Good afternoon and thank you for inviting Équiterre to testify in your study on a food policy for Canada.
This is the first time in Canada we have had a national discussion on the quality and the source of our food. Today, we want to talk to you about a threat to the sustainability of agriculture in Canada, a threat to the abundance and quality of the food we produce.
That threat is all too often overlooked in our conversations, but it can and must be considered in the context of food policy in Canada. That threat is the dependence on synthetic pesticides in farming.
The importance of the national food policy cannot be understated. We finally recognize that food security for Canadians is linked to the viability of Canadian agriculture, including the conservation of the ecological foundations that underpin our food production, like healthy soils, clean water, biodiversity, and healthy pollinator populations.
Unfortunately, our mounting dependence on pesticides in agriculture threatens all of the above. While pesticide sales continue to increase in Canada, the most recent census on agriculture shows that farm profits are not increasing. Our food supply depends on the viability of Canadian farms, and we should all be concerned about the rising costs of agricultural input, including the cost of overreliance on synthetic pesticides.
Our recommendation to you today is that the committee recommend a comprehensive national pesticide use reduction strategy as part of the national food policy. I'll explain briefly why this is necessary, and how it can be done.
First of all, the myth that pesticides are essential to feed the growing population is no longer supported by evidence. It's quite the contrary. The seminal report from the international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology for development at the FAO and the World Bank back in 2008 concluded, based on the experience of 80 countries, that industrial agriculture with its heavy dependence on pesticides was not going to feed our growing population. It was rather agricultural practices that are locally adopted and work closely within ecosystems that will improve human health and ensure food security for our growing global population. Since then there have been several other large-scale studies worldwide showing that agricultural yields will drop and sometimes even crash on farms, as soil health and ecosystem functions reach a tipping point after years and years of overuse of synthetic pesticides.
The UN's special rapporteur on the right to food, Dr. Elver, co-published a report earlier this year denouncing the myth that pesticides are necessary to feed the world. She lays the blame on the pesticide industry for “systematic denial“ of harms, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics“ and heavy lobbying of governments that has prevented national and global restrictions on pesticide use, creating a threat to national food security. Those are her words, not mine.
She proposes several recommendations that should be considered by your committee, including the urgent need for national pesticide use reduction strategies in agriculture.
Globally we know that synthetic pesticides threaten food security, but at home pesticide overuse proposes threats to the viability of Canadian agriculture. First of all, pesticides degrade soil quality, which is essential for plant growth and carbon sequestration. Pesticides kill important soil bacteria and fungi, which are essential for plant growth and production yields. We know, based on the latest Agriculture Canada data, that small organic matter is declining in several regions of Canada.
Canadian water quality is also deteriorating because pesticides are increasingly leaching into our watersheds across Canada. As one example, atrazine is now found in the vast majority of Canadian waterways and is now even measured in Canadian drinking water. It is water contamination that led to a complete ban on atrazine in the European Union 13 years ago, yet corn producers in the European Union remain competitive. Many studies now show that atrazine in Canada only contributes to at best 3% increase in agricultural yields and in most cases to no increase in agricultural yields at all.
Pesticides also threaten the ecosystem services upon which agriculture depends, including the health of pollinators, which are vital to agriculture. Declines in pollinator populations such as bees and monarchs are in part the result of exposure to insecticides. Neonicotinoids, best known as “neonics”, are the most commonly used insecticides in Canada. They have been found to be 5,000 to 10,000 times more toxic to bees than DDT was. DDT was banned 45 years ago.
The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides just last week released its worldwide assessment on the ecological effects of neonics, and they were in Ottawa, Montreal, and Toronto presenting the results of their research. The results are truly alarming.
You should also know that France will be the first country to completely ban neonics, not only because it makes sense to preserve biodiversity, but because farmers recognize the need for pollination for successful agricultural production. France's ban on neonics goes hand in hand with a strategy to reduce pesticide use nationally, with financing and support for farmers.
As the committee has seen in the case of the proposed ban on imidacloprid in Canada, agricultural producers are often vulnerable when we must restrict or ban a pesticide. They are left with no alternative. Had we had the funding, the financing, and the programs to globally reduce pesticide use in agriculture, it would make it much easier for agricultural producers to adapt and respond to a restriction on specific pesticides when it is necessary to do so to protect the environment and human health.
Agriculture Canada and provincial agriculture departments must share the responsibility for reducing pesticide use, and this is where a national food policy can make a significant contribution.
In conclusion, I would point out our detailed recommendations to reduce the dependence on synthetic pesticides in Canada, which I hope you've all received. I would just briefly like to point out that Quebec has a pesticide use reduction strategy with targets and would now propose a piece of legislation to achieve those targets. Denmark committed to reducing its national pesticide use in agriculture by 50%, and they achieved that target in 1989. France also has very generous financing and crop insurance programs to reduce pesticide use in agriculture. There are plenty of international examples to draw from.