Part I of a series
OTTAWA — In a significant legal rebuke, a Federal Court judge has directed the federal government to reassess its 2022 approval of glyphosate, Canada’s most heavily used herbicide, amid fresh concerns over potential health and environmental risks.
Justice Russell Zinn ruled that Health Canada’s original decision was “unreasonable” because the agency failed to adequately consider 61 new scientific studies presented by environmental groups—including the David Suzuki Foundation and Environmental Defence—that identified new or heightened risks associated with glyphosate. The ruling grants Health Canada just six months to undertake a more comprehensive review of the chemical’s safety, particularly regarding products like Mad Dog Plus, which contains glyphosate and is widely used in pest control.
Local Voices: Manitoulin Island’s Enduring Battle
While Health Canada’s reassessment is a matter of national concern, the dialogue over glyphosate has been a special issue of uncertainty on Manitoulin Island. This community is considered to have some of the most extraordinary richness of globally significant species on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes Basin, with a unique ecological network not found anywhere else in the world, making it a critical region for biodiversity conservation within the area. Manitoulin Island is also home to a vibrant community of small family-owned farms that rely upon glyphosate and “Roundup Ready” seeds to compete on the global market and ensure their already precarious livelihoods.
“Six point eight billion people in the world. Everybody needs to eat. We are feeding them today. If we cut down our production per acre, how do we feed them tomorrow?” a local farmer chimed in at a Tehkummah town council meeting in February of 2025.
Some residents on the Island have reported fears about potential water contamination and adverse health effects linked to glyphosate exposure. These concerns have fuelled community action, such as forming the Manitoulin Ecology group to find common ground between neighbours.
In January, a local delegation of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) presented to the Manitoulin Municipal Association (MMA) in response to a lone resident who appealed for an Island municipal-wide ban on the chemical. (The concerned resident, Zak Nichols, was only requesting municipalities refrain from using glyphosate, not the agriculture sector, however.) The farmers maintain that PMRA and Health Canada have given the green light to the product and that when used responsibly, there are no impacts on the health of humans and the ecosystem. However, some residents have concerns that agencies and companies such as the Emcom, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and Hydro One might not be holding themselves to the same ethical standards as local farmers, and that the cumulative effect may be causing adverse effects to local pollinator and other species populations.
In 2020 and 2021, approximately 75 million tonnes of glyphosate was sold in Canada—more current statistics are not available—but tracking glyphosate sales in Canada is challenging due to how the data is reported. The government categorizes pesticide sales broadly, grouping glyphosate with other chemicals under “phosphonic acids and their derivatives,” making it difficult to determine exact figures for glyphosate alone.
Additionally, pesticide companies can classify portions of their sales data as “confidential business information,” limiting public access to detailed figures. Health Canada’s Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) oversees pesticide sales, but its publicly available reports often lack specificity. As a result, comprehensive data on glyphosate sales and distribution remains limited, raising concerns about transparency in pesticide regulation.
The Expositor spoke with Islander Lorraine Smith, a writer and researcher whose former profession was as an advisor for mainstream corporate sustainability. There, she conducted assessments on large corporations to formulate environment, sustainability, and governance (ESG) protocols.
“Focusing solely on banning glyphosate without addressing the broader industrial agricultural system—including intensive monocropping—misses the real issue. If glyphosate is banned, another pesticide will take its place, potentially one that’s even more harmful. The root problem isn’t just a single chemical, but a system designed for profit over life, one that incentivizes farmers to adopt unsustainable practices. No healthy natural system separates plants from animals the way industrial agriculture does. Until we shift away from monocropping and create economic incentives that support regenerative practices that restore soils and work with, not against, biodiversity, we’re just swapping one toxic input for another.”
Ms. Smith left the corporate world to go on to publish independent ESG assessments after becoming disillusioned with what she was seeing, and yet sensing ever more concern and interest in real, positive change.
“After years working in corporate sustainability, I’ve seen a clear disconnect between their sustainability claims, profit centers, and lobbying practices. In the US, where more lobbying disclosure laws exist, I’ve tracked corporations spending millions on lobbying on pesticide application reviews as those same products are increasingly found to be serious health and ecological hazards. Without transparency on the demands placed on regulators, alongside systemic change in what we ask of, and pay, producers to do, we’ll keep replacing one harmful pesticide with another. Until we tackle that reality, an outright ban on glyphosate might do more harm than good.”
Read our related story, “Bayer being sued for use of glyphosate”
Dr. Janice Mitchell, a local veterinarian and beekeeper, was a delegate at Tehkummah town council back in early February, where she revealed a second damning report on the levels of glyphosate found in her dead bees. She reported substantial colony losses, with lab results showing high levels of glyphosate present in the cadavers for the second time. Dr. Mitchell highlighted that glyphosate is linked to health risks, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and criticized Health Canada’s assessment.
“Thalidomide was on the market for just four years before its devastating effects forced a recall, yet the damage was lifelong,” Dr. Mitchell said. “DDT was used for three decades before it was banned, and we are still dealing with its residual impact today. Glyphosate’s next review isn’t until 2032—that’s a 15-year window where harm can accumulate. We’re already seeing warning signs, but when independent researchers present evidence of harm, it’s too often dismissed. We can’t afford to wait until the damage is undeniable. We need to reassess now, not after another cycle of environmental and human consequences.”
This grassroots opposition mirrors the arguments made by national environmental organizations, which insist that regulatory bodies must stay current with evolving science to protect public health and local ecosystems.
A Controversial Chemical Under Scrutiny
First introduced in the 1970s, glyphosate remains a cornerstone in over 169 pest control products sold in Canada, including the well-known formulation Roundup produced by Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto. Despite decades of use, the chemical has long been at the centre of heated debates and legal battles. In the United States, numerous lawsuits have accused glyphosate of causing cancer, leading to multi-million-dollar settlements in several cases— even as other judgments have been overturned on appeal.
Germany, the home of Bayer, has implemented restrictions on glyphosate use, including bans in private gardens, parks, public spaces and certain agricultural applications. The decision followed discussions between the country’s environment and agriculture ministries as part of a broader effort to reduce pesticide use. Austria’s parliament passed a bill for a complete ban, while France, the Netherlands and Belgium have prohibited household use. These policy changes reflect a growing international shift toward stricter pesticide regulations.
The recent Canadian judicial decision adds to this turbulent legacy. “Maintaining the renewal indefinitely without sufficient justification would undermine regulatory accountability,” Justice Zinn stated, emphasizing that brief internal acknowledgment of the new evidence does not meet the transparency standards expected of a federal review.
Critics argue that the suppression of independent studies, such as those by Dr. Christy Morrissey, whose work exposed the harmful ecological impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides, raises serious questions about whether the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) prioritizes public health and environmental protection over corporate profits.
Dr. Morrissey, a leading Canadian ecotoxicologist, published studies demonstrating the widespread contamination of freshwater ecosystems with neonicotinoids and their harmful effects on aquatic insects, a crucial food source for fish and birds. Her findings supported the PMRA’s initial decision in 2016 to propose a ban on imidacloprid, a widely used neonicotinoid.
However, internal documents suggest that after pushback from Bayer and lobbying from the agrochemical industry, the PMRA delayed regulatory action and ultimately renewed the pesticide’s registration. In 2021, Dr. Morrissey filed a formal objection, citing instances where independent, peer-reviewed water monitoring data showing elevated pesticide concentrations harmful to aquatic life were excluded from the agency’s risk assessments.
Internal communications reveal that the PMRA shared elements of her research with Bayer, allowing the corporation to discredit or downplay findings that threatened its market share.
The revelations, published by the National Observer in October 2024, show evidence that the suppression of independent research conducted by dozens of researchers, whose studies revealed troubling links between pesticide use and ecological harm, may be at play.
A Call for Greater Transparency
The most recent ruling does not revoke the approval of products containing glyphosate, but it does compel Health Canada to provide clear, evidence-based justifications for its earlier decision. Laura Bowman, a lawyer with Ecojustice, noted, “This decision really confirms that Health Canada does have an obligation to keep up with the science, and they will need to be transparent in how they address that new evidence.”
As the government prepares to reexamine glyphosate’s risks, stakeholders from across Canada—from large-scale agricultural operations to communities on Manitoulin Island—are watching closely. The outcome of this reassessment could set a precedent for how environmental and health risks are evaluated in a rapidly changing scientific landscape, ensuring that regulatory practices reflect both current evidence and community concerns.
With global debates over the safety of glyphosate far from settled, the coming months will be crucial for restoring public trust in Canada’s regulatory processes and safeguarding the health of its citizens and environment.
