Last August, counsel at EcoJustice, on behalf of clients Equiterre and the David Suzuki Foundation, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Minister of Health and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) acted unlawfully when they refused to review (reconsider) the approval of pest-control products containing three allegedly environmentally risky pesticides, specifically chlorthal-dimethyl, trifuralin and trichlorfon. The lawsuit also claimed unreasonable delay in responding to requests to review 26 other pesticides.
In response, on December 30, 2013, the PMRA announced that it will initiate special pesticide reviews of 23 of the active ingredients that are the subject of the litigation. Reviews are required if an active ingredient is prohibited for health or environmental reasons in an OECD country.
Those under review are the herbicides, 2,4-D, aminopyralid, atrazine, bromoxynil, chlorthal-dimethyl, dichlobenil, fluazifop-P-butyl, hexazinone, imazapyr, linuron, paraquat, simazine and trifluralin; the insecticides, acephate, carbaryl, diazinon and dichlorvos; the fungicides, difenoconazole, diphenylamine, fluazinam and quintozene; the fumigant, chloropicrin; and the wood preservative, pentachlorophenol.
It is unfortunate that environmental charities must expend resources to require governments to fulfil their regulatory mandates and to perform proper pesticide reviews when the science justifies them. It's unclear what the next steps will be in the litigation at this point, though the PMRA may seek to have the litigation dismissed for 'mootness'.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
