The co-chair of a scientific committee advising the federal government on pesticides has resigned over concerns about a lack of transparency and scientific oversight in the management of these products.
dr Bruce Lanphear, a professor of public health at Simon Fraser University, resigned June 27 as co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Pest Control Products, which advises the Pest Management Regulatory Agency at Health Canada.
In his three-page resignation letter, he says he has little or no confidence that the committee can help Health Canada’s pesticides division become more transparent or protect Canadians from toxic pesticides.
In his letter to the director of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, he argues that he cannot give that assurance based on his experience over the past year.
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Pest Control Products provides Health Canada with independent advice on the health and environmental risks of pesticides and conducts assessments and reviews for new products. Its members have met five times so far.
This committee was established in July 2022 as part of a reform effort to improve the transparency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.
Professor Lanphear writes that the role and scope of the scientific committee is more limited than the agency’s other advisory committee, the Pest Management Advisory Council (PMAC), which includes members from the pesticide industry.
Given the broader role of industry consultants, Dr. Lanphear said he had “little to no confidence” that his committee could help the agency become more transparent or ensure Canadians are protected from toxic pesticides.
In a written statement, Health Canada affirmed that the Pest Management Regulatory Agency takes its role seriously and that the pesticide review process “continues to be fully science-based”.
The two advisory committees have different roles, the ministry argued. While the Scientific Committee provides scientific and technical advice to help the agency make evidence-based decisions, the CCLA advises the Secretary of Health on policies and issues related to pest control.
The agency decides
“This is a committee of people whose interests and concerns are affected by the law [sur les produits antiparasitaires] and these currently include pesticide manufacturers, farmers, environmental and health groups, academics or those with relevant expertise,” the ministry said.
The Pest Management Regulatory Agency takes into account the advice of both committees, but has the responsibility and “exclusive authority” to make regulatory decisions about pesticides.
In his resignation letter, Professor Lanphear argues that he has had difficulty obtaining certain data and responses from Health Canada staff on controversial products and the way the department monitors exposure to toxic pesticides.
For example, he claims he asked how Health Canada incorporates biomonitoring studies that examine human exposure to chemicals into its decision-making, but never received an “adequate answer.”
He also claims he has requested a review of the 1970 approval process for the controversial insecticide “chlorpyrifos,” which is currently being phased out in Canada. He wanted to examine the original confirmation and compare it to data collected over the following decades.
Concerns about the effects of chlorpyrifos were raised in human studies for decades before Health Canada banned it. The insecticide can cause various effects on the nervous system, ranging from headaches and blurred vision to coma and death.
However, his proposals, supported by other members of the scientific committee, were rejected, Professor Lanphear wrote. He points out that legal restrictions may have prevented the committee from reviewing the controversial pesticides, raising questions about transparency.
He concludes his letter by calling for a major reform of the outdated way the federal government regulates pesticides in Canada. The regulator relies primarily on toxicology studies, which are typically conducted in the laboratory, rather than human studies, he said.
Situations where approved pesticides were later found to be toxic convinced him that Canada could no longer rely on an outdated regulatory system “that protects the pesticide industry more than Canadians do.”