Viewpoint: How Canadian activists are exploiting tort law to try to ban one of the safest herbicides available to farmers

Activists attempt to spread fear by putting fake labels on products, and attacking safety regulators credibility. Credit: Global Justice Now via CC-BY-2.0
Activists attempt to spread fear by putting fake labels on products, and attacking safety regulators credibility. Credit: Global Justice Now via CC-BY-2.0

The green campaign to ban glyphosate is a global co-ordinated effort, but in Canada the war on the pesticide is led by an organization called Safe Food Matters, backed by the usual suspects: Environmental Defence, Friends of the Earth and the David Suzuki Foundation. The campaign is a well-funded effort involving millions of dollars over several years of legal proceedings.

The ban-glyphosate campaign is now before a Federal Court in Toronto. Since glyphosate products are constantly up for renewal, the new case is crucial for future policy, agriculture production, food prices and science. Use of the chemical keeps costs down and eliminates the need to plow and till fields, which research suggests reduces carbon emissions.

The activist objective is to force a radical transformation of Health Canada’s regulatory regime from a government-controlled science operation into a new system that would transfer pesticide oversight to an outside panel … that would be more open to the ideology-driven science manipulations favored by activists.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

The PMRA’s reports, however, aggressively defend its conclusions that glyphosate is safe, including a categorical 2019 dismissal of the activist attempt to overturn a 2017 approval decision. It documented the flaws in the activist approach to glyphosate health risks. The agency said it “left no stone unturned” in its review of the decision. After a thorough scientific review, “we have concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data.”

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-17-2026-12_28_43-PM
Vitamin D, omega-3 fish oil and glucosamine supplements could cause brain damage 
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-17-2026-10_17_15-AM
Viewpoint: Why are the less intelligent more likely to be conservative—and smarter people more socially liberal?
Screenshot-2026-09-10-at-12.20.19-PM
'Jet fuel didn't melt the steel': 9/11 conspiracy theories debunked
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-28-2026-03_33_46-PM
Viewpoint: Bad science—Five bogus Trump administration claims about vaccines and autism
Eating Nuts Adds up to Longer Life x
For millions with peanut allergies, Nurtured Nuts’ CRISPR gene-edited peanuts could ease the fear of accidental exposure
Screenshot-2026-09-10-at-11.50.46-AM
Did COVID vaccines kill 2,500 service members? RFK Jr. hires an investigator who compares vaccine promoters to Nazi doctors
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.