Halt aerial glyphosate spraying
Petitioners ask the Government of Canada to immediately halt aerial glyphosate spraying on Crown forests, including Renfrew County, and help forestry companies adopt sheep grazing as a sustainable alternative. The government responds that Health Canada found glyphosate acceptable under established uses.
Why we would sign this petition
- Stops aerial glyphosate on Crown land, reducing the potential contamination of water, harm to wildlife, and impacts on traditional harvesting and local community health cited by petitioners.
- Prompts federal engagement to address petitioners' claim that Algonquin communities were not properly informed or consulted, supporting Indigenous stewardship and participation.
- Encourages adoption of a non-chemical vegetation-control method (sheep grazing) presented by petitioners as a proven, sustainable alternative to herbicide use.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Pesticide regulation and forestry permitting are provincially managed, so federal intervention may be limited, duplicative or legally constrained.
- Health Canada's 2017 re-evaluation concluded glyphosate is acceptable under established uses, so regulator findings may not support the petitioners' asserted health or environmental risks.
- Sheep grazing may be impractical at the scale and terrain of many forest regeneration sites, making it an incomplete or costly alternative in some contexts.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
PETITION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Whereas: The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has issued permits allowing forestry companies to spray glyphosate aerially over Crown land; These are public lands, belonging to all Canadians, and the spraying directly affects water, wildlife as we enter moose hunting season, traditional harvesting, and the health of local communities; The Algonquins of Pikwakanagan and Algonquins of Bonnechere First Nations were not properly informed or consulted, which undermines Indigenous rights and stewardship of the land; and Aerial spraying has been linked to the destruction of biodiversity, soil depletion, animal poisoning, contamination of waterways, and increased forest fire risk due to dead, dried brush left behind. Therefore: We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to immediately intervene in the planned aerial spraying of glyphosate across Canada's Crown forests, including Renfrew County forests, and assist forestry companies in implementing a proven, sustainable alternative: sheep grazing.
Government response
Response by the Minister of Health Signed by Maggie Chi In Canada, all levels of government play a role in regulating pesticides. Federally, pesticides are regulated under the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA), which is administered by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA). PMRA’s mandate and top priority is to protect the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. Health Canada’s PMRA acknowledges that Indigenous Peoples have raised concerns about pesticide use on their traditional territories and the level of specific engagement during regulatory reviews with Health Canada. It recognizes the responsibility and opportunity to work with Indigenous Peoples for meaningful participation in pesticide regulatory decisions and risk management. While Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources remains the appropriate point of contact for engagement on pesticide applications in forestry in Ontario, Health Canada’s PMRA remains available to engage with Indigenous organizations and partners on topics related to the federal pesticide regulatory system and can be contacted directly at: pmra.stakeholder-intervenant.arla@hc-sc.gc.ca. Before a pesticide is allowed to be used or sold in Canada, it must undergo a rigorous scientific assessment by Health Canada that provides reasonable certainty that no harm to human health and the environment including to biodiversity will occur and that the products have acceptable value (e.g., that it is efficacious), when pesticides are used according to label directions. Depending on the type of pesticide being evaluated, results from numerous scientific studies, in some cases hundreds of studies, are reviewed to determine whether the pesticide would have any negative effect on people, animals, including birds, beneficial insects such as pollinators, mammals, and other wildlife, or plants, including organisms in the soil and water, and that the product has value and performs as claimed on the label. This assessment also takes into consideration sensitive populations, such as pregnant and nursing people, infants, children and seniors. Health Canada also regularly re-evaluates pesticides that are on the market to determine whether they continue to meet the Department's health and environmental standards and hence whether they should continue to be permitted for use in Canada. An extensive scientific re-evaluation of glyphosate, completed in 2017, showed that under the established conditions of use, including aerial forestry applications, glyphosate is not expected to pose unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. The currently available scientific information on glyphosate does not suggest any cause for concern to date that would require the implementation of additional safety measures related to its use or an additional review of glyphosate prior to its next cyclical re-evaluation scheduled for 2032. Under the currently established conditions of use, the amount of glyphosate exposure to humans is well below the level that would cause harm to human health and to the environment. This re-evaluation considered data not only from manufacturers, but also from a large body of published independent scientific studies, and information from other internationally recognized regulatory agencies. Over 1,300 studies were reviewed, totalling more than 89,000 pages. Based on its assessments, Health Canada does not expect that residues of glyphosate in edible forest vegetation would be of concern to humans, when ingested, such as consumption through traditional foraging or hunting of local game by indigenous peoples. This is because in the dietary assessment for glyphosate, potential food residues were estimated for a ‘worst case’ scenario in order to be protective. In particular, all relevant foods in the diet were assumed to be treated with glyphosate at the maximum approved application rate. Residues in or on edible forest vegetation are expected to be low compared to maximum residue limits established on conventional crops. In the case of glyphosate, even though exposures were over-estimated to be protective, no health risk concerns were identified. Overall, the trace levels of glyphosate reported in recent data with respect to foraged foods are present at amounts lower than, or comparable to, levels that have been assessed in the human health risk assessment for glyphosate for conventional crops and, as such, are not a health concern. Other recent scientific data has confirmed that the consumption of wild berries found in certain forests treated with glyphosate is not expected to pose any unacceptable health risk to people who forage or consume them. This includes sensitive populations, such as pregnant or nursing people, infants, children and seniors. It is important to note that, in typical forest management, glyphosate is expected to be applied only during the early stages of a forest’s regeneration cycle—generally within the first five years following harvest. Applications may occur either before planting (site preparation) or after seedlings have been established (for conifer release or stand thinning). As such, most forest cultivation areas are expected to receive only one or two applications over an entire 50-to-80-year period. Provincial and territorial responsibilities for pesticides generally include regulating the sale, use, transportation, storage and disposal of pesticides. The provinces and territories also conduct compliance monitoring that complements Federal programs, and issue licences and/or permits to pesticide applicators, operators and vendors including for forestry. It should be noted that provinces and territories may impose further restrictions on the sale or use of pesticides. The federal government recognizes this practice, since it allows these levels of government to respond to conditions within their jurisdictions; each province takes into account its own legislative requirements and policies, and may not require such decisions to be made on basis of scientific risk assessment. Health Canada decisions, however, must be based on scientific assessment, (i.e., demonstrations of acceptable risk). Moreover, while Health Canada authorizes pesticides, it does not decide whether those products will be used, for example, for provincial forestry vegetation control or other any other purpose. As mentioned above, permitting or restricting the use of federally approved pesticides falls under the authority of the province or territory. This applies to both provincial/territorial Crown land and privately held land within the province/territory. The use of pesticides on federal Crown land is the responsibility of the specific federal department or agency that owns or manages the land. Natural Resources Canada – Canadian Forest Service manages some federal forest lands and provides advice to federal land custodians on vegetation management. Concerns related to pesticide use on federal Crown land should be directed to the relevant federal landowner or custodian. Similarly, the decision to use an herbicide in forestry operations would be included as part of a provincial or territorial forest management plan. While there are some differences from province to province, the approval of plans generally falls under the jurisdiction of a provincial natural resources department. Any concerns with the management of forests in Ontario, including advanced notices of pesticide use or engagement with affected communities, should be directed to the Government of Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. It is essential to note that the PMRA is not the authority best placed to assess or comment on wildfire causes or forest management practices. Pesticide use in forestry is mainly regulated by provincial and territorial governments; individuals seeking information on the use of herbicides in forestry management practices should contact their respective provincial or territorial government. Natural Resources Canada, including the Canadian Forest Service, is best positioned to provide scientific insight and guidance on forest management and wildfires. Health Canada will continue to monitor for new information related to pesticides including glyphosate. This includes monitoring for the publication of new scientific studies and any regulatory actions taken by other countries. The Department will take appropriate action if there are reasonable grounds to believe that use of a pesticide is resulting in risks of concern to human health or the environment. Response by the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Signed by The Honourable Tim Hodgson, P.C., M.P. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring herbicides used in Canada are safe for human health and the environment, based on available scientific evidence. In Canada, the regulation of pesticides is shared among all levels of government. Federal regulation of herbicides rests with Health Canada. Canada’s provinces and territories have jurisdiction over most of the country’s forests, and develop and enforce laws, regulations, and policies related to forests, including the use of glyphosate-based herbicides. Natural Resources Canada’s Canadian Forest Service engages with provinces and territories and other federal land custodians, to provide scientific expertise and advice on forest management, including herbicide use. The Canadian Forest Service’s core mandate is to conduct scientific research to help inform forest management decisions, the forest industry, the public, and other scientists. Canadian Forest Service scientists have conducted research on glyphosate since the late 1970s, examining topics related to its effectiveness as a forest management tool, non-target effects, and its fate and persistence in the environment in relation to forest management techniques. The Canadian Forest Service is currently researching glyphosate effects on aquatic systems and wildlife, as well as alternatives to the use of herbicides in vegetation management. Research suggests that there is no single solution applicable to all contexts or environments. Choosing the right vegetation management approach involves assessing, identifying, and addressing issues through the forest management process.