• Learn To Manage Weeds Without Chemical Pesticides
  • Link to SK Organic Resources
  • SNAP Display at Event
  • SNAP Tour of Organic Vegetable Garden
  • LIving Near Fields Increases Pesticide Exposure
  • Learn About Colony Collapse Disorder and How to Protect Bees
  • Weeds Can Be Managed Without Chemical Pesticides
  • Learn to Keep Insects Out of your Crops
  • Learn About Pesticides in Foods
  • Driving Near Recently Sprayed Fields Exposes People to Pesticides



view details »

also see glyphosate, under neonicotinoids Industry Shenanigans/Defamation, 

Documents show concerns about instructor's views on glyphosate ahead of firing   Cumberland's criticisms triggered emails between Natural Resources, college director, J.D. Irving  (Jacques Poitras, CBC News, Apr 03, 2022)  The college denies Cumberland was fired for his views on glyphosate, though his dismissal letter says his "undermining" of the conference was one of the reasons.   Cumberland's wrongful dismissal lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial April 4.  His lawyer Paul Champ obtained the 169 pages of documents and emails through the federal Access to Information Act and gave them to CBC News.     Cumberland emailed Prof. Van Lantz, the dean of forestry at the University of New Brunswick, on Jan. 16, 2019. He complained that the upcoming scientific conference hosted by UNB on vegetation management science was presenting "but one perspective" on glyphosate and should have relied on "a broader range of so-called 'experts.'"   He accused the forest industry of hiring "select scientists" to provide their opinions on the herbicide while ignoring "independent research" and "critical analysis" on the issue. Cumberland sent a similar note to all faculty and students at the college, who had been invited to the seminar.   Updates from Rob Cumberland: 'The entire trial was cancelled with the rationale that the judge tested positive for Covid 19.  The trial was re-scheduled for August 29-Sept 4, and Sept 12-14.' ( personal communication) Len Ritter (a well-known pesticide industry shill) was one of the presenters at the conference.   SNAP Comment: I understand that it is not unusual for industry groups to offer to sponsor a conference.The issue is usually that they get complete control of the agenda and choose ALL the speakers. I have seen it documented in the field of health as well (diabetes, multiple chemical sensitivities). This is not good for science as in only presents what seems like a 'unified view' while suppressing other evidence.

SAFE FOOD MATTERS WINS GLYPHOSATE COURT CASE! (Safe food Matters, 2 February 2022)    The Federal Court of Appeal has issued a decision in favour of Safe Food Matters in a court case concerning the pesticide glyphosate. The decision remits the matter back to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency for reconsideration, and offers strong guidance to PMRA to avoid “the endless merry-go-round” of court applications and reconsiderations.  In 2017, Safe Food Matters (and others) filed objections to PMRA’s decision RVD2017-01 to re-register glyphosate in Canada, and PMRA rejected the objections in 2019 with a form letter and dismissive reasons. Safe Food Matters filed in Federal Court, lost, then appealed. The win means a review panel could still be struck to review RVD2017-01 and recommend that it be confirmed, reversed or varied.   Link to the Appeals court decision in link.

Content Here.Class action lawsuit: Gramoxone (Paraquat) associated with Parkinson’s Disease   Gramoxone® is a herbicide used to control weeds and grasses with an active ingredient called paraquat. It is alleged that paraquat exposure is linked to Parkinson’s disease.    Siskinds and its Québec-based affiliate Siskinds Desmeules have filed proposed class action lawsuits on behalf of all Canadians who have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease after using and/or being exposed to Gramoxone®, since July 1, 1963. The actions have been filed in Ontario, British Columbia, and Québec, and are brought against Syngenta AGSyngenta Crop Protection LLCSyngenta Canada Inc., Syngenta International AG, and Syngenta Crop Protection AG (the “Defendants”).

Environmental Groups Enter Legal Challenge over Glyphosate Registration in Canada  (Sustainable Pulse, Oct 23 2020)   "Represented by Ecojustice lawyers, the David Suzuki FoundationEnvironmental Defence Canada and Friends of the Earth Canada will be appearing as interveners in Safe Food Matters Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada to uphold Canadians’ right to participate in decision-making about pesticides that impact human health and the environment.  The groups state that in the context of the continued registration of glyphosate use in Canada, the PMRA’s decision to exclude evidence they and Safe Food Matters submitted is contrary to the public participation mechanisms in the Pest Control Products Act. They say that this decision could pave the way for weakening of public oversight and accountability for future reviews of pesticides in Canada

Fighting to uphold public participation rights in decision-making about risky pesticides (October 2020)   'Glyphosate is registered in Canada for spraying on the following crops after they’ve started growing: wheat, barley, oats, chickpeas, flax, lentils, mustard, dry beans, canola (GM), peas, soybean (GM), faba beans. Scientific studies have shown that when glyphosate is used on crops that are not physiologically mature, this results in an accumulation of glyphosate residues in the seeds of the crops. This means glyphosate’s presence can be found in our food, our water and where our children play.   Glyphosate poses an unacceptable risk to human health.   Understanding the risks that glyphosate poses, environmental and health organizations — including our clients and Safe Food Matters — requested Health Canada strike an independent review of the PMRA’s decision on glyphosate, stating that the PMRA did not properly account for all the relevant human health and environmental impacts when it made its decision.    A win in this case will uphold public participation rights under the Pest Control Products Act and ensure Canadians have a say in what’s allowed to be put into the air, water and land we all depend on.' 

Canada p.2

view details »

 also see pesticides in food p2

Ontario superior court certifies Canada-wide class action seeking compensation for cancer caused by pesticide glyphosate  click on statement for the record for the pdf document.    (January 2, 2024—Ottawa: Bill Jeffery, Executive Director and General Legal Counsel of the Centre for Health Science and Law)   'The Ontario court action alone claims $1.2 billion plus several, as yet unquantified, additional amounts to compensate for damages. Although the main elements of proof (especially of causation) remain to be proved in the full trial, Justice Grace described the record before him as ‘mammoth’ and comprising 17,000 pages of legal and factual material. Acknowledging the Supreme Court of Canada’s reminder that “certification is a meaningful screening device” Justice Grace wrote: I have concluded there is some basis in fact for the plaintiff’s theory of liability, despite the fact its proponents face significant challenges. The required threshold has been crossed. para. 124'

UPDATE: PMRA TRANSFORMATION AGENDA, INCREASING MRLS AND ACTION (SafeFoods Matters, August 2023)      MRLs are the acceptable pesticide residue limits in food. Links in original article. 'However, the facts are that even when Canadian labels are followed, there can be high levels, as shown by recent Agriculture Canada research. Perhaps one reason is the labels and PMRA assume pesticide levels dissipate overtime, but confidential test data on glyphosate has shown the levels can increase in seed over time. Unless there is someone checking how pesticides are sprayed in the field, there will be no way to fix Canadian labels that are resulting in unexpected, high levels. This increases the risk arising from pesticides.

also explains

  • and more

Summary: The NOI 2023-01 proposals allow MRLs to be increased, protect industry data, and maintain the status quo.  Despite the rhetoric of the “Transformation Agenda”, PMRA is running an “obsolete regulatory system that protects the pest industry more than it protects Canadians”.

filed under Legislation/Regulatory/Canada and pesticides in food p2


view details »

Parents of Harmed Children Sue Manufacturer of Brain-Damaging Insecticide Chlorpyrifos   (Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2021) Corteva (formerly DowDupont) is facing a potential class-action lawsuit after several California families filed suit claiming that the use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos around their homes resulted in birth defects, brain damage, and developmental problems in their children.

Parents Sue Manufacturer of Neurotoxic Insecticide Chlorpyrifos, Corteva (formerly Dow), for Causing Child’s Disabilities   (Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2020)  'In central California, what promises to be a landmark series of lawsuits against Corteva (formerly DowAgroSciences), maker of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, is under way,.. This first suit, brought by the parents of Rafael Cerda Calderon, Jr. on his behalf, charges that his lifelong disabilities were caused by chronic exposures to chlorpyrifos. The parents are suing for general damages, compensatory damages (due to Rafael, Jr.’s loss of earning capacity), medical care costs, and “punitive damages for the willful, reckless, and recklessly indifferent conduct of the Defendants” in intentionally hiding the dangers of their chlorpyrifos products from customers and the public. As with so many dangerous pesticides, absent effective federal regulation, states, cities, and other entities are taking action to protect people from this compound, and as in this case, individuals are seeking redress for harms suffered.

Dow Subsidiary To Pay $2 Million For Making False Safety Claims In Pesticide Ads (Letitia James, NY Attorney General, 15 Decembeer 2003)   regarding chlorpyrifos. "This is the largest enforcement penalty ever obtained in a pesticide case...Spitzer sued Dow for repeatedly violating a 1994 agreement with New York State prohibiting advertising touting the safety of its pesticide products. As part of the 1994 agreement, the company agreed to stop making claims that its products were "safe." However, an investigation by Spitzer's office found that almost immediately after the company entered into the agreement it once again began to make misleading safety claims in its print, video and internet advertising. Includes a more complete list of false and misleading safety claims made by Dow in  attached tables.


view details »

also see drift/ incidents

Dicamba Symptomology Community Science Monitoring Report  (Dan Scheiman, Ph.D. Bird Conservation Director Audubon Arkansas , November 9, 2020)  13 minutes video. Audubon and volunteers found dicamba poisoning symptoms on native plant in 343 locations across counties in Arkansas including all species in forest reserves, state parks, as well as fields. If a nearby source of dicamba use is not identified, inspectors conclude there is no violation and there is no recourse by the damaged parties, including homeowners. In some counties, all crops not being dicamba resistant were damaged. There may not be much vegetation of any tyoe. that will survive in these areas besides dicamba-resistant crops. Just imagine the effects on birds and the rest of the environment... SNAP Comment: Dicamba has now been added to some glyphosate formulations to control glyphosate-resistant weeds. The issue is that dicamba is extremely volatile, and that glyphosate makes it even more so, resulting in widepsread damage to crops, gardens and trees. 

Court Victory on Three Dicamba Weed Killers Underscores the Need to Reform Pesticide Law  (Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2020) The June 3 decision in a high-profile “dicamba case” — against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and for the plaintiffs, a coalition of conservation groups — was huge news in environmental advocacy, agriculture, and agrochemical circles. The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2018 conditional registration of three dicamba weed killer products for use on an estimated 60 million acres of DT (dicamba-tolerant through genetic modification/engineering) soybeans and cotton. There is, however, a related issue that accompanies this and many other pesticide cases. When EPA decides to cancel or otherwise proscribe use of a pesticide (usually as a result of its demonstrated toxicity and/or damage during litigation), the agency will often allow pesticide manufacturers to continue to sell off “existing stocks” of a pesticide, or growers and applicators to continue to use whatever stock they have or can procure.'    SNAP Comment: The article also discusses other tacticsusedby the EPA  to deal with cancellation of pesticide uses while treading lightly on industry interests. The PMRA does the same in Canada. 

'Victory for Farmers' as Jury Awards Grower $265 Million in Damages From Drift of Monsanto's Dicamba  (by Andrea Germanos, staff writer, Common Dreams, 17 February 2020)   'The jury sided with Bader Farms on Friday and awarded them $15 million in damages, as St. Louis Public Radio reported:   Monsanto and BASF were found liable for negligent design of the products and negligent failure to warn regarding the products. The jury also found that the two companies created a joint venture to manufacture and sell dicamba-resistant seed and low-volatility herbicides, and that they conspired to create an "ecological disaster" to increase profits.  Pesticide Action Network welcomed the development as well.  "This verdict is just the tip of the iceberg — there is a long queue of farmers who have been impacted by dicamba drift and deserve their day in court," said Linda Wells, Pesticide Action Network organizing director. "The internal Monsanto (now Bayer) documents uncovered in this case show that the company released a highly destructive and intentionally untested product onto the market, and used its influence to cheat the regulatory system."   "While farmers who don't use the Xtend system are hit with crop damage and yield loss from dicamba drift, Bayer and BASF are reaping the financial gains of an increase in acreage planted to dicamba resistant soybeans, and an increase in use of dicamba formulations," Wells continued. "Bader Farms' victory in this case signals a turning tide, and opens opportunities for farmers to hold Bayer and BASF legally accountable for the dicamba drift crisis more broadly." also see Bader Farms Wins $265 Million in Lawsuit Against Bayer’s Monsanto, BASF   (Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2020)

Farmer Takes Bayer/Monsanto to Court for Crop Damage Caused by the Herbicide Dicamba  (Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2020)  'Mr. Bader says that not only did he lose over 30,000 trees, his remaining peaches are now smaller and his trees are less productive. According to Bader, the damage has cost him $20.9 million for which he seeks restitution. The case is claiming that Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and German partner company BASF knew that the sale of their products would result in crop damage due to drift, but sold dicamba-resistant cotton and soybean seeds anyway. The companies deny the claims.   The damage occurring was part of the plan,” said plaintiff attorney Billy Randles in an opening statement. “The damage was an essential element of selling this product.” Randles said that Monsanto could not control the product in their own greenhouse pointed to internal company discussions where the defendants “so thoroughly anticipated the problem” that they came up with a term for those who were impacted: “driftees.”    Steve Smith, the director of agriculture at world’s largest canned tomato processor, Red Gold Inc., testified at the trial that Monsanto had many warnings regarding the risk dicamba posed to farmers. Mr. Smith was a member of an advisory council to Monsanto on dicamba. “We told them (Monsanto) over and over again it was not a good idea,” said Smith in an interview with Sierra, “They keep saying it’s a matter of educating the growers. But the problem is not education; the problem is chemistry.”'

Dicamba p2

view details »

US court bans three weedkillers and finds EPA broke law in approval process   Ruling, specific to three dicamba-based weedkillers, is major blow to BayerBASF and Syngenta (The Guardian, 7 february 2024)     'The ruling is specific to three dicamba-based weedkillers ... which have been blamed for millions of acres of crop damage and harm to endangered species and natural areas across the midwest and south... This is the second time a federal court has banned these weedkillers since they were introduced for the 2017 growing season. In 2020, the ninth circuit court of appeals issued its own ban, but months later the Trump administration reapproved the weedkilling products, just one week before the presidential election at a press conference in the swing state of Georgia...    Bury wrote that the EPA did not allow many people who are deeply affected by the weedkiller – including specialty farmers, conservation groups and more – to comment.   The EPA first approved Monsanto and BASF versions of dicamba touted to be less likely to move off target for the 2017 growing season. Since then, dicamba has caused millions of acres of crop damage, and has been the subject of several lawsuits...  In February 2020, a federal jury in Missouri awarded the state’s largest peach farmer $265m for damage to his farm, though that total was later reduced by a federal judge. In June 2020, Bayer announced a $400m settlement with soybean growers that had been damaged by non-target drift...   For years, Bayer and BASF have blamed other factors than their weedkillers, including illegal use of older chemicals, for the damage. Discovery documents turned up in the litigation showed the companies knew that their dicamba weedkillers would probably lead to off-target crop damage.'SNAP Comment: There was no public notice and comment as required by law. Note that even when there is, and opponents present their evidence and independent studies, this evidence is usually discounted in favour of industry studies. Cost-benefit evaluations tend to inflate benefits and discount costs.


view details »

Mexico Ban on Genetically Engineered Corn Imports Spurs Challenge from U.S. and Canada under Trade Agreement (Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2024)   A report by CBAN unpacks the ecosystem and wildlife health impacts of genetically engineered (GE) corn in the context of Mexico’s 2023 decision to stop its importation into the country. The phase out of genetically modified (GM) corn imports into Mexico was immediately challenged by the U.S. and Canadian governments as a trade violation under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as the primary vehicle for North American trade policy.    SNAP Comment: That is why it is so hard fo rany country to ban any pesticide products. Canada itself has been sued by so mny companies and countries for trying to do the right thing... This reminds me of the first article (2001) reporting that traces of DNA from genetically modified corn had contaminated the genomes of Mexican indigenous maize varieties despite of a 1998 ban. For his discovery and his vocal opposition to "dangerous liaisons with the biotechnology industry" Ignacio Chapela (UC Berkeley),  was denied tenure in November 2003.  'The science journal later said it had erred in publishing the paper, an extraordinary step, just short of a formal retraction, that some attributed to a pressure campaign by the biotech industry.'  The contamination results were upheld by subsequent research. After a bitter battle and lots of international support, Chapela was reinstated as a tenured professor in May 2005. (Professor Ignacio Chapela Wins Bitter UC Tenure Fight (By Richard Brenneman, The Berkeley daily Planet, May 24, 2005))

Groups Petition EPA to Remove from the Market the Weed Killer Glyphosate    (Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2023) Last week, farmworker organizations and Beyond Pesticides, represented by the Center for Food Safety, filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging that the weed killer glyphosate be removed from the market. The petition cites 200 studies, which represent a fraction of the independent scientific literature on the hazards of glyphosate and formulation ingredients of glyphosate products. This action follows previous litigation in 2022 in which a federal court of appeals struck down EPA’s human health assessment, finding that the agency wrongfully dismissed glyphosate’s cancer risk.  “The threat of glyphosate is way outside the bounds of any reasonable person’s definition of acceptable harm, surpasses allowable risk under federal pesticide law, and represents the poster child for what has gone dangerously wrong with EPA’s program to control toxic pesticides in our environment, homes, workplaces, and communities, with disproportionate injury to farmworkers and landscapers,” said Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides. “This petition attempts to hold EPA accountable to the rule of law, while recognizing that glyphosate, which causes adverse effects to biological systems—from soil microbiota to the gut microbiome, can be replaced by cost-effective organic food production and land management of parks, playing fields, or lawns.” 

New York OAG Forces Bayer and Monsanto to Pay $6.9 M over False Claims on Roundup Safety (Sustainable Pulse, 23 June 2023) The settlement also requires Bayer and Monsanto to immediately remove or discontinue any advertisements that represent Roundup® consumer products containing glyphosate as safe, non-toxic, harmless, or free from risk to pollinators and other wildlife. Bayer and Monsanto must also direct distributors and retailers of these consumer Roundup® weedkillers to cease the dissemination of any marketing materials that contain these allegedly false representations. Per the agreement, Bayer and Monsanto will submit an annual report and certification of compliance with the agreement to OAG, and the companies will be subject to a $100,000 penalty for each failure to uphold the obligations of the settlement.

filed under Legal/Litigation/glyphosate

Couple’s $86M award in Monsanto pesticide case stands   (Associated Press, 17 or 18 November 2021)     CA Supreme Court Upholds $87M Award in Glyphosate Damage Lawsuit, Bayer/Monsanto Challenge Fails(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2021) The chronicle of developments in the glyphosate saga has just grown longer: the California Supreme Court has rejected a request by Bayer AG for review of the August 2021 First District Court of Appeal (San Francisco) ruling, for the plaintiffs, that Monsanto knowingly marketed a product — Roundup — whose active ingredient (glyphosate) could be dangerous. The $87 million in damages awarded to the plaintiffs in the litigation, Alberta and Alva Pilliod, has thus survived Bayer’s challenge. Lest the announcement generate too much excitement (welcome as the move is), Beyond Pesticides noted that: (1) this still leaves Roundup on the market for agricultural food production — where glyphosate gets the heaviest use — and particularly, for use with genetically engineered crops; and (2) what will replace glyphosate in the company’s herbicide formulations is not yet clear, but the residential herbicide market will likely shift to other toxic weed killers to replace glyphosate uses.

Bayer-Monsanto, Committed to Continued Sales of Roundup™-Glyphosate, Announces $10.9 Billion Settlement with Cancer Victims, Protects Company from Future Trials by Jury   (Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2020)     As expected, Bayer is not acknowledging any harm caused by glyphosate. According to chief executive officer of Bayer, Werner Baumann, “The decision to resolve the Roundup™ litigation enables us to focus fully on the critical supply of healthcare and food. It will also return the conversation about the safety and utility of glyphosate-based herbicides to the scientific and regulatory arena and to the full body of science.”   SNAP Comment: Considering how poorly regulatory agencies are doing in including independent science in their pestidie assessment, this means business as usual with little oversight.

Spraying violates treaty: Elders  (by Helen Morley, The Daily Press, September 5, 2019)    SNAP Comment: It doesn't matter that the PMRA is sticking by their evaluation of glyphosate as safe. The main issue here is that it destroys the hardwoods, brush and food plants that First Nations rely on and if some survive, they are contaminated. That is what a herbicide does. Ecological consequences on a large scale are not evaluated in the pesticide registration process. How can the PMRA contest that the whole ecology of the forest isn't changed by widespread application of glyphosate? Looks to me that the First Nations might win.

California Jury Awards $2 Billion To Couple In Roundup Weed Killer Cancer Trial   (NPR, May 13, 2019)  'Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group said "The cloud hanging over Bayer will only grow bigger and darker, as more juries hear how Monsanto manipulated its own research, colluded with regulators and intimidated scientists to keep secret the cancer risks from glyphosate."'  More detailed arguments at  Monsanto hit with $2 billion damages verdict in third Roundup trial * (GM Watch, 14 May 2019) also  Jury Awards $2 Billion for Damages in Third Federal Roundup Cancer Case  (Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2019) 'In an interview with U.S. Right to Know’s Carey Gillam, co-lead trial counsel Michael Miller said, “Unlike the first two Monsanto trials, where the judges severely limited the amount of plaintiffs’ evidence, we were finally allowed to show a jury the mountain of evidence showing Monsanto’s manipulation of science, the media and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda despite Roundup’s severe harm to the animal kingdom and humankind.”

Monsanto's Roundup Likely Caused Cancer, Calif. Jury Says (Law36 , March 19, 2019) delivering a major blow to the Bayer AG unit in the first such federal bellwether trial and setting the stage for a second phase to determine damages... The case will now proceed to the second trial phase to determine whether Monsanto failed to warn Hardeman about the product's alleged cancer risks, as well as any damages. The parties will present opening arguments in the next phase of the trial on Wednesday. also covered by GM Watch and Beyond Pesticides

U.S. judge to allow controversial evidence in Roundup cancer trials   (by Tina Bellon, CNBC, from Reuters. Jan, 28 2019)  'Under Chabria’s order, that evidence would be allowed only if glyphosate was found to have caused plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s cancer and the trial proceeded to a second phase to determine Bayer’s liability.'

Monsanto Sued for Misleading Labeling of Popular Herbicide Roundup  (Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2017) Two nonprofit organizations on Friday filed a lawsuit against Monsanto for misleading the public by labeling its popular weedkiller Roundup as “targeting an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.” This lawsuit charges that this statement is false, deceptive, and misleading, because the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is, in fact, found in people and pets.

also see food ,dicambachlorpyrifosTreated WoodBee Die-offneonicotinoidsPesticide Drift 

French court confirms Monsanto liable in chemical poisoning case (Reuters, 11 September 2016)  I had no idea about this case. This is from the herbicide Lasso (alachlor). A PMRA label search for all records (including historical ones) indicates it apparently was not registered in Canada. If anyone knows different, please let me know) It was registered in the US and many other countries of the world, although considered a restricted herbicide in US by 1985. It is very educational to read  about alachlor on extoxnet  It shows how inadequate regulatory testing is (if it wasn't for cancer, it would be considered low toxicity}, and how few end points are considered in toxicity evaluation. It does not appear to have been tested for neurological problems, likely because it is not an insecticide that is know to act this way. 
Good general info at alachlor on Wikipedia. The final decision in France's Court of Appeal will come on Feb. 6, 2019. 

DOJ Continues Pesticide Crackdown, with Millions in Fines for Illegal Claims of Protection from Covid   (Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2022) 'The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is cracking down on companies and individuals that took advantage of Americans desire for antimicrobial products that would work against coronavirus during the height of the Covid pandemic.'  Many examples given.  SNAP Comment: antimicrobials are registered as pesticides in the US and Canada. Illegal sales of unregistered products likely occurred in Canada as well.

U.S. Attorneys Bust Pesticide Smuggling Operation, but Online Purchasing Continues   (Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2022) The ringleader of a pesticide smuggling operation conducted across the United States border with Mexico has been sentenced to eight months in prison by a U.S. District Court Judge. According to a press release by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, ... pesticide products banned in the US that pose hazards to pollinators and cancer risks to humans. “In exchange for ill-begotten profits, this cavalier smuggling operation was more than willing to risk the public’s health and the honeybee industry, which is critical to pollinating our food supply,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman.  A quick search for the two pesticide products in question brings up webpages, including well-known sites like Etsy.com, where the same illegal pesticides cited in this case are currently being sold to U.S. consumers. Bovitraz and Taktic are acaricide/miticides that contain high concentrations of the active insecticide ingredient amitraz. While their pesticide products containing amitraz registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they are at a roughly 3% concentration, whereas the illegal products have a 12.5% concentration. SNAP Comment: I don't know how or if this applies to Canada. There are 2 registered amitraz pesticides in Canada, the technical and one product in stips to be inserted in bee hives at 3.3% concentration. 

Pesticide Drift or Chemical Trespass Continue Uncontrolled, Despite Successful Litigation     (Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2022) A 2020 lawsuit related to pesticide drift was resolved on March 8, 2022 in San Joaquin (California) Superior Court with the finding that Alpine Helicopter Services, which specializes in pesticide applications for government and tourism entities, had violated pesticide drift laws and endangered public health and safety. The court further found Alpine liable for damage related to its actions, though penalties in the case, brought by California state prosecutors and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), have yet to be determined. The case exposes a handful of the many instances of pesticide drift, also known as “chemical trespass,” that occur every year in the U.SSNAP Comment: Almost every year, I get calls from people whose property was affected by pesticide drift. Some were in urban settings, others on the farm. Trying to fight these battles in court is difficult and leaves victims exhausted and, generally, To establish damages, one needs to calculate the cost of everything lost or having to be sold at a lower price (i.e. organic versus conventional). This could include veterinary costs for replacement cost for livestock. It has been close to impossible to 'prove'  or cost health effects. 

Hazardous Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Subject of Lawsuit Against EPA  (Beyond Pesticides, January 19, 2022) After registering over 300 products containing synthetic pyrethroid pesticides within the last six years, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done nothing to safeguard endangered species from toxic exposure to these chemicals, despite legal requirement to do so. This dereliction of duty is set to be the subject of a new lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity, which announced its intent to sue EPA.

Lawsuit against EPA over pesticide-coated seeds cites honeybee die-offs
(By Sebastien Malo, Reuters, 15 December 2021)   'The Center for Food Safety and the Pesticide Action Network North America alleged in San Francisco federal court Tuesday that the EPA failed to register the seeds, widely used by crop farmers, as a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Registration would require the seeds to conform to FIFRA labeling specifications, according to the lawsuit.
Coated seeds are typically treated with neonicotinoids. The class of insecticide disrupts the central nervous system of insects and predators of growing plants.' SNAP Comment: The situation seems the same in Canada. In Canada, under article 2.1 of the Regulatory Directive: Harmonization of Regulation of Pesticide Seed Treatment in Canada and the United States (11 April 2003): 'For the purposes of FIFRA, pesticide-treated seeds are considered to be pesticides themselves because they are a mixture of substances that are intended to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate a pest. In 1988, the EPA promulgated regulation 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 152.25(a) exempting certain treated articles (including treated seeds) from regulation under FIFRA provided that both of the following conditions are met:

  • the pesticide used for the treatment is registered for such use; and
  • the treatment is for the protection of the article or substance itself.'

Monsanto Pleads Guilty to Use of Illegal Glufosinate Pesticide in Hawaii   (Sustainable Pulse,Dec 15 2021)    'In court documents filed last Thursday in Hawaii, Monsanto Company agreed to plead guilty to 30 environmental crimes related to the use of a pesticide on corn fields in Hawaii, and the company further agreed to plead guilty to two other charges related to the storage of a banned pesticide that were the subject of a 2019 Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA)..  The plea agreement calls for Monsanto to serve three years of probation, pay a total of $12 million and continue for another three years a comprehensive environmental compliance program that includes third-party auditor. “Monsanto is a serial violator of federal environmental laws,” said United States Attorney Tracy L. Wilkison. “The company repeatedly violated laws related to highly regulated chemicals, exposing people to pesticides that can cause serious health problems.”'. see also   It’s Time for Bayer/Monsanto to Leave Hawai’i after Pleading Guilty to Multiple Violations that Harm People and Environment of the State, Advocates Say     (Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2021)

Repeat Offender Amazon.com Fined $2.5 Million for Illegal Pesticide Sales   (Beyond Pesticides, December 14, 2021) Multinational technology corporation Amazon.com, Inc will pay $2.5 million as part of a settlement with the Washington state Attorney General over illegal sales of highly toxic restricted use pesticides.  According to the legal complaint, between 2013-2020, Amazon sold thousands of both restricted and general use pesticides to individuals in the state of Washington without a pesticide sales license. The company failed to disclose this information to consumers, and also failed to connect information from buyers of restricted use pesticides, a requirement in Washington state.. In addition to its own sales, the company is accused of facilitating illegal sales from third party dealers, who also violated aforementioned licensing and documentation requirements.   In addition to paying Washington State $2.5 million, under the consent decree Amazon is required to obtain a pesticide seller license if it plans to continue selling pesticides. It must track the pesticides it is listing for sale and prohibit illegal sales. If a customer “inadvertently” purchased a restricted use pesticide, Amazon is also required to notify them and work with the customer to dispose of the product, reimbursing the customer for their costs. Third-party sellers will also be required to obtain a license and maintain sales records.  Beyond the illegal sales, the company continues to sell pollinator-toxic insecticides on its website, ignoring the concerns of pollinator advocates that urged the company to stop. A non-exhaustive list produced by Beyond Pesticides at the time identified over 100 products dangerous to pollinators, many of which are still being sold by the company today.  SNAP Comment: None of the illegal products sold are listed in the article. I checked several links to the listed products of the list of 'still being sold today', and found ttem either taken down  or 'currently unavailable'. This list contains neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid, but many with the active ingredient acetamipridclothianidinthiacloprid or thiamethoxam. There is a button on the top left saying 'Deliver to Canada'. It is not only whether a particular pesticide is registered for use in Canada, the particular product containing it also has to be registered. I found that some listed products that say " Deliver to Canada' are not currently registered in Canada such as Ortho Rose and Flower Insect Killer, 24-Ounce, or Transport GHP Insecticide, both containing acetamiprid. So I guess this is a Canadian issue as well..

Court Steps In to Stop Pesticide Use Not Adequately Regulated, Protects Bees   (Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2021) 'In a win for pollinators, a California Superior Court has issued a ruling that sulfoxaflor, a systemic pesticide that is “field legal” but “bee lethal,” can no longer be used in the state. The suit was brought by the Pollinator Stewardship Council and the American Beekeeping Federation.Sulfoxaflor is an insecticide registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in controlling sucking insects such as aphids, stink bugs, plant bugs, and thrips in agricultural production. It was registered in 2013 for use on many fruit and vegetable crops.... “In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that federal regulators lacked adequate data to show the pesticide did not pose serious risk to pollinators, and the court vacated the agency’s ( EPA) approval of sulfoxaflor'. . . .for the EPA to proceed in registering sulfoxaflor for crops that do not attract bees, then re-registering it for bee-pollinating crops in subsequent years. SNAP Comment: Sulfoxalor is not a neonicotinoid but has the same mode of action. There are currently 5 sulfoxaflor registered labels in Canada. One of them indicated it was registered both for ground and aerial application on fruits (including apples) and vegetables.

Houston Residents Sue City, Railroad, for Poisoning and Contamination Caused by Creosote Wood Preservative     (Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2021) 'Thousands of residents in Houston, Texas are suing Union Pacific Railroad Company for contaminating their properties with highly hazardous creosote wood preservatives. One of these lawsuits comes from Latonya Payne, legal guardian of Corinthian Giles, a 13-year-old boy who died of leukemia after a five year battle with the disease. A recent report found that the community is in the midst of a childhood leukemia cancer cluster, with disease rates five times the national average. ...EPA is currently in the process of reauthorizing creosote use for another 15 years with the knowledge that it is virtually impossible to produce and use without causing contamination and poisoning. Creosote was used to treat and extend the life of railroad ties at a location in Houston’s Greater Fifth Ward up until 1984, but since that time a plume of contamination in the soil has slowly worked its way through the low-income, predominantly black community currently living near the old site..... In light of these “unique benefits,” the agency (EPA) did not even consider the viability of alternatives, such as steel, composites, and fiberglass that could replace the hazardous wood preservative process with non or less toxic materials.'

Bayer Loses Bid to Overturn Neonicotinoid Ban in Europe   (Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2021) The ruling from the European Court of Justice rejected all grounds on which the company filed its appeal, noting, “It must be held that the arguments put forward by Bayer CropScience cannot, in any event, succeed.” In denying the appeal, the court ruled Bayer responsible for paying its own legal fees, as well as the fees of environmental organizations that intervened to defend the ban.

EPA Sued for Registering Known Bee-Killing Pesticide for Use on Bee-Attractive Crops  (Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2019) 'The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the subject to a new legal challenge from environmental groups after approving the use an insecticide shown to be highly toxic to bees and other pollinators. The lawsuit, filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety, aims to stop the use of sulfoxaflor on more than 200 million acres of crops.'...'The agency regularly permits use on pollinator-attractive crops under the “emergency” exemption loophole in federal pesticide law. Most recently, the agency used this loophole during Pollinator Week 2019, despite a recent report from the Office of Inspector General chastising the agency for its abuse of this provision.'

Starbucks Sued for Illegally Using Carcinogenic Pesticide Near Food and Beverages  Hot Shot No Pest Strip placed near bagels and pastries in Starbucks store(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2019) A class-action lawsuit is accusing Starbucks stores in New York of misusing a highly toxic, carcinogenic pesticide near food, putting the health of customers and employees at risk. “Stores throughout Manhattan have for many years been permeated with a toxic pesticide called Dichlorvos DDVP, which is highly poisonous and completely unfit for use in proximity to food, beverages and people,” the suit reads. SNAP Comment: There are dichlorvos pesticide forrmulations still registered in Canada. They include Vapona. The pesticide is to be used indoors, for fogging Food Processing Plants, Industrial Plants, Theatres, Warehouse and mushroom houses, Also for dairies, piggeries, poultry houses and barns, and for outdoor mosquito control and 'space spray.' Most exterminators in Saskatchewan use pesticides first rather than integrated pest management which should mean starting with the least toxic approach first.