of evidence would be sufficient to
trigger a review of the status of glyphosate? Who were the reviewers and what is
their expertise? Their clear requirement for “proof of harm” before further
review is even more concerning for the Canadian public,” said Dr. Richard van der Jagt, MD, FRCP, a
cancer specialist who has many years of cumulative experience treating lymphoma
and myeloma patients.
“Monsanto’s influence has
polluted the scientific literature and improper tactics have been employed by
the agro-chemical industry to undermine regulatory decisions world-wide,”
stated Kathleen Ruff of Right On Canada. “Ethical, scientific
and transparency standards have not been followed, thus destroying public
trust.”
When asked, Health Canada responded that it does not have a Code of Scientific Conduct.
Mary Lou McDonald of Safe Food Matters asked
why some objections were not answered, including the fact that the government’s
own data recognizes that labels are not followed. The response was that only
objections based in science were responded too. She observed that it was clear
from the call [January 11th] that there is no comprehensive scientific
approach code adhered to by PMRA, and that the “scientific approach” of PMRA is
limited to toxicology studies in the lab, and requires proof that these old, confidential studies were wrong.
Prof. Louise Vandelac, Professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal, a researcher at CINBIOSE and
director of CREPPA, seriously questions the scientific rigor and
transparency of the PMRA . “It claims having consulted sources other than
those mentioned in the consultation paper in support of its decision, but
without identifying the documents. The PMRA's decision is based mainly on dated
and unpublished documents prepared by the agrochemical industry benefiting from
the decision. This ethical problem is aggravated by the lack of systematic
review of the scientific literature of the last 15 years which shows among
others things, the need to perform whole-life analyzes on laboratory
animals and to make a scientific assessment of the glyphosate-based commercial
formulations, that are up to 1000-fold more toxic than the glyphosate analyzed
(Mesnage et al. 2014). The PMRA claims to rely on other agencies such as EFSA
in Europe, although registration in Europe was
limited to 5 years, not 15 years as it is in Canada. The European report was significantly extracted from a Monsanto document, as revealed by Le Monde (Nov. 26, 2017).”
Josette
Wier
strongly disagreed with Health Canada’s claim to transparency. “This was the
worse process I was ever part of. Requests brought no referral to a regulatory
framework, the decision took one year and a half to be issued.”
Sears
noted, “Despite transparency provisions introduced in the Pest Control Products Act (2002),
pesticide assessment is opaque. The data evaluation
remains confidential. The public sees the final decision, and can take pencil
and paper to the Reading Room in Ottawa to copy information from hundreds of
industry reports. As of December 31, 2018, Health
Canada is required to have established an open Science Integrity Policy. We will see if this will bring more light to data evaluations.”
For more information please
contact:
Meg Sears PhD, Chair Prevent Cancer Now 613 297-6042
- 30 -
Further Information:
The responses from Health
Canada’s PMRA did not address or were factually incorrect regarding at least five
points raised by objectors:
2. The World Health Organization’s International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human
carcinogen, in 2015. Dr. Connie Moase indicated during the briefing that IARC
does not consider human exposure levels, despite the fact that IARC considered
Canadian studies of cancers in workers exposed to glyphosate - example.
3. Glyphosate
mobilizes cadmium and other toxic metals, that can then accumulate in grains
and other crops. This is well known – In the 1990s then-Environment Canada assembled a database
of plants that hyper-accumulate toxic metals, and accumulation in
wheat is investigated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Cadmium is a
potent toxin and carcinogen, that is at higher concentrations in some Canadian agricultural
regions, and in potash fertilizer. Canada has no standard for cadmium in food,
but our grains have been refused at borders for exceeding international
standards. Cadmium was not mentioned in the responses, nor apparently further
investigated. In the telephone briefing, Health Canada representatives
expressed unfounded hypothetical doubt, but the claimed rigorous review
overlooked scientific proof of glyphosate actually mobilizing cadmium, and cadmium being lower in organic food, as has been the repeatedly expressed concern.
5. Differences in food quality when crops are
“dessicated” and do not completely mature, were also out of scope. Glyphosate kills
some soil microbes, resulting in more crop pathogens. To reduce toxic moulds,
and for convenience in harvesting, crops may be “dessicated” by rapid killing with glyphosate before they
mature completely and dry naturally. Pesticide application immediately
pre-harvest is prohibited in some countries, to prevent the higher residue
levels. Glyphosate accumulates in the
seeds of legumes and beans, including chickpeas, and exceeds legal limits, but this magnification of dietary exposure was not considered. Canada
Food Inspection Agency data shows that these crops, and grains, have exceeded
science-based maximum residue limits. Health Canada explained that an
exceedance indicates only that further investigation is warranted, but does not necessarily mean that there is a health risk. In fact, these exceedences warrant a transparent examination
of current levels of toxins accumulating in seeds, the levels of consumption by the population, an evaluation of the unaccounted for risks, and rapid action.
|
