:
Good morning. I'm John Cowan, representing the Grain Farmers of Ontario. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present the Grain Farmers' position on this very important matter of bee pollinator health in the country.
For a little background, the Grain Farmers of Ontario represent the 28,000 farmers who produce corn, soybeans, and wheat in the province of Ontario. It is three associations that amalgamated three and a half years ago to represent those crops. Our crops cover over 5 million acres and generate about $2.5 billion in farm gate receipts in Ontario. We operate under the guidance of 15 elected directors, and we have 150 elected delegates representing 15 districts across the province.
I have two statements right off the bat. The Grain Farmers of Ontario recognize the importance of bees in our natural environment and their importance as pollinators for multiple agricultural crops. Ontario farmers also recognize the need for seed treatment insecticides to protect corn, seed, and seedlings.
I'll just give you a little history on seed treatments and insecticides in Ontario, and in Canada for that matter. Prior to registration of neonicotinoids, corn seed was treated with lindane, which is an organochloride insecticide. In 2001 Health Canada concluded that the use of lindane as a seed treatment posed an unacceptable risk to workers. Lindane was officially discontinued in 2004. Basically, it was very bad for farmers. The current neonicotinoid seed treatments were registered between 1995 and 2003—so over 10 years ago—and are considered much safer for farmers than what was previously used.
The Grain Farmers of Ontario were first made aware of significant bee deaths this past spring.
Compared to broadcast spray applications of insecticides, seed treatment, applied to the seed, reduces the amount of pesticides used by ten to twentyfold, which is safer for both farmers and the environment. Polymers are used to bind the insecticide to the seed, and treated corn seed is buried four to eight centimetres under the surface of the soil. The insecticide protects the corn seed and seedlings from insect pests that feed on the plant until it begins drawing nutrients through its root system.
Plant stand losses have been measured by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food at three to twenty bushels per acre without an insecticide because of wireworm, seed maggot, and white grub. A 20-bushel-per-acre stand loss at current corn prices is equal to a loss of almost $130 per acre for corn farmers. Many of our members report that a 10% stand loss is average, which would be approximately $95 per acre. To a 500-acre corn producer, that would equate to approximately $50,000 in losses, which of course would go right to the bottom line in terms of profitability.
Seed treatments represent an insurance investment against potential yield and therefore income loss. There are no alternative insecticides available to protect corn from these early season pests.
The Grain Farmers of Ontario support research towards this important topic. We are currently supporting a project in collaboration with OMAF and the Ministry of Rural Affairs in Ontario with the following objectives:
• determine the presence of bees and flowering plants in and around cornfields at the time of corn planning and how pollinator exposure to pesticide-contaminated dust can be reduced;
• determine the role of seed lubricants in the production of pesticide-contaminated dust during corn planting.
The study includes beekeepers and corn producers in Ontario working together and is valued at $340,000, with funding derived from OMAF and the Ministry of Rural Affairs, the Agricultural Adaptation Council, and the Pollinator Partnership from the United States.
Grain Farmers of Ontario are committed to understanding the issues, staying informed of research results, and communicating best management practices with our farmers. We are committed to good stewardship for the products we use and to working towards a solution based on sound science that ensures healthy crops and healthy bees.
In conclusion, many people are looking for the single silver bullet solution. A recent USDA study published last week confirms our thoughts that the death of bee colonies across North America is a very complex issue. It includes varroa mites, colony feeding, and other management and environmental relationships.
We have asked that the Government of Canada invest in research to understand bee health, bee colony foraging, and all the interactions that exist with farmers and the environment that they work in.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today about the important topic of pollinator health.
[Translation]
My name is Pierre Petelle. I am the vice-president of CropLife Canada's chemistry sector. We represent the developers, manufacturers and distributors of pest control products and plant biotechnologies.
[English]
With me this morning is Dr. Maria Trainer, who is the managing director of regulatory affairs for CropLife Canada.
I'll be providing our remarks on behalf of CropLife this morning.
CropLife Canada's member companies are committed to protecting human health and the environment. Our technologies are beneficial, not only to Canadian farmers, but also to consumers who benefit from lower food costs, better environmental quality, and a more prosperous economy.
Agriculture has never been more environmentally sustainable, in large part due to the innovative products that our industry has developed. For example, we help farmers grow more food on less land, greatly increasing their efficiency. Our industry's products also improve soil conservation, reduce water use, and generate fewer greenhouse gases. We are proud of these contributions.
Aside from our moral obligation to protect the environment, of which pollinators are an integral and vital component, our industry also has a vested interest in protecting bees. Without sufficient pollination, many of the crops that our products are designed to protect simply wouldn't exist. The success of modern agriculture depends on bees, and we are fully committed to protecting and improving pollinator health.
This committee has no doubt seen PMRA's preliminary analysis of the honeybee incidents in southern Ontario last spring. The analysis did indicate that insecticides used on treated corn were a contributing factor to the losses. Before I comment on PMRA's report and the actions that our industry has taken since last spring, l'd like to talk about seed treatments in general. John has already covered some of that, but I'd like to cover a little more on what they are, why they're used, and how they can represent a significant environmental improvement over the alternative.
Insecticide-treated seed has improved the precision of insecticide application by applying a very small amount of product directly to the seed, where it will provide the greatest protection, namely, on the seed and in the ground. This approach to pesticide application means the product is placed where beneficial insects, like honeybees and other non-target organisms, are less likely to come into contact with it.
Seed treatments have co-existed very well with pollinators in many regions of the country for quite some time. For example, canola, one of Canada's biggest success stories, is planted on more than 21 million acres in western Canada. Virtually all of this crop, which is very attractive to bees, is treated with a neonic seed treatment, and bee health in that region remains strong. Indeed, we have heard from many beekeepers who tell us that seed treatment products are a significant improvement over past practices when it comes to protecting bee health.
In addition to reducing potential pollinator exposure, seed treatments have also helped farmers by providing stronger, more resilient crops and higher yields. Restrictions of any sort on these products would force growers to rely on other forms of pest control products, including foliar sprays, which could increase the risk of exposure of non-target organisms, such as bees.
Pesticides are an essential tool to enable our growers to feed the growing world population in an environmentally responsible fashion. Without pesticides, the world would lose at least 40% of its food supply; for certain crops, losses could be up to 80%. The impact on the world's food supply would be simply catastrophic.
In Canada, we've been largely shielded from the significant bee decline seen elsewhere around the world. Indeed, according to StatsCan data, our honeybee numbers are actually increasing. However, we must not be complacent. Bee health is complex, just like human health, and according to experts, which I don't profess to be, it's impacted by a variety of interacting variables, including parasites, diseases, and other stress factors, such as habitat loss, genetic weakness, and environmental exposures.
Given our industry's clear dependence on bees, all of these factors are of concern to us. This complexity extends to the circumstances of last spring. The record-setting warm temperatures we had last year, windy weather, and unique spring conditions led to an increase in dust that released during corn planting. In addition, the well-above-normal heat also led to weeds emerging earlier than usual and bees foraging while the corn was being planted.
The reality is that neonic-treated corn has been planted in Ontario and elsewhere for the past 10 years without similar incidents.
I mentioned earlier that our industry has taken action since last spring. I'd like to elaborate a little bit on that now.
Some of the steps our industry has taken over the last year include developing a comprehensive set of best-management practices for the planting of insecticide-treated corn seeds and actively communicating this information to growers. We've also been establishing better communications and positive relationships between beekeepers, growers, and our industry to help protect pollinators and find solutions to ongoing pollinator health issues. Many of our member companies have been investing in new hive health products, which are themselves pesticides, to protect bees from potentially devastating hive pests such as the varroa mite.
One thing that is often overlooked is that pesticides are one of the most heavily regulated substances on the market. Health Canada's PMRA is one of the most respected regulatory bodies in the world, one that is routinely used as an example by other nations seeking to strengthen and modernize their regulatory frameworks. PMRA thoroughly assesses all pest control products before they are approved for use and sale in Canada. Part of this assessment includes a rigorous evaluation of the potential impact on wildlife and other non-target organisms.
While neonicotinoids are toxic to insects, they have a very low toxicity for most wildlife. In addition, the targeted nature of seed treatment technology minimizes the exposure to beneficial insects such as pollinators. At present, some neonicotinoids are undergoing a re-evaluation. This is a routine part of the PMRA process designed to ensure that all the latest science is considered when looking at previously approved products. We support Canada's rigorous regulatory system, including the regular re-evaluation of approved products. It ensures that regulatory decisions are continually evaluated against the best available science, and it ensures that Canadians can have the confidence in the innovations our industry develops.
Finally, some will no doubt point out that the European Commission recently announced its intention to ban certain neonicotinoid uses effective December 1 of this year. It's important to note that this was a split decision in Europe, with many member states voting against the recommendation. It's also worth noting that the commission based its recommendation on a report from the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, that was inconclusive and based on perceived data gaps that could have been addressed. For example, they did not take into account independent monitoring studies in a number of EU member states that clearly documented no impact on bee populations from neonicotinoid insecticides when used properly, nor did they consider real-world experience from other regions, including Canada. Nonetheless, they have still chosen to adopt an approach that represents a fundamental misapplication of the precautionary principle.
This decision sends a very negative signal to innovative R and D companies that rely on predictable science-based regulatory decisions. We view this as yet another example of politics trumping science in Europe, which has now become the world's largest food importer. This decision handcuffs farmers, will drive European food prices up even further, and will do absolutely nothing to improve pollinator health in Europe.
Pesticides and pollinators both play critical roles in agriculture. Both are essential for successful and sustainable food production to feed an ever-growing world population. Canada's plant science industry is committed to working with beekeepers, growers, and all interested parties to help improve and maintain pollinator health in Canada, both today and for generations to come.
Thank you very much for your attention.
:
It's okay. Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank our witnesses. I don't think I've ever seen a full house like this.
This is a very important subject. I remember we had witnesses in last year, and it was a very moving and memorable meeting.
I'm going to pose a question in French.
[Translation]
I spoke with people from the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec. I think it is important that their opinion be expressed on the matter, as well.
As in Ontario, there have been similar cases in Quebec since 2009. There were fewer cases, but they are the same, and they were reported in the spring. The federation feels that it must use any means possible to inform farmers of the risks of these insecticides to bees and other pollinators. However, it is a David and Goliath struggle. It is very difficult to set in motion, and it is complex.
Furthermore, in light of the recent decisions of the European Union and the position taken by the Ontario Beekeepers' Association late last week, the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec's board of directors met last night and passed a resolution asking that the use of neonicotinoids be banned in agriculture in Canada.
I would like to know what your opinion is with respect to their recent resolution.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Mr. Petelle, let me say this up front. We recognize that for a number of years—and to Mr. Cowan as well, because Mr. Cowan and I have talked about this before—there didn't seem to be an issue.
Mr. Valeriote suggested a perfect storm. Madam Trainer, you suggested maybe that's an accurate description. But to my friends across the way, we understand that this particular piece.... Mr. Petelle, you said you understood that neonic was a contributing factor last year—to whatever happened to colonies in Ontario specifically, whether it be because of the weather or the dust and all the rest of the things.
The thing I really want to talk about is this sense of.... In municipal governance, we used to call it the 100-year storm, so in everything we did we planned for that one storm. We stopped planning for 100-year storms about six or seven years ago. We now plan for the one storm in 250 years. Last year's perfect storm may be an indicator that there are more of those to come, because that's not one in 100 years.
Notwithstanding all of that, that it occurred, can you help me understand, Mr. Cowan and Mr. Petelle, how we get all of these groups who have started the discussion, by the way, which is very positive and will include equipment manufacturers as well.... I mean, farmers have invested in equipment. Mr. Cowan has articulated that about seed planters. You don't run out and buy a seed planter tomorrow when you bought one only a few years ago. How do we bring all of these groups together over the longer term so that when the next one comes—because it will—we're more prepared than we were last time to address it from every angle?
The beekeepers themselves, who have a role to play, by the way—I'm not leaving them out of the equation, that they can simply go about doing what they've done in the same way forever—need to do things differently as well. How do you see all of these tentacles coming together to build something that helps protect us from the collapse we saw last year? We're only going to talk about this one piece, but I recognize and admit that there are multifaceted problems in the aviary; we accept that as a fact. But this is the piece where you intersect. How do we continue to work on all of those facets to try to at least eliminate that potential?
:
I'll add to that, Mr. Cowan, and I guess I'm going to run out of time.
The other thing is that this is more of a voluntary piece, if you will, the groups coming together. Some of it I think came out of this committee, in the sense of suggestions, that finally we're talking in a more concrete way, if you will.
Obviously, we're not looking to mandate this. Is there a way to solidify this, to continue, because bees are so important to farmers? Mr. Cowan is the first to admit.... He came here and said bees are important to us. We want bees. We need bees. So it's not about farmers versus beekeepers. This is not true at all. This is a symbiotic relationship. The issue is that we don't need to have that symbiosis turn into an antagonistic one that destroys the thing that we very much need.
I'm wondering if there's a way to somehow make this a firmer piece, so that this continues, so that we can start to look in a proactive way at potential things that could happen down the road.
Mr. Cowan talked about what happened with Lindane. It took years to figure that out. We've now realized with this neonic that if we plant in dry, windy conditions there could be an outcome. Now we've learned another lesson. It's like life-learning lessons. But Mr. Cowan has pointed out that it's not as easy for farmers to say, “I'm not planting today.”
How do we keep the discussion going and keep each other at the table, so we can help each other really come together, so that all parties aren't adversely affected, or at least it's minimized? How do we continue to do that?
I don't know if Mr. Cowan wants to take a crack at that or not.
:
Thank you, committee, for inviting us to your meeting today and giving us an opportunity to share the story of beekeeping in western Canada. That's how I'll approach it.
In our particular operation, we are based in the Peace River district, which is not a great place for a honeybee to spend the winter. We move to the Okanagan Valley for the winter. I've been down there more or less continuously for the last three months. We're just making the move back to Peace River this week. I left my boys to do the work and I came to Ottawa. Having said that, I don't have a whole lot of resources with me, so I'll just be telling the story.
Part of the issue as it pertains to pesticides in western Canada is that we have not seen huge losses that can be attributed to pesticides. Losses aren't even cyclical. They seem to more or less follow the period of time that a miticide is effective. We have varroa mites in our colonies, and as long as the miticide of the day is working, our winter losses are acceptable. Typically, the way we find out that the miticides are no longer working is with massive winter losses.
In terms of the pesticide being a killer of bees in western Canada, that probably would be inappropriate to say. The sublethal effects and that sort of thing have yet to be determined, but as we move forward now, we're pretty happy with the use of neonics as a seed treatment on canola.
The other issue that seems to rack our industry is lack of training. It seems that where we have new producers or young producers, they have trouble getting their bees through the winner.
The other major factor that I would bring to you is nutrition. The natural range of honeybees is southern California, southern Utah, New Mexico, Texas, and probably in that line across to south Carolina. We're considerably out of the natural range of these insects. The wintering is a continuous battle, and getting proper nutrition I find is critical. We don't have a lot of data out there that deals with amino acid, the vitamin regimes, and these minor nutrient levels that may or may not be useful in the survival of bees. I personally have played around with it, but I'm not a scientist. I find that a vitamin package and an amino acid package tend to be useful in offsetting winter losses. There's just a world of work that needs to be done around bee nutrition.
Thank you for your time.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee, for having me. I am the Alberta delegate to the Canadian Honey Council, and I have been chairing a bee incident committee for the Honey Council this past year, which was formed at the request of the Ontario Beekeepers' Association after the incidents were reported last year.
I sent out a document last week—I hope it was received and distributed—about the work the committee has done this past year. I'll go through it and broaden it a little bit and highlight some points.
The purpose of the committee was not only to look at the incidents that happened in Ontario; it was to look at the use of pesticides in general across the country, as there had been incidents reported outside of Ontario with other foliar applications of other products. So the purpose was to look at the broad-range use of chemicals in general and to use the Ontario incidents as a starting point.
The committee established subcommittees to deal with six focus areas. The first area of focus was the process for beekeepers to report suspected bee poisonings, and the second was the process for how the PMRA would deal with the report. We wanted to try to have a standardized way for beekeepers to report and collect samples and have them processed, so that it would be done properly under proper protocol, to allow the information to be distributed to the people who need to know about the reported incidents. Those were sent to PMRA, and I believe you'll be hearing from them in the coming days as well. As far as we understand, they were well received, and action was taken with the recommendations you have in the handout.
The third focus area was analyzing toxicity levels of chemicals and insecticides, and the fourth area was point of contact and where the risks are. In terms of three and four, we felt that if we as the beekeeping industry wanted to comment on the use of and need for chemicals and pesticides, we needed to be informed ourselves as to what they do, what they are, and why they're needed, so that we could have accurate, objective discussions about them. We did have a lot of recommendations come out on the issues. There are areas for both beekeepers and the crop industry to collaborate and learn from each other.
The fifth area of focus was recommendations and best management practices for all stakeholders: beekeepers, the chemical companies, seed companies, the growers, the chemical applicators, and equipment manufacturers. As we heard earlier, there have been round tables with these stakeholders. Discussion has been good, and in some regions this relationship has happened already and in some regions of the country it hasn't. So there's a lot of room for future relationships and partnerships to be built.
The final subcommittee's focus was on compensation for the loss of bees and production if an incident did occur. This committee is still working on finalizing some recommendations to bring to the board. It's a difficult one to deal with in a way. Provincial administration of agricultural programs varies from province to province, so there's a bit of work to do on that yet. We hope to have that wrapped up very soon.
To come up with these recommendations, the committee did collaborate. We had input from the Grain Growers of Canada, the Grain Farmers of Ontario, CropLife Canada, PMRA, provincial apiarists, and a couple of Ontario beekeepers, among others.
We also had a round table in Quebec City in November, where we were able to talk with a lot of these groups and start some good discussion.
I won't go through the recommendations. There are a lot of them.
As I say, numbers one and two were well received by PMRA. There's a lot of work to do here. It's reasonable. We'll need to prioritize some of them and start getting to work on them.
As we heard from Maria and Pierre and John, there has been some significant work started in dealing with the corn dust situation. The initial work has been fairly positive, I would say, from the other stakeholders. It may not be an immediate fix. I believe there are some trials being run this year. I think they recognize the importance of this, and we appreciate their efforts put into it as well.
I am also a commercial beekeeper from Alberta. About 70% or 80% of my operation does go to pollinate canola for seed production in southern Alberta. I keep some at home for honey production as well. I can entertain questions on that side as well.
A lot of what we're hearing lately in some reports is about sublethal effects. There were the initial kills, the sublethal effects; I think there's some science that needs to be done. I appreciate hearing the comment before that we have a science-based decision-making process. I think that's important. There's definitely room for some science to be done.
That's what I have to share with you.
Thank you.
:
Well, because he goes to the sunny Okanagan Valley, I'll try....
It's had a huge impact, and there are still numbers to come in.
In Alberta we were in a very similar situation. I started my bees on March 13. It usually takes me 10 days to get around the over 7,000 colonies I run, and it took us over four weeks to get around because of the weather, the snow, and digging out bees to get protein supplements onto them. That stimulates the queen to start laying eggs. From March 13, when we started, we were seeing an average of about a 10% loss, which I was happy with—good news. Six weeks later we started our second round and we're at over a 30% loss now.
That four to six weeks is absolutely critical. I've been keeping bees for 17 years and I've never seen a spring dwindle like this. Bees are designed to live for six weeks, so we are asking the ones that hatch out in October or November to live for six months. To live anything past that is really pushing it, and for the queen to start laying eggs again, we have to get that protein to her. Usually when bees are coming out of winter and queens start laying eggs, you get a little bit of an overlap that carries them through, because it takes 21 days for eggs to hatch to get that process going again. But when those old bees are dying off and the queen hasn't started laying, you have that gap.
That's what I'm finding in my personal experience right now in Alberta. I was wondering what I had done, but I started calling around, and the story is very common from central through northern Alberta. I've heard from only a couple of beekeepers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and they have similar scenarios so far.