Front Burner - Canadian government emails defend herbicide linked to cancer by U.S. court

Episode Date: February 7, 2020

A CBC report has uncovered a series of internal government emails showing Canadian officials defending the use of glyphosate, frequently sold under the brand name Roundup. It's a herbicide that was at the heart of a landmark U.S. lawsuit in 2018 that linked the product to cancer. Monsanto, which makes Roundup, is appealing the decision, and its parent company Bayer says the weedkiller is safe when used as directed, citing more than 100 scientific studies backing that position. However, despite mounting concerns about its safety, glyphosate remains the most widely used herbicide in Canada. Today on Front Burner, CBC News writer Chris Arsenault talks to guest host Josh Bloch about why regulating glyphosate is so complicated.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Josh Bloch, filling in for Jamie Poisson. If you're a fan of CBC Podcasts, I was the host of CBC's Uncover Escaping NXIVM. I actually was a guest on the show. I've also been an audio producer here at the CBC for about 10 years. Jamie will be back on Monday. Here's the show.

As a groundskeeper at a school in the San Francisco area, there was one thing that Dwayne Lee Johnson did for years. He would mix up a load of Roundup herbicide and spray the yard at sunup, way before kids would get to school. It was just a mundane task until, one day, the sprayer broke, and he got drenched in the stuff. Dwayne didn't think about it much at the time, but then he got a rash and then lesions began to develop on his body. And eventually he was diagnosed with cancer.

There's been times where I couldn't move, couldn't walk, you know, so I've had my ups and downs with this illness. It's really tough. In a landmark decision in 2018, a California court ruled that Dwayne Johnson should be paid $78 million in damages because Monsanto, which makes Roundup, failed to warn Mr. Johnson and other consumers about the cancer risks posed by an ingredient in Roundup called glyphosate. Monsanto is appealing the decision. A spokesperson for Bayer, Monsanto's parent company, says the herbicide is safe when used as directed, citing more than 100 scientific studies backing that position. The company's still saying that it's safe.

Is it true that you were told that it was safe enough to drink Roundup? More than once. Really? Yeah, more than once. I even seen a video. However, there's growing concern about its safety. After the groundbreaking case, thousands of similar lawsuits were filed across the U.S. and Canada. So why am I telling you this today?

Well, because my CBC colleague Chris Arsenault just got his hands on some internal government emails, some of which show officials defending the use of glyphosate, which remains the most widely used herbicide in Canada and is a staple of our large-scale agricultural process. Chris is my guest today. This is FrontBurner. Hi, Chris. Great to be here. So we're talking about this today because you got these emails, you got access to them that were sent between staff members at Agriculture Canada. And there was one with a subject line that said,

quote, overview of the chemical roundup and how to counter claims that it causes cancer. Can you tell me more about what did that email say? So let's go back to March 2019. There's two cases in the U.S. paying out huge payments for people who say that glyphosate caused their cancer. And the government, I think rightfully, was concerned about how people in Canada would perceive these huge judgments and the findings of U.S. courts. So a series of emails is going back and forth between officials at Agriculture Canada.

And one official says, quote, And what one official says, quote, recent media coverage of the U.S. court rulings linking glyphosate to cancer cases may increase stakeholder concerns with the host of regulators from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Health Canada have deemed it to be low risk. So I think what we're seeing is within the department, they're rightfully responding to public sentiment and public fears about the chemical in light of U.S. litigation. So those emails suggest that they're not so concerned about what the policy is, but how to defend and communicate what that policy looks like. I think they are genuinely concerned about both. I think there are officials in the department who wanted to make sure their policy

was still in the best interest of Canadians given these U.S. rulings. So one staff member writes, can we qualify a bit to say that, quote, exposure to glyphosate through regular use is not carcinogenic or something like that? And I think within a government as within most workplaces, people have different views and are trying to get to the right message. And these emails underscore that. They also underscore the really delicate balancing act of trying to regulate the most widely used herbicide in Canada, despite some evidence that it does indeed cause cancer. So to be clear, Agriculture Canada is definitely defending their policy, their stance on glyphosate.

Absolutely. They're reiterating that in their view and based on the view of Health Canada, who does a lot of the science and the number crunching on this, that it's been found unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. I talked to a couple of lawyers and other folks who studied the issue, and they point out Agriculture Canada isn't anywhere saying this is safe. They don't actually say that. They hedge what they're saying. Has been found unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans, was part of the response a spokesperson for the department sent me. And that's, I guess, normal in how pesticides are regulated. You can't, few people can say definitively that something is safe. It's measured in terms of risk. But absolutely, they're defending chemical and how Canada has approached its regulation of it in these internal emails. I want to ask you about the use of glyphosate in Canada.

Can you just tell me a bit more about how it's used? How widely is it used? Yeah, so glyphosate, according to the government, is the most widely used herbicide in the country. It's used on everything from the grain fields of the prairies to parks and sports fields in Canadian cities. It's a mainstay of modern industrial agriculture. It's extremely popular and has been effective for decades

in controlling weeds in everything from oat fields to soccer fields. Roundup herbicide by Monsanto. There's never been a herbicide like it before. And I was struck, you know, reading about it, the extent to which it really revolutionized the way industrial farming is done. Absolutely. It's changed how, what we grow, how we grow it. And in the 1990s, the creation of so-called Roundup-ready crops or crops that were genetically modified to specifically respond to these chemicals also massively increased the amount of Roundup and other herbicides sold. So, yeah, this is, in the words of Bayer, the company that produces it, it's foundational to modern agriculture. And they're not wrong. Do any alternatives exist? It's a complicated question. There's nothing on the market right now where I could say, you know, let's just spray apple cider vinegar on our wheat

fields and everything will be fine. That simple solution does not exist. There's certainly other chemical pesticides and herbicides out there, but those probably carry risks too. And what supporters of glyphosate would say is, look, this one has been studied more than pretty much any other herbicide for the past three or four decades. We know it's, in our view, safe to use as directed. Others would say that's not true. So there's not an easy solution of a clear alternative today. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem.

Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. I want to ask you about the landmark lawsuit that was filed by that groundskeeper in California. And it really seems like that lawsuit has amplified concerns about glyphosate. Can you tell me more about what were the findings in terms of the health risks of glyphosate in that case? To put it very simply, the jury didn't buy Monsanto's argument that it was safe. They looked at the health research. They decided unanimously that it was causing this gentleman's cancer. And they awarded him a huge payout, $289 million

initially. And then it was cut down substantially on appeal. The jury heard from scientists on both sides, those representing the plaintiff, those representing the company, and they came to a unanimous decision that this chemical glyphosate was responsible for this man's debilitating cancer. And what was Monsanto's response to the Johnson case? Monsanto's response has been twofold. First, they've appealed the Johnson case. So that case is currently before an appeals court in California. So they're continuing to defend themselves legally. the label and we're going to do what you want to try to make this right. I don't think that they can do that because then they lose everything and their company crumbles and the rest of the lawsuits have to be settled. Secondly, in a statement to me, Bayer said, quote, plaintiff's efforts to mischaracterize the safety of glyphosate is a concern given that

glyphosate is foundational to agriculture around the world, can be used safely, and is an essential tool for farmers to deliver crops to markets effectively and sustainably. So their public relations strategy is essentially twofold. One, lawyers and the jury in this case cherry-picked the science that led to Mr. Johnson winning the case. They cherry-picked a few isolated studies and didn't look at the vast majority of studies which say the chemical is safe to use as directed. Their second point is something a little bit broader, and it's essentially saying

this chemical is foundational for modern agriculture, and if you undermine its use, it's going to come back and bite you in terms of reduced food yields or higher costs to consumers. So they're doing a one-two. In Dwayne Lee Johnson's case, his exposure to Roundup was really dramatic. I mean, he was drenched in the stuff.

And I wonder, you know, to what extent was his case significant when you're looking at other cases where people are exposed at much lower levels? Yeah, I mean, it's a key question. And the courts, both in Canada and the U.S., are still working on that. Many of the lawsuits involve people in a situation like him who were using it in the consumer space as opposed to in the agricultural space. So we haven't seen a huge number of lawsuits from farmers, for example, who say they were exposed to it during the application of agricultural chemicals. We're seeing it from people who use it as groundskeepers, as home builders, as people involved on the more kind of consumer-facing side. So his case is certainly intense in terms of the raw amount of chemical he used. But other plaintiffs in Canada and the U.S. are claiming they were exposed to toxic levels of the chemical also,

and the companies defending themselves against all of those claims. Well, and in those other cases, do they give us a clearer picture about what the possible health risks are to someone exposed to glyphosate? The cases themselves don't really do that. The cases are kind of a battle of different scientific studies in a sense. So there's not new scientific research being done as part of litigation. But what's interesting about it is it's kind of the scientific equivalent of a WWF smackdown of who can employ different scientific evidence most effectively to convince a judge or a jury. Right. Bayer, in defending the herbicide, cites more than 100 studies from around the world showing that it's safe to use. And most governments, most national regulators, including in Canada and the U.S.,

have come to the same conclusion, that the risk is low for cancer and other ailments. There is one absolutely key study that critics of the chemical use. Roundup is a herbicide product that contains glyphosate. Like most herbicides and insecticides, it comes with cautions. There is now a new one, a reclassification of glyphosates as probably being cancer-causing

by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, the IARC, concluded that glyphosate was, quote, probably carcinogenic to humans. So that study is considered absolutely key for critics of the chemical. Bayer says that study was an absolute outlier and that other branches of the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization have found a different conclusion that the risks from the chemical are low. So that study from the IARC played a key role in a lot of the claims made by

plaintiffs suing Monsanto. Well, and one of the things that came out in that landmark case in Discovery was that some of the articles that were claiming there was no health risk of glyphosate was actually being ghostwritten by Monsanto. What's going on there? What does that mean? Yeah, the concerns about ghostwriting really came forward following that 2015 study. What Bayer says is, look, the studies that were written by scientists affiliated with Monsanto, those affiliations

were disclosed. And they say, more importantly, they were secondary studies. So not the foundational fundamental studies that were used by, say, Health Canada to determine that stuff was safe. Critics and counsel lawyers for plaintiffs who say the chemical caused them cancer take a very, very different position, as do environmentalists. And they say this ghostwriting was an attempt to muddy the waters, to make the science less understandable for average people, and essentially just to make everything far more complicated, to not trust the experts, to not trust the science,

and for people to just essentially throw up their hands and say, OK, we've got to live with this. When it comes to Canada and our position on the risks and the use of glyphosate, what's the Canadian government weighing out? What they've told me is they're weighing out a host of studies done of peer reviewed studies of independent studies and liaising with regulators around the world in places like the UK and the US. they've found that the risks are low, that it's causing cancers. So they are weighing a lot. There are a lot of studies showing that this is low risk when used appropriately. That's what they're using to make the determinations.

But it strikes me that the stakes are really high here as well. I mean, you have the farmers who rely on this herbicide and the you know, the Canadian economy, really, and the company that sells this product, and then also the possible health risks to people that are exposed to it. Absolutely. This is not a simple issue. This is not one that regulators can afford to get wrong. I mean, it would be nice to say, let's just eat organic wheat and get it from small farms that use natural herbicides. But that really, if Canadians want cheap food, which I think most of us do, that's not an easy thing to do. So yeah, the government, they're not in an easy position. The stakes are high and it's a complicated issue.

And so here, you know, today we've got these mounting lawsuits related to glyphosate. You have the World Health Organization making this strong statement about the health risks of the herbicide. And it seems like there's growing public concerns or at least questions about what's going on here. How come people are in fact, you know, courts are ruling in fact that there is a link between the herbicide and cancer. Do you think that Health Canada is going to review whether it should be used in Canada? They are doing a review, but it's not for another quite some time. I believe it's 2023. However, what I find interesting is individual cities and other countries are taking their own approach. So Montreal earlier in 2019 instituted a ban on glyphosate in city limits.

The city says they are concerned for the health of Montrealers and the health of our soil. Montreal's ban on the product follows a similar ban. So you used to need a special permit to be able to spray it. Now a ban has gone forward, which it just can't be used in Montreal at all. And Quebec's government says it's considering something similar. Germany, the home base of Bayer, has instituted a ban coming on in the next decade.

So it isn't in place yet, but it will ban the use of glyphosate, which is massive given that's Bayer's home base. Vietnam, too, has banned the use of the chemical. It certainly isn't a groundswell, but you are seeing more jurisdictions taking this seriously and taking action to either reduce or outright ban the chemical. So what do you think might prompt the Canadian government to change its policies around glyphosate? I mean, I think for Canada, market forces could play a role in this. If more companies are concerned about glyphosate? I mean, I think for Canada, market forces could play a role in this. If more companies are concerned about glyphosate on food, that's going to be an issue for Canadian exporters. So Canadian exports of wheat to Italy after glyphosate was found on the wheat decreased.

The exports have recovered slightly, but still not very much. So consumers in Italy are very concerned about eating their know, eating their Sunday pasta with a trace of glyphosate on it. And I think that could become an issue in other jurisdictions too, particularly in Europe, but also potentially in parts of Asia, if these localized or national bans do pick up steam. I personally think one of the bigger issues might be weeds themselves developing resistance to the chemical because it's just so widespread.

And farmers, not because of politics, not because of health, but because of the weeds themselves, farmers having to switch to using different kinds of herbicides. So this might be decided by nature before it's decided by governments. Absolutely.

In agriculture, that's absolutely true. Chris, thank you so much. Thanks. It's been a pleasure. Before I let you go today, an update on a story from earlier this week. Jamie spoke with a couple from Montreal, Megan Millward and Li Zhang, and they were visiting family in Wuhan with their two kids. After the coronavirus outbreak hit, they got stuck under quarantine. When we last chatted with them, they were concerned that they wouldn't be able to get

on the plane that the Canadian government sent to airlift citizens out of China. They were particularly worried about Li, who's a permanent resident of Canada and not a citizen, whether he'd be able to get a spot. Well, some good news on that front. Megan and Lee and their kids did get on that flight, and it departed on Thursday. Here's Lee and Megan describing how it happened. We were the last four to register on the plane, and we told them that, you know, our situation and you know the kids are so too young and

we really hope we can stay together and then they called the global affairs global affairs and also to talk to the beijing embassy as well so and then they we just wait for a waited for another hour, and finally they confirmed, yes, you are ready to go. So that was great, great news, yeah. That's all for this week. FrontBurner comes to you from CBC News and CBC Podcasts. The show was produced this week by Mark Apollonio, Imogen Burchard, Elaine Chao, Shannon Higgins, and Derek Vanderwyk.

Derek also does our sound design, along with Austin Pomeroy and Matt Cameron. Our music is by Joseph Chabison of Boombox Sound. The executive producer of Front Burner is Nick McCabe-Locos. I'm Josh Bloch, filling in for Jamie Poisson. Thanks so much for listening, and Jamie will be back next week.