The First Sixteen Podcast - EP 026

Brian: I don't think people realize how much work goes into making sure we're using products correctly. The science that goes behind the options that we are given. None of these things are chosen lightly.

Kirk: Welcome to the First Sixteen, your podcast about innovations and innovators in the agricultural and food sector in Canada. We took a little hiatus to prepare a new season. And this episode is going to start it with a bang. Today, we’re going to have a good well-rounded discussion about pesticides and a frequently misunderstood thing called Maximum Residue Limits (or MRLs). I’m your co-host, Kirk Finken. And I am pleased to introduce to you, our new co-host Marie-France Gagnon. She’s a senior policy analyst with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada with many years of experience in our sector and in government. Welcome to the team, Marie-France.

Marie-France: Thank you. I am looking forward to exploring all these innovation stories and the people behind them, people like our two guests today. What I like about these two guests is that they have two very different jobs, very independent of each other. But both work to feed the world in a healthy and sustainable way.

Kirk: Indeed! One is Brian Rideout, a fruit and vegetable producer from Southern Ontario. He applies pesticides and other crop protection products on his produce. He is also highly engaged in this topic with his growers’ associations.

Marie-France: Our other guest is Fred Bissonnette, Executive Director of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (or PMRA), an agency under the umbrella of Health Canada. PMRA is the agency that determines what pesticides can be used in Canada, how they are used and what are the maximum residue limits that can exist on food. The PMRA’s sole mandate is to protect human and environmental health.

Kirk: Let’s start on the farm with Brian Rideout, because he produces the food we eat. He has the direct connection with the consumer.

Brian: It’s a multigeneration farm, right now there's three generations working together to farm it, my son, my daughter, myself and my father-in-law, mother-in-law. We have multiple family members still pitch in. Like my wife, who's a nurse. She spends her vacations here on the farm, helping out with harvest and packing and grading. We grow strawberries, cherries, sweet and tart cherries. We grow tomatoes, peaches, nectarines, pears, apples and winter squash.

Kirk: And since that's not enough work, can you describe your extracurricular activities, the associations? What are the other hats you wear?

Brian: So I am the vice chair of the Ontario Apple Growers. I am a regional director for the Ontario Apple Growers. I am the crop protection chair or section chair for the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association here in Ontario. And I am the member of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada's Crop Protection Advisory Group.

Kirk: Can you tell me more about your role with the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association?

Brian: Crop protection just happens to be something I enjoy, studying and looking at and understanding more. We bring the grower view or perspective to those topics. And so and now you're given that task of working on the resolutions that come out of the AGM and working on issues that come up during the season. The interesting thing about the OFVGA is I get the opportunity to work with federal representatives, not only provincial representatives, so I've have gotten to meet a lot of people from AG Canada and from Health Canada that work on our crop protection tools.

Kirk: And so that to me is an interesting mix. I mean, obviously you've got a particular interest in it. And is that interest is that coming from the fact that you're, you know, your background is in environmental science?

Brian: Yes. I studied environmental engineering in college, so I'm an environmental engineering technologist is what they call me. So it was like a light bulb moment when I started the farm 25 years ago because I do not come from a farming background. When I started the farm, I realized how much chemistry, how much science there is in farming and how much technology we use in this process of producing a piece of fruit or a seed or something for people to consume. And so, the environmental science part of me, um, definitely is triggered with agriculture because I love stewardship.

Kirk: Let’s talk about the pesticide use and practices on your farm, and how they have changed over the years.

Brian: Yeah Oh, wow…pesticide use on the farm. It's evolved and it's ever evolving on our farm. The use or practices on our farm have changed very dramatically from 25 plus years ago when I started farming again, farming with my father-in-law.

We've gone from harsher chemistries to low-risk chemistries. We're taking that approach. And instead of using those, those hard on the environment chemistries, um, we're able to now use low risk chemistries that are more beneficial to the environment and allow the biodiversity of the farm to increase.

Kirk: Can we drill down a little more on that evolution? Because it’s not just about the pesticide products themselves, right? It’s the entire approach that’s changed.

Brian: Soo... we've always educated ourselves. We go to conferences, we go to International Fruit Tree Association meetings, we go to all these things. And they started talking about this thing which was called Integrated Pest management. Everything is a pest to us. So a disease is a pest. A bug is a pest. Um, an animal is a pest. Right. So, they're a pest. So, we're going to use. We simplify it and we call it a pest. And this is where you get into pest management. And that's where you go out, you look for populations and you start basically monitoring and you look for thresholds that trigger the activity. Then what we do is we throw in the integration portion. So, what we do is we are integrating tools to help us control or suppress those pests.

As everything evolves over time and like I say, this is a living process, the integrated pest management, I became a director with the Ontario Apple growers was asked to go to minor use priority setting meetings in Ottawa. And I went, wow, there's a whole new world out there when it comes to the use of pesticides. We still use the insecticides, we still use the fungicides that are conventionally or synthetically produced. But then we started throwing in little things like a product called DiPel, which would control loopers and cauliflower. We were finding we were getting loopers in there and one of the solutions that came up was, you know, you should maybe use DiPel, which is a organics type product. And that evolved into then we had a pest in the peaches. They came out with this product called pheromones. And those are little tubes... you just hang them on the tree. And these things release slowly over time this pheromone in the air. The male bugs can't find the females because the air is full of their pheromones, and they die before their life cycle. So that just brings the population further and further down. We're using technology to interrupt the breeding cycle of that pest or of that bug. Eventually that population of that wormy pest that we get in the apple or in the peach is gone. And you know, they're still there actually, but they're at such low populations that they're actually sustaining the beneficial best. Population and now the beneficial pest population is actually controlling them for you.And then we started using a garlic extract to control a disease called scab on apples. It also helps control a disease called fire blight. Um, and we had already experimented with other products for, for controlling fire blight on the farm and because the conventional stuff I just found didn't cut it.And so, so again, we're evolving. We're using these new products and now pesticide use in our farm has become a really interesting mix of using biopesticides and conventional pesticides. It's and it's changing how we keep the farm healthier. I don't know how other than to describe it as health. We're able to balance everything off a little bit better in the farm by using products that are just softer.

Marie-France: Can you explain to us what are personally your concerns about pesticide use regarding the health of the environment?

Brian: I mentioned earlier, um, we're a multigenerational farm. We want to make sure when we're picking pesticides or using these products on the farm that we're thinking of the health of the people that work with our produce, the kids, right... my workers that are out there. We want to make sure we're picking products that they feel comfortable being around. I have spent a lot of time educating my workers that we're using products that are healthy for the plant and healthy for them. It's not going to hurt them.

Um, the. Interesting part of all that is our consumers who come to our farm when they ask me, “Do you use pesticides?” And I look them straight in the eye. Yep, I use pesticides. I use synthetic and natural pesticides on our farm. And I explain to them what it is. I explain to them Integrated Pest Management. Um. And and I love love it when I look in the car or when I look over and there's their child with them and their child is already eating the peach or the apple and the juice is running down the kid's chin and the kid's like, “I want another one.”

Right. Because the flavor profiles change because we're using lower risk products, I don’t know. The other part I've noticed is the health of the aggro system. We've seen organic matter increase on our farm. And organic matter is something that soil needs. The plants really love it. We've seen an increase in certain parameters that allow the plant to be able to use the nutrients better that's in the soil because we've made choices that keep the soil healthy. Keeps the water healthy, keeps our plant healthy, and keeps the food that we consume healthy.

Maire-France: That's a 100% win-win when you see it like that. What are the things that most consumers misunderstand about pesticide use?

Brian: I think what they misunderstand is the choices we make. It takes very careful consideration to choose a product that will work on your farm. Um, I don't think of products by names. I don't think of products by active ingredients. I actually think of products by modes of action. Um, so because I'm always worried about resistance management on the farm. Right. So they, we need to balance that with the needs of our plant. Okay. And man, we've changed technology so much on the farm. Our spray is very pinpoint. It's our sprayers are designed to keep our materials in the tree and to get the best out of the product that we use. We want to make sure that we're controlling the pest, the disease, the weed, and then we are constantly evaluating the results. And data. Oh, my word. The amount of data I collect in a season.

Marie France: So if we talked about maximum residue limits, what does that mean for you?

Brian: On a label of a product that we have it tells us how much we can use per application, and then it tells us how much we can use in the whole season. So it's the active ingredient. The product that works to control the pest is the active ingredient. And we have limits in a very general way that we can use the maximum amount of that active ingredient. So for me, it means monitoring how much actual active ingredient w e use in a season.

Marie-France: So it's adapting your practices to ensure that at the end of the season when the product is eaten by consumers, that it's below those maximum residual levels.

Brian: Yes Exactly, we actually hold back that last application a lot of times. Um, if, if it says that we're allowed to use it ten times for instance, and we know that's a really good product, we may only actually use that product six, seven times because it's working. We'll stop using it because we don't want that product to become resistant to the pest. We also know that if there's an escape, if the population starts to increase, we've got that product still in our back pocket, that tool in our toolbox that we can take out. Get control again so that it doesn't have an economic harm to my farm. The economic threshold has changed drastically for us as producers. We do not have the room for an imperfect piece of fruit. I know you can go to the store and buy an imperfect bag of apples. If you want to have more imperfect apples come to my farm, I will gladly give you as many imperfect apples as I can because we actually field grade those out so that we only have a very low volume of very low volume of them in our bins or in our packs. So that way the. Uh, the consumer gets the best and we get paid our return on investment. Again. I don't know how well the general public knows how much work, how much science at Health Canada goes into the products we use.

Marie-France: And how do you personally choose the crop protection products?

Brian: I do side by side trials, I take it, and put it against my known products. The products that I know work the best on my farm and put it right beside it. And I do that all over on different varieties, different areas of the farm, so that I can do my own science that proves the efficacy because everybody's farm is different, everybody's soil's different, everybody's environment is different.

Marie France: So can you explain to us what you saw in the last 20 years about the biodiversity on your farm, how it is different, how different it is now?

Brian: We don't have a lot of urbanization. We have some. Urbanization is changing. Yes, people have cleared wood lots. And but then there's other people replanting wood lots. And that changes what moves in and out of our orchards all the time. I love seeing biodiversity on my farm, so I love seeing all these natural pollinators. We have no need for squash bees, by the way, on our farm. We have so many burrowing, solitary bees that pollinate squash, so we never bring in bees for squash. Um, we bring in bees for our apples because it's a very quick time. So I'm seeing like, what we call sweat bees in and out of our orchards. Seeing the populations of predatory pests, in our orchards increase. The population of a variety of birds on our farm is just through the roof. I can tell you so many funny stories picking peaches. Do you know that a bat hanging in a tree looks like a peach? Snakes fall out of trees. Bugs falling out of trees and landing on you. So we get these things called assassin bugs. They're a predatory bug that fall on you, and they love falling into the collar of your shirt and they give you a little sting. Ladybugs bite, too, by the way. It is fun to see that occurring on our farm. Unfortunately, the biodiversity of weeds is also increasing. So we're changing some of our practices there as well now. I like to see population dynamics change.

Kirk: When we first talked on the phone, you spoke about a certain culture in farming, a certain characteristic that you find in farmers.

Brian: Wow. Um, yeah. Farmers are starkly honest. They don't like to lie. They don't like to make it up. Um, if you want to find out you're doing something wrong, ask a farmer. He'll gladly tell you. Um, he'll also gladly tell you that what he did wrong. If you find the right farmer again. Belong to the Apple community, probably the most sharing community there is is the Apple Growers of Canada. I know apple growers because I am an apple grower. I know growers from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, all the way out to B.C. and their friends. And if I have a problem, if I have a question, I can call them up and ask them.

KirK: So, there’s a strong culture of learning, improvement and transparency. What else do consumers not know about farmers, especially regarding pesticide use?

Brian: We are also in Ontario required to maintain our grower pesticide card. So every five years you have to write a test and take a course that allows you to use the products that we apply to our trees. They teach us in those courses about pollinator safety. They teach us about drift control. They teach us about safe handling. They teach us about worker safety. All those things we learn. I attend the Ontario Fruit Vegetable Growers Conference in Niagara. And these are premier events that we bring in the best in the world. And they bring in so much knowledge. We have. We have had presenters from all over talk about how to spray, how to grow, how to how they farm in their country. We have researchers giving presentations. We have farmer panels who will sit up there and tell you what he's done. And you get to go out and try that and maybe, you know, trial by error. This year we had one because of a reduction of group M of pesticides. We had a panel discussion that had a pathologist. A grower that grows organic and conventional. An organic grower and then myself who combines all of them on a panel. So we were able to talk about the things we do on our farm and educate. It was a standing room only room. It was amazing, right? All these guys and girls are there to learn. And yeah, you can't ask for a better community to belong to then than the community of farming.

Kirk: That painted quite a detailed picture of Integrated Pest Management practices on a fruit and vegetable operation.

Marie-France: And Brian gave us some good insights into the overall evolution of pesticide use, not only on his farm, but in the sector.

Kirk: So, it’s a good time in this episode to hear from the government regulator, from Fred Bissonnette at Health Canada, to learn about exactly how they determine which pesticides can be used, and how they can be used – long before they even get on the market.

Marie-France: And we want to learn about that very easy to misunderstand term they use -- Maximum Residue Limits or MRLs. Thanks for joining us, Fred. Before we talk about maximum residue limits, what we call MRLs, can you explain the risk assessment process by which Canada determines safe levels of pesticide use?

Frederic: First, I want to point out that today will be focused on the diet so the exposure via food. We do look at other things like the exposure to the environment, does the product work. Are workers, like the farmers, exposed and is it an acceptable risk? But again, today I will focus on the aspect of food. So we first we start basically by looking at several studies that identifies the toxicological property of the pesticide. So, for example, does it absorb through the skin? Is part of the body more sensitive and another like the liver? At what dose do we see these effects? We look at both short-term studies and long-term studies. So short terms would be like do you become can you become allergic if your skin is exposed to it? Long term studies or things like cancer reproduction; are children more affected than like adults, for example? And from these studies, our scientists identified the highest dose that causes no effects on animals. So we basically have like a series of dosage and the highest dose that cause no effect is usually the one that's picked. And then we apply safety factors of at least 100. Sometimes it goes to a thousand or more. So in short, we take the dose that has no effect and apply 100 to 1000 safety factor, and that sets the limit to which a human can be exposed. For example, if one gram a day is the dose of no effect in the animal, we'll set the dose like ten milligrams, for example, or one milligram if it's a 1000 safety fold. After those properties, toxic properties are determined, we conduct an exposure assessment to where we look at the diet.

So how much of the pesticide we may consume via the food we eat, the water we drink. It looks at all the particular crops that are on the label of the pesticide, and it's both eating each day and over a lifetime. We also look at whether the pesticide can concentrate as the food is prepared. So not all food is eaten directly as it's reaped like an apple and eaten directly. But canola, it usually comes from a seed that you extract the oil. So we look at whether during the oil extraction, if the pesticide can concentrate and then we look at all these different food sources together and we compare it to the safety limit. If it is exceeded, we will basically not allow them on the market. But if it's within the boundaries of the safety limit, then the use would be allowed.

Marie France: This is a super complicated scientific process. And how do MRLs fit into this?

Frederic: So MRLs are essentially the highest amount of pesticide residue that may remain on food after the pesticides been used as per the label. So, it's not really a safety factor, maximum safety per se. It's really if you follow the label, you apply it to the maximum, like quantity, frequency, as late as you can, as per the label on the crop. So how much is expected to be left? So it's really a measure of the pesticide being used properly. So that is not if it's exceeded, it's not necessarily a risk issue, but it really is. If it's exceeded, the farmer may not have followed the label. So that is a compliance tool for us. It's basically the worst case scenario. It's very rare that the farmers will apply the maximum frequency, the maximum amount, and very late in the season as per the label, typically they will rotate with other pesticide or the pest pressure may not be the same from year to year. And it's also done like the test is done at the once the the fruit is reaped like it's taken from the apple tree, for example. Whereas when you buy your food at the grocery store, there's been time between the farmer picking it up and being making its way to the grocery store. So there's time for it to dissipate. For example, the UV light from the sun might degrade the pesticide. So essentially, like the the MRL represent the maximum you can find at the farm just before it goes to the grocery store. In fact, usually there's a lot less when you on the food you buy at the grocery store.

Marie-France: As a tool for international trade, how are MRLs used?

Frederic: So MRLs are used internationally to make sure the food that is being imported in a country meets the country's standard, or if you're an exporting country that you export the food that meets the importing countries requirement. So if, for example, if there's if you grow something in Canada and you want to ship to Europe and they don't have an MRL for that product, you the farmer will likely have to choose a different pesticide because if it reaches Europe and they do a test and they find a pesticide is not supposed to be there, they will basically return it or dispose of it. So it's really for farmers, it's a tool for farmers to make sure that when they select in their toolbox the different pest control products that they need, that they have in mind the importing country. Another aspect is like Canada. As a northern country, we don't grow food around the year. So if we need to import of the winter, these MRls help like Americans, like for California, for example, shipping strawberries to us and make sure that they follow like Canadian regulations.

Marie-France: So I understand that this is a regulation per se. So can you explain to us when and where does Canada change regulation for MRLs? Is it often? Is it a specific process?

Frederic: MRLs essentially represents like what you can find when on the crop when the pesticide is used as per its label. So if the label changes, then it might require a maximum residue limit. An example of that is like some pests, like a particular crop may be sensitive to a pest that attacks it early in the growing season, and the pesticide may be registered for that only. And suddenly a new pest, like an invasive species, happens it starts to attack the fruit later in the season when it's becoming more ripe.

So then the that use is not on the label. So the manufacturer of the pesticide would have to seek authorization from Health Canada to be able to use it that way. And because it happens later in the season, you could expect to see more residues at the end. So that's where like we actually have to do another risk assessment to see, okay, because you expect more if there's more in the diet, is it still acceptable? So that is one scenario where you need to change the maximum residue limit. Another one, sometimes it's to facilitate trade. So sometimes the discrepancies between countries are not that big.

For example, like you could have a 1.2 ppm and 1.3 in Canada. Again, risk assessment may show there's no issues. And the manufacturer may want to align the MRLs to facilitate trade again during the winter months so we can get all those food that we need in the winter. And finally, there is an international body that's called Codex Alimentarius. So it's under the World Health Organization and the food the World Food Organization, and they work to align code MRL to the extent possible at Codex to facilitate trade. So like some countries don't have the same amount of scientific capacity as Canada, and they will often rely on Codex to actually set an MRL so that they can ship like their coffee beans, for example, in other countries. So that those are a few examples of where you would need to change an MRL.

Marie France: When you make changes to MRLs it is mostly impacting growers, yes?

Frederic: First and foremost, it's the growers. They're the ones that are most likely to be affected because the change in limit and maximum residue limit is typically because the pesticide uses change. So like if it's Canadian domestic use that changes, like for example, you need to apply it later, that will result in a change in MRL and will allow the farmer, assuming the risk be found to be acceptable, to use the product. So that is a positive for them to get access to a tool that they may not have had before. Uh, for farmers in other countries, like the maximum residual limit will allow them to ship to Canada and similarly will allow us to like our, our farmers to ship elsewhere.

Kirk: There was a recent announcement on lifting the pause on MRLs. Can you explain why there was a pause?

Frederic: Yeah, certainly. So a bit of a history in 2021. In August 2021, Health Canada had proposed to increase a few MRLs. Some of these changes were to reflect a change in how the product was used. Like there's one of them, I believe was for a new pest that required a later application. So as I explained, you could see more residue. So a new MRL was being proposed and others was to align with Codex. So that proposal really resulted in a lot of worried Canadians as to like, what does this mean for me? Am I more at risk from pesticides? So and while there was a full scientific assessment that was backing this up the government listened, and decided to put that pause to take the time to properly engage with the public, with the stakeholders on the issue and better understand the concern to see how, moving forward, we could better address them. Part of this pause, part of this announcement of the pause included other activities like creating or finding ways to get more independent data, like, for example, water monitoring samples across the kind of across the country to see like what is out there, rather than relying mostly on computer models.

So that is a lot of the genesis of the pause, like taking the time to properly figure out what's the concern, how we can address this and is there a way to make the science even more solid? Uh, so this, this pause gave us the time to do all that have like meetings with stakeholders, discussion with like a subset of Canadians to test new communication product, for example, to see does that explain better? Do you understand what’s going on? And this is so all that work was done and now we feel we're ready to lift a pause because we have a lot of these products ready.

Kirk: So what does the general public in Canada need to know about MRLs?

Frederic: I would start by saying they’re only set after an extensive review by experts like scientists in Health Canada that are internationally recognized. And they’re only set if those people find that there, they don't create a risk that's not acceptable to Canadians. And I often, like people don't sometimes understand what we mean by acceptable risk. Just in science, you cannot say there's no risk. Absolute zero risk does not exist in science. So that's why we use that jargon. I understand it can be difficult to understand for the public, but basically it means like we've looked at everything that we had and we found that if we propose either a new or an increase, we find that the risk okay. And lastly, like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who's responsible for monitoring what’s being sold in groceries, they have a very high compliance. So it's more than 97% of the food that's looked at that is found to be compliant. And even if it's not compliant doesn't mean there's a risk. So by and large, like the food, the food is compliant and is safe to eat.

Kirk: PMRA is doing things differently in the past few years as a result of its transformation task force. What are the key points of this transformation?

Frederic: So there’s a few pillars, for lack of a better word, on their transformation. One of them is like looking at our processes. That’s not very sexy, but we follow a process that is largely determined by the legislation, but also like from a logical point of view and international how things are done. So that is one part of it. The other part is also looking at being more transparent, better communicating.

So can we make it easier to understand, explain, like the key components, the key points, the takeaway points, and like, people are more confident because we work for the people and we feel like the people should be confident in what we do for them. It’s also about getting more like most of the data we get is generated by New factor. Now they have to follow like very standard protocol. If they don’t follow protocol, we reject it. We have access to all the underlying data. We can make our own calculation. We don’t we don’t take their conclusion. We come up with our conclusion. But how can we get more of that independent data like water monitoring. The core science doesn’t change per se. It’s really how do we do this and how can we do this better? How can we explain it better, how it can be more accessible to the public? And is there more information we can gather out there to help inform our decision?

Kirk: Can we sum this up a little? To give you an example, I love eating apples. So how many apples do I have to eat before I get sick from the pesticide residues on them?

Frederic: So like for the example, the apple like you’d have to eat 280 apple a day every day of your life to like register as a health concern. So you’ll probably like be sick from all the sugar in the apple and like just like bloating before you even have to start worrying about pesticide.

Kirk: Ha! I love apples, just not that much.

Marie-France: I can see that. And I think we can go back to Brian for the final word on this topic of pesticides, because I like what he said to you, Kirk, about the current practices as compared to the past.

Brian: A farmer is a steward of his land. Okay. Mistakes were probably made in the past. Okay. Mistakes will be made in the future. But the farming community recognizes their mistakes and are adjusting them, and they're going away from those products that will not have a biodiverse environment there. I would agree the, the, the old go out and scorch the earth method of pesticide application is gone. And we're now using more controlled methods now. I'm very proud of being a Canadian farmer. Honestly, Canada grows the best produce in the world.

Kirk: That’s a great note on which to end this episode.

Marie-France: Indeed! Stay tuned for our upcoming episodes about labour shortages and the innovative work being done to solve them.

Kirk: Don’t forget to subscribe. And let us know what you think. Are there other topics you would like to hear about? We enjoy hearing from you, our listeners.

Marie-France: And until the next time, you know what to do?

Kirk: Yes. I am going to try something new.