Province justifies planned neonic ban
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
by BETTER FARMING STAFF
The Ontario government has no more information on the harm caused to pollinators by neonicotinoids than does the federal Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, ministry of agriculture and environment staff admitting during public consultations in London on Tuesday.
Yet the provincial and federal regulators have come to different conclusions. In late November, the province announced a plan to reduce neonicotinoid use in Ontario by 80 per cent, on the same day that Health Canada (PMRA is part of it) released a report concluding that more work needed to be done to make the connection.
The apparent lack of scientific evidence supporting the province’s decision to proceed with regulation was noted early in a public consultation meeting held Tuesday in London. Presentations by Sharon Bailey, director of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs food safety and environmental policy branch and Steve Klose, director of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change standards development branch were scrutinized carefully.
In answer to a question from one of 120 participants, Klose cited “a body of evidence growing in terms of work in Europe, right here in Canada, Saskatchewan, that’s starting to look beyond the edge of field and where things are.” He called the area “an evolving science.”
The participant persisted. “PMRA is looking at all of that information too and they very clearly said on November 25 that there is insufficient information to take action,” she said. “So what expertise do you have in your agency that they don’t have in theirs?”
“We don’t have extra evidence that PMRA doesn’t have,” Klose replied. “We would share all information and work quite closely with PMRA . . . We’re scanning the science like everybody else.”
Klose allowed the PMRA and the province have different focuses. The PMRA “have to act nationally,” he noted. “We have to act in terms of what’s going on and what’s the evidence in Ontario in terms of the direction the government has taken at this stage and wanting to exercise precaution . . . and wanting to move forward with some action and not wait.”
The agriculture ministry’s Bailey said the province’s proposal is to focus on using neonicotinoid treatments only where they are needed. “We really shouldn’t be using pesticides where they are not needed, and that’s sort of a general approach.”
Joanna Wallace, Seaforth, a certified crop advisor, farmer and a Pioneer seed seller questioned why the province, which has been encouraging producers to employ conservation practices such as no-till and cover crops, would want to reduce a seed treatment considered a necessary tool for no-till.
Elgin County farmer Tom Martin says he is already changing how he farms in anticipation of regulations. “We’ve been no-till or minimum till for 20 to 25 years,…we’re working ground right now as I speak for the first time in many, many years.
“We need this (neonic) protection for our seeds. Without that we’ll have to plant in conventional till to get these plants up growing faster. So that’s a direct impact on me already.”
Glencoe farmer Dave McEachren said farmers have already taken voluntary measures and the PMRA’s recent preliminary report has shown a tremendous reduction in incidents. Moreover, he added, the PMRA’s report indicates 72 per cent of the poisoning incidents this year involved only three beekeepers.
Paul Ward, president of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture, warned that if regulation came into place, farmers would “go underground … and get the same corn (from other provinces or the United States) for years to come and you will not even know it. This is a big province.” BF