Agriculture Committee on May 7th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 79 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Our orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), are a study of losses in honeybee colonies.

Joining us today for the first hour, from CropLife Canada, is Pierre Petelle, vice-president of chemistry, and Maria Trainer, managing director of regulatory affairs; and from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, we have Mr. John Cowan, vice-president of strategic development.

I'll ask you to each make an opening presentation, hopefully for no more than 10 minutes. If you do go over, I'll cut you off, because we do have a lot of witnesses today and we'd like to hear from everybody.

John, if you'd like to start, then we'll just move down in the order.

[John Cowan, Vice-President, Strategic Development, Grain Farmers of Ontario]

Good morning. I'm John Cowan, representing the Grain Farmers of Ontario. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present the Grain Farmers' position on this very important matter of bee pollinator health in the country.

For a little background, the Grain Farmers of Ontario represent the 28,000 farmers who produce corn, soybeans, and wheat in the province of Ontario. It is three associations that amalgamated three and a half years ago to represent those crops. Our crops cover over 5 million acres and generate about $2.5 billion in farm gate receipts in Ontario. We operate under the guidance of 15 elected directors, and we have 150 elected delegates representing 15 districts across the province.

I have two statements right off the bat. The Grain Farmers of Ontario recognize the importance of bees in our natural environment and their importance as pollinators for multiple agricultural crops. Ontario farmers also recognize the need for seed treatment insecticides to protect corn, seed, and seedlings.

I'll just give you a little history on seed treatments and insecticides in Ontario, and in Canada for that matter. Prior to registration of neonicotinoids, corn seed was treated with lindane, which is an organochloride insecticide. In 2001 Health Canada concluded that the use of lindane as a seed treatment posed an unacceptable risk to workers. Lindane was officially discontinued in 2004. Basically, it was very bad for farmers. The current neonicotinoid seed treatments were registered between 1995 and 2003—so over 10 years ago—and are considered much safer for farmers than what was previously used.

The Grain Farmers of Ontario were first made aware of significant bee deaths this past spring.

Compared to broadcast spray applications of insecticides, seed treatment, applied to the seed, reduces the amount of pesticides used by ten to twentyfold, which is safer for both farmers and the environment. Polymers are used to bind the insecticide to the seed, and treated corn seed is buried four to eight centimetres under the surface of the soil. The insecticide protects the corn seed and seedlings from insect pests that feed on the plant until it begins drawing nutrients through its root system.

Plant stand losses have been measured by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food at three to twenty bushels per acre without an insecticide because of wireworm, seed maggot, and white grub. A 20-bushel-per-acre stand loss at current corn prices is equal to a loss of almost $130 per acre for corn farmers. Many of our members report that a 10% stand loss is average, which would be approximately $95 per acre. To a 500-acre corn producer, that would equate to approximately $50,000 in losses, which of course would go right to the bottom line in terms of profitability.

Seed treatments represent an insurance investment against potential yield and therefore income loss. There are no alternative insecticides available to protect corn from these early season pests.

The Grain Farmers of Ontario support research towards this important topic. We are currently supporting a project in collaboration with OMAF and the Ministry of Rural Affairs in Ontario with the following objectives:

• determine the presence of bees and flowering plants in and around cornfields at the time of corn planning and how pollinator exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust can be reduced;

• determine the role of seed lubricants in the production of pesticide-contaminated dust during corn planting.

The study includes beekeepers and corn producers in Ontario working together and is valued at $340,000, with funding derived from OMAF and the Ministry of Rural Affairs, the Agricultural Adaptation Council, and the Pollinator Partnership from the United States.

Grain Farmers of Ontario are committed to understanding the issues, staying informed of research results, and communicating best management practices with our farmers. We are committed to good stewardship for the products we use and to working towards a solution based on sound science that ensures healthy crops and healthy bees.

In conclusion, many people are looking for the single silver bullet solution. A recent USDA study published last week confirms our thoughts that the death of bee colonies across North America is a very complex issue. It includes varroa mites, colony feeding, and other management and environmental relationships.

We have asked that the Government of Canada invest in research to understand bee health, bee colony foraging, and all the interactions that exist with farmers and the environment that they work in.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for the advice of the committee, we do have copies of that presentation. We're just getting it translated and printed to circulate before the end of the meeting.

Mr. Petelle, welcome.

[Pierre Petelle, Vice-President, Chemistry, CropLife Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today about the important topic of pollinator health.

My name is Pierre Petelle. I am the vice-president of CropLife Canada's chemistry sector. We represent the developers, manufacturers and distributors of pest control products and plant biotechnologies.

With me this morning is Dr. Maria Trainer, who is the managing director of regulatory affairs for CropLife Canada.

I'll be providing our remarks on behalf of CropLife this morning.

CropLife Canada's member companies are committed to protecting human health and the environment. Our technologies are beneficial, not only to Canadian farmers, but also to consumers who benefit from lower food costs, better environmental quality, and a more prosperous economy.

Agriculture has never been more environmentally sustainable, in large part due to the innovative products that our industry has developed. For example, we help farmers grow more food on less land, greatly increasing their efficiency. Our industry's products also improve soil conservation, reduce water use, and generate fewer greenhouse gases. We are proud of these contributions.

Aside from our moral obligation to protect the environment, of which pollinators are an integral and vital component, our industry also has a vested interest in protecting bees. Without sufficient pollination, many of the crops that our products are designed to protect simply wouldn't exist. The success of modern agriculture depends on bees, and we are fully committed to protecting and improving pollinator health.

This committee has no doubt seen PMRA's preliminary analysis of the honeybee incidents in southern Ontario last spring. The analysis did indicate that insecticides used on treated corn were a contributing factor to the losses. Before I comment on PMRA's report and the actions that our industry has taken since last spring, l'd like to talk about seed treatments in general. John has already covered some of that, but I'd like to cover a little more on what they are, why they're used, and how they can represent a significant environmental improvement over the alternative.

Insecticide-treated seed has improved the precision of insecticide application by applying a very small amount of product directly to the seed, where it will provide the greatest protection, namely, on the seed and in the ground. This approach to pesticide application means the product is placed where beneficial insects, like honeybees and other non-target organisms, are less likely to come into contact with it.

Seed treatments have co-existed very well with pollinators in many regions of the country for quite some time. For example, canola, one of Canada's biggest success stories, is planted on more than 21 million acres in western Canada. Virtually all of this crop, which is very attractive to bees, is treated with a neonic seed treatment, and bee health in that region remains strong. Indeed, we have heard from many beekeepers who tell us that seed treatment products are a significant improvement over past practices when it comes to protecting bee health.

In addition to reducing potential pollinator exposure, seed treatments have also helped farmers by providing stronger, more resilient crops and higher yields. Restrictions of any sort on these products would force growers to rely on other forms of pest control products, including foliar sprays, which could increase the risk of exposure of non-target organisms, such as bees.

Pesticides are an essential tool to enable our growers to feed the growing world population in an environmentally responsible fashion. Without pesticides, the world would lose at least 40% of its food supply; for certain crops, losses could be up to 80%. The impact on the world's food supply would be simply catastrophic.

In Canada, we've been largely shielded from the significant bee decline seen elsewhere around the world. Indeed, according to StatsCan data, our honeybee numbers are actually increasing. However, we must not be complacent. Bee health is complex, just like human health, and according to experts, which I don't profess to be, it's impacted by a variety of interacting variables, including parasites, diseases, and other stress factors, such as habitat loss, genetic weakness, and environmental exposures.

Given our industry's clear dependence on bees, all of these factors are of concern to us. This complexity extends to the circumstances of last spring. The record-setting warm temperatures we had last year, windy weather, and unique spring conditions led to an increase in dust that released during corn planting. In addition, the well-above-normal heat also led to weeds emerging earlier than usual and bees foraging while the corn was being planted.

The reality is that neonic-treated corn has been planted in Ontario and elsewhere for the past 10 years without similar incidents.

I mentioned earlier that our industry has taken action since last spring. I'd like to elaborate a little bit on that now.

Some of the steps our industry has taken over the last year include developing a comprehensive set of best-management practices for the planting of insecticide-treated corn seeds and actively communicating this information to growers. We've also been establishing better communications and positive relationships between beekeepers, growers, and our industry to help protect pollinators and find solutions to ongoing pollinator health issues. Many of our member companies have been investing in new hive health products, which are themselves pesticides, to protect bees from potentially devastating hive pests such as the varroa mite.

One thing that is often overlooked is that pesticides are one of the most heavily regulated substances on the market. Health Canada's PMRA is one of the most respected regulatory bodies in the world, one that is routinely used as an example by other nations seeking to strengthen and modernize their regulatory frameworks. PMRA thoroughly assesses all pest control products before they are approved for use and sale in Canada. Part of this assessment includes a rigorous evaluation of the potential impact on wildlife and other non-target organisms.

While neonicotinoids are toxic to insects, they have a very low toxicity for most wildlife. In addition, the targeted nature of seed treatment technology minimizes the exposure to beneficial insects such as pollinators. At present, some neonicotinoids are undergoing a re-evaluation. This is a routine part of the PMRA process designed to ensure that all the latest science is considered when looking at previously approved products. We support Canada's rigorous regulatory system, including the regular re-evaluation of approved products. It ensures that regulatory decisions are continually evaluated against the best available science, and it ensures that Canadians can have the confidence in the innovations our industry develops.

Finally, some will no doubt point out that the European Commission recently announced its intention to ban certain neonicotinoid uses effective December 1 of this year. It's important to note that this was a split decision in Europe, with many member states voting against the recommendation. It's also worth noting that the commission based its recommendation on a report from the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, that was inconclusive and based on perceived data gaps that could have been addressed. For example, they did not take into account independent monitoring studies in a number of EU member states that clearly documented no impact on bee populations from neonicotinoid insecticides when used properly, nor did they consider real-world experience from other regions, including Canada. Nonetheless, they have still chosen to adopt an approach that represents a fundamental misapplication of the precautionary principle.

This decision sends a very negative signal to innovative R and D companies that rely on predictable science-based regulatory decisions. We view this as yet another example of politics trumping science in Europe, which has now become the world's largest food importer. This decision handcuffs farmers, will drive European food prices up even further, and will do absolutely nothing to improve pollinator health in Europe.

Pesticides and pollinators both play critical roles in agriculture. Both are essential for successful and sustainable food production to feed an ever-growing world population. Canada's plant science industry is committed to working with beekeepers, growers, and all interested parties to help improve and maintain pollinator health in Canada, both today and for generations to come.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Allen.

Oh, sorry, Ms. Brosseau.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

It's okay. Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank our witnesses. I don't think I've ever seen a full house like this.

This is a very important subject. I remember we had witnesses in last year, and it was a very moving and memorable meeting.

I'm going to pose a question in French.

I spoke with people from the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec. I think it is important that their opinion be expressed on the matter, as well.

As in Ontario, there have been similar cases in Quebec since 2009. There were fewer cases, but they are the same, and they were reported in the spring. The federation feels that it must use any means possible to inform farmers of the risks of these insecticides to bees and other pollinators. However, it is a David and Goliath struggle. It is very difficult to set in motion, and it is complex.

Furthermore, in light of the recent decisions of the European Union and the position taken by the Ontario Beekeepers' Association late last week, the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec's board of directors met last night and passed a resolution asking that the use of neonicotinoids be banned in agriculture in Canada.

I would like to know what your opinion is with respect to their recent resolution.

[Pierre Petelle]

I wasn't aware that the Quebec federation had passed a resolution also calling for a ban.

Would you like me to answer in French?

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

No. We can do both.

It was just last night they passed it.

[Pierre Petelle]

This is news to me, and it's very unfortunate, because we have been working very closely with that group and many other stakeholders in Quebec at a round table. We felt we were making progress with that group, sharing information, with constructive dialogue, and, as you started with your point, helping to make sure growers and beekeepers are aware of each other's operations, better informing growers about the use of seed treatments and these insecticides on the treated seed. It's very unfortunate that they have now moved to a position of calling for a ban.

Bans are not the answer with this issue. It's a complex issue. We need to work together. We need to move forward in a collaborative way.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I think it was also mentioned that communication is very important, and cooperation and understanding from the beekeepers and industry, because bees have such an important role. As you said, the loss of bees is very catastrophic.

Have there been any more round tables with industry and beekeepers? You said there was cooperation, but have there been actual round tables recently?

[Pierre Petelle]

CropLife organized two round tables in collaboration with the Canadian Honey Council, one in October and one just recently in March, bringing together all the various stakeholders.

At the last session we had the equipment manufacturers, we had a number of different grower groups, from canola to grain farmers, and we had government officials as well, both from PMRA and Agriculture Canada. We had a very useful and productive day.

At the end of that session we asked the stakeholders around the table if there was value in continuing that sort of exercise. Was there value in coming together to discuss this issue? Unanimously the response was yes, they would like to see the forum continued.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

What technical improvements has the pesticide industry recently developed to further reduce the release of dust?

[Pierre Petelle]

The industry has been working since these products were developed to continually improve the actual technology of how to adhere the chemical to the seed—the various polymers being used. That's an ongoing process each of the registrants are continually working with to try to make sure that product stays on there.

The other component that has been worked on is...quite often with this equipment they use a talc or graphite as a lubricant, so the seeds continue to flow through the seeding equipment. That talc obviously is very fine and can be released in dust in these pneumatic planters. Our industry has been working on a talc replacement product, which is a polymer that reduces the dust by over 90% versus talc. Right now, this year, it's being tested on large acreages throughout Ontario and Quebec in a variety of different seeding equipment. If the results are favourable, and the early results are very good, this would replace the talc currently being used and therefore further minimize dust.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

And thank you to our witnesses for their presence here today. This is indeed an important topic, which is why we're studying it. I noticed a number of articles in the media, which also shows it's important.

I think one of the messages, though, that can inadvertently be conveyed, sometimes through articles, etc., is that somehow the farmers don't really care about the bees. It's the bees versus the farmers. Right? If only the farmers cared about bees, this situation would change.

Let me ask a question. Because I'm limited in time, I'll ask for short answers. How do bees benefit crop farmers, and do farmers have a vested interest in a healthy bee population?

Let me start with John and then Pierre. Then I have two other questions I would like to ask.

[John Cowan]

Obviously bees are a number one pollinator, so depending on the crop—certainly the fruit crops, the vegetable crops, flowering crops. When you think of a pretty flower, bees are critical in pollinating those crops, which is basically the transfer that creates yield. So they are critical to us.

Do we have a vested interest? I would go back. The Grain Farmers of Ontario, at our semi-annual meeting in March, actually organized a panel, brought in experts, not just from Ontario, OMAF, but certainly the federal government, the PMRA, and also individuals from the United States, with their experience at Purdue University, to address our delegates and inform them about what was going on.

We have worked with the PMRA to establish best management practices.

We've written four articles in our magazine addressing to our farmers the considerations they should take when planting their crop, and we have also posted those best management practices on our website. We've instructed our elected delegates to speak to this every time they have a farmer meeting.

So do we have a vested interest? Absolutely. Are we taking steps in terms of best management practices? Yes, we are.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm not surprised to hear that.

Let me ask a second question about moratoriums and bans. Certainly I, and our government, believe that those types of decisions—moratoriums and bans—must be based on sound science. If they're not based on sound science, what are they based on? They can be based on a wide variety of different issues, but sound science must be a criterion.

Let me ask a question to you, Pierre. Is the science on this conclusive?

[Pierre Petelle]

The science on pesticides generally is very robust. The difference between a lot of chemicals on the market is that with pesticides there is a very detailed data set that helps regulators make very informed decisions. The science on neonics, the weight of evidence of all the science out there, is very clear with these products in terms of a lethal or sublethal or chronic effect; it is not a route of exposure of concern.

On the particular issue of dust being released during planting, we've acknowledged that and have addressed it. I think moving forward, that is not going to be an issue for pollinators.

From our industry's perspective, in order to invest in new technologies, it can be upwards of $250 million and 10 years' worth of commitment to bring in a new active ingredient to market. In terms of the importance of having predictable science-based regulations, we can't emphasize that enough. That investment depends on that predictability and that science-based nature.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Good.

I appreciate the comment you made that although Europe has decided to ban certain neonicotinoids, they were very divided. It wasn't necessarily based on science, but on other factors that came into play.

The last question I want to ask is to John.

What impact would a ban or a moratorium have on farmers? I'm asking because, again, when you read some of the articles...you would think that if farmers just stopped, they'd fix the problem.

There's really no discussion on what the real impact would be on farmers. Could you quickly quantify what those impacts would be if there were a ban or a moratorium? How would this affect the farmer?

[John Cowan]

Using Ontario statistics, the average yield was 149 bushels to the acre in the province of Ontario this past year. It was 151 bushels the year before. If you took a 150-bushel average in corn and you talked about a 10% stand loss, that would be the equivalent of 15 bushels to the acre. At current prices that comes out to almost a $100-per-acre loss to a farmer. For an average 500-acre corn farmer—there are smaller operations and many that are much larger—that would equate to a $50,000 loss for that farmer.

I'd also like to make a comment about Europe. I've read and actually been sent a lot of e-mails saying that if they banned it in Europe it must be the right thing to do. To make a direct comparison between Canadian farming and European farming is very difficult, because of the size of the fields they work in and the equipment they use. Another thing I'd like to point out is that they are one of the world's largest importers of food now. They also have the most subsidized farmers in the world. Basically, a farmer gets paid for doing what the EU or their national government determines would be appropriate.

That's not the case here. A $50,000 loss for a farmer here comes right off his bottom line. We want to do the right thing, but there aren't a lot of farmers who can afford to forego that income.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I think it's fair to say that to a certain degree we're pretty conflicted around here about what's really happening. We're trying to probe and see exactly what the sound science is. I've seen nothing that says unequivocally that it's related to the use of neonicotinoids, notwithstanding the EU's position on it.

Maria, I'm told that you might be the scientific expert on this.

Is it possible that we kind of hit the perfect storm last year, with a combination of what they say is the cause: the parasitic varroa mite, the viruses, the bacteria, the weather, poor nutrition and genetics, and maybe partially the pesticides that are being used? Is that a possibility?

[Dr. Maria Trainer, Managing Director, Regulatory Affairs, CropLife Canada]

I think that's exactly right. Last year we had one of the warmest springs on record and record bee populations coming out of the winter. Corn was going in early. The flowering weeds were up early. As you said, it was a perfect storm of contributing factors that likely all came together to create a very unusual set of circumstances.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I hear that it's been out there for 10 years. It's not happening in Australia, it's not happening in South America, and I understand that it's not a major problem in western Canada. Yet, we saw the drama unfold last year, as Ruth described.

I'm concerned about two more things, if you can talk about them.

First, the real efforts to discuss this with the apiarists, between the pesticide industry and the beekeepers—how much communication has gone on?

Second, with regard to the application of other innovations, and I am talking about the technology used to apply.... I don't mean applying the polymers to the seed. I'm talking about the equipment that's used to keep the dust down. What effort is being made there to accommodate, to the degree that we can, the beekeepers? With the knowledge that farmers do care, and that they are applying the measures that they're expected to apply to reduce the risk, what effort is being made in that regard?

[Dr. Maria Trainer]

First of all, with respect to communication with beekeepers, as a national organization we've reached out to the Canadian Honey Council, the national body that represents beekeepers across Canada. We've tried to work very closely with them throughout the last 12 months. I think the success of that is demonstrated in the two round tables we've held. They've been very successful. We're reasonably impressed with them for bringing that large a number of stakeholders together to address an issue in that kind of timeframe.

For us, it's broader than just the issue of pesticides. There's the broader issue of bee health, which is a concern because our industry is so inherently dependent on pollinators. The importance of protecting and promoting their health in general is very important to us. From that regard, we've had a very productive dialogue that we envision continuing indefinitely. We certainly hope to build that relationship across the country, as well as at the national level.