Avis d’objection à la décision de réévaluation RDV2017-01 sur le Glyphosate

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document challenges the PMRA's re-evaluation of glyphosate, claiming it relies heavily on outdated, confidential industry data while ignoring recent peer-reviewed literature and the exponential increase in glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) use. It highlights significant gaps in the assessment of toxicological dangers, occupational risks, and food and water contamination, specifically citing concerns over carcinogenicity and endocrine disruption. The authors argue that the PMRA's findings contradict the precautionary spirit of the Pest Control Products Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, calling for a suspension of the registration renewal and a transparent, independent re-evaluation of full herbicide formulations rather than just the active ingredient.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The authors argue that the PMRA's evaluation (PRVD2015-01) is scientifically flawed because it relies predominantly on confidential industry data from the 1970s to 1990s and ignores the vast majority of recent scientific literature.
  • The toxicological danger assessment in PRVD2015-01 is described as severely lacking, with 80.5% of its references produced before 1996, representing less than 0.049% of the 2,400 glyphosate-related articles found in Pubmed between 1975 and 2017.
  • The document claims that the PMRA failed to adequately assess occupational risks, basing its findings on a single industry document from 2001, seven unpublished references, and one EPA reference focused on residential rather than professional exposure.
  • Data from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in 2017 revealed that nearly 30% of analyzed samples were contaminated with glyphosate, including 31.7% of cereals and 30.7% of infant foods.

Cite the original document

APA
Vandelac, L., & Bacon, M.-H. (n.d.). Avis d’objection à la décision de réévaluation RDV2017-01 sur le Glyphosate. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Avis-dopposition-ARLA-glyphosate-Vandelac-Bacon-juin-2017.pdf
Chicago
Vandelac, Louise, and Marie-Hélène Bacon. Avis d’objection à la décision de réévaluation RDV2017-01 sur le Glyphosate. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, n.d. https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Avis-dopposition-ARLA-glyphosate-Vandelac-Bacon-juin-2017.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |last1=Vandelac |first1=Louise |last2=Bacon |first2=Marie-Hélène |title=Avis d’objection à la décision de réévaluation RDV2017-01 sur le Glyphosate |publisher=Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment |url=https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Avis-dopposition-ARLA-glyphosate-Vandelac-Bacon-juin-2017.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{vandelacndavis, author = {Vandelac, Louise and Bacon, Marie-Hélène}, title = {{Avis d’objection à la décision de réévaluation RDV2017-01 sur le Glyphosate}}, publisher = {Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment}, url = {https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Avis-dopposition-ARLA-glyphosate-Vandelac-Bacon-juin-2017.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated