Federal Court decision on renewal of glyphosate-based herbicide is a win for science-based decision making

CropLife Canada is pleased to see that in a recent ruling from the federal court it has once again upheld the Pest Management Regulatory Agency’s (PMRA) scientific decision-making authority and, more specifically in this case, its interpretation of the pesticide renewal process.

The legal case, which was brought forward by a number of activist groups, challenged the PMRA’s 2022 renewal of a glyphosate-based herbicide (Mad Dog Plus). They claimed that the PMRA failed to deliver on its obligations to fully evaluate the risks of the product after they submitted scientific studies for consideration.

In its ruling, the court was clear that when decisions involve complex scientific or technical issues that they should respect the expertise of the PMRA and its interpretation of its legislation. As such, the court did not question the PMRA’s scientific conclusion on the safety of glyphosate, which is one of the most studied pesticides in the world. Instead, the court directed the PMRA to provide greater transparency in terms of how it came to its decision. Ultimately, it was a decision about administrative processes rather than scientific integrity.

This is just the latest attempt from activist groups, who have failed to deliver any valid scientific arguments to support their broader agenda, to use the courts to undermine the scientific decision-making authority of the PMRA and limit Canadian farmers’ access to critical pest control tools.

The outcome of this case protects the PMRA’s discretion in determining what data could impact the Canadian risk assessment. A failure to do so could have resulted in an additional unnecessary layer of review at the renewal stage, which would have in turn led to a perpetual cycle of re-evaluations with no further protection of health or the environment. This would have crippled the PMRA’s ability to deliver on its core mandate.

At a time when Canada is focused on driving productivity and economic growth, the activist groups who brought forward this case are seeking to add unnecessary layers of red tape to the pesticide approval process, which would severely limit innovation in Canada and handcuff Canadian farmers’ ability to compete. Fortunately, the court sided with rational, science-based decision making.