The PMRA is responsible for providing access to pest management tools while minimizing the risks to human health and the environment by “using modern evidence-based scientific approaches to pesticide regulation, in an open and transparent manner”.
[5] The PMRA works with provincial, territorial and federal departments in Canada to help refine and strengthen pesticide regulation across the country.
[5] Outside of Canada, the Agency works closely with international organizations such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the North American Free Trade Agreement Technical Working Group, the European Union, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
[4] They work to align the processes used to regulate pest control products and uphold the protection of health and the environment.
The Review Team consulted with Canadians across the country proposing a major reform to the federal pest management regulatory system.
Additional suggestions to improve operation included: The Canadian government provided a response in 1994 recognizing the principles of environmental sustainability: to protect human health, safety and the environment by minimizing the risks associated with pesticides all while enabling access to pest control products and pest management strategies.
[11] Although the other departments are no longer officially involved in the decision-making process, they support the work of the PMRA through research and monitoring activities in their respective fields of expertise.
[13] By 1998, the PMRA had set up policies for product evaluations in which additional protection was required for vulnerable sectors like children and pregnant women, and pesticide exposure from all sources had to be taken into account, including food and water.
[15] A statutory review of the Pest Control Products Act was held by the Health Committee of Parliament on 27 January 2015.
[19] Additionally, the PMRA uses the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and its associated regulations as an enforcement tool for the PCPA.
[24] A product will only be registered if there is sufficient scientific evidence to show it does not pose an unacceptable health or environmental risk and that it serves a useful purpose.
[5] Re-evaluations are used to access any changes in data requirements and verify that the products comply with modern day standards.
However, if it is determined that the risks to human health or the environment are no longer acceptable, or that the product is without value for its intended purpose, the registration is cancelled.
[5] Special reviews allow the PMRA to cancel or amend the registration of one or more registered pest control products without waiting for its scheduled re-evaluation.
The special review of a product is initiated if there is reason to believe that risks may no longer acceptable based on new scientific information.
[36] The assessments are based on factors like routes and duration of exposure, the species tested in toxicity studies and the endpoint of toxicological concern.
[38] Factors such as the behaviour of the product in soil, water and air, the potential for its uptake by plants and animals and the possibility of bioaccumulation are evaluated.
[41] During the re-evaluation process, interim mitigation measures such as rate reductions or use restrictions can be put in place to revise label instructions that are outdated or no longer supported.
This model realigns a portion of the costs of the product registration process from federal taxpayers to the private sector ensuring there is an appropriate cost-sharing balance.
Robert Arnason, a journalist at the time working The Western Producer, wrote in September 2015 an open letter to the PMRA that remarked the lack of transparency with respect to pesticide sales figures, which had ostensibly been legislated in 2006.
[49] The statement "when used according to the label, products containing glyphosate are not a concern to human health and the environment" was explicitly made.
[50] In June 2017, a prothonotary in the Federal Court ruled in David Suzuki Foundation v. Canada (Health) that, in a review of the neonicotinoid clothianidin, Bayer CropScience "failed to satisfy the first branch of the Sierra Club test".