Pesticides: Le Talon d’Achille des politiques alimentaires canadiennes et québécoises
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15353/cfs-rcea.v5i3.274Keywords:
pesticides, herbicides à base de glyphosate, politique alimentaire, Canada, agroalimentaire, évaluation, santé, environnementAbstract
Comment expliquer que le projet de politique alimentaire du Canada ignore le dossier des pesticides alors que la récente politique bioalimentaire du Québec évoque vaguement la question, mais sans engagements significatifs? Pourquoi évacuer ainsi l’analyse des enjeux et des effets sanitaires et environnementaux préoccupants des pesticides et notamment du glyphosate, premier pesticide au monde, en croissance exponentielle, qui, déclaré cancérogène probable par le Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (CIRC) de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) (IARC, 2015), constitue au Canada 56 pour cent des pesticides agricoles et 44 pour cent de ceux du Québec (Santé Canada, 2017a; MDDELCC, 2017)?
Presqu’omniprésent dans les champs, les cours d’eau agricoles et dans 30 pour cent des aliments au Canada, le glyphosate est l’objet de vives controverses scientifiques et citoyennes dans le monde entier (Robin, 2008, 2018). En Europe, sa ré-autorisation, suite à deux ans de vives controverses a été limitée à 5 ans. Aux États-Unis, 3,500 victimes d’un lymphome non-hodgkinien attribué au Roundup, premier herbicide à base de glyphosate (HBG) en importance au monde, poursuivent en justice son principal fabricant Monsanto (Gonzague & Michel, 2017) alors qu’en France et en Argentine, des poursuites pour malformations congénitales s’amorcent également contre Monsanto (Foucart, 2018).
Cet article examine, dans une approche interdisciplinaire et intersectorielle, les facteurs de la montée en puissance des HBG, leurs principaux effets sur l’environnement et la santé, et les lacunes d’évaluation et d’encadrement des pesticides, contribuant à leur diffusion massive et à leurs effets. Il met aussi en évidence que les projets et politiques alimentaires canadiennes et québécoises, centrés sur le développement de modèles agro-industriels intensifs et technicisés d’exportation soumis à une conception de croissance économique, sont peu compatibles avec les exigences de protection de la biodiversité, de la santé et de la sécurité alimentaire. Or, dans un contexte de globalisation des marchés et d’accords de libre-échange avec l’Europe, plus soucieuse du Principe de Précaution et de droits des consommateurs, la négligence de ces enjeux écologiques et sanitaires risque d’en constituer le talon d’Achille.
How do we account for the fact that the proposed Food Policy for Canada ignores the issue of pesticides while Quebec’s recent Bio-Food policy vaguely evokes the question, but without significant commitments? Why unpack the issues and the worrying health and environmental effects of pesticides and in particular of glyphosate, the foremost pesticide in the world, declared a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) (IARC, 2015)? This compound constitutes 56 percent of agricultural pesticides in Canada and 44 percent of those in Quebec (Health Canada, 2017a; MDDELCC, 2017). Almost ubiquitous in fields, agricultural streams and in 30 percent of food in Canada, glyphosate is the subject of intense scientific and citizen controversy around the world (Robin, 2008, 2018). In Europe, its re-authorization, following two years of heated controversy, was limited to 5 years. In the United States, 3,500 victims of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma attributed to Roundup, the world's leading glyphosate-based (HBG) herbicide, are suing its main manufacturer Monsanto (Gonzague & Michel, 2017) while in France and Argentina, lawsuits for congenital malformations are also beginning against Monsanto (Foucart, 2018).
Using an interdisciplinary and intersectoral approach, this article examines the factors that have contributed to the rise of HBGs, their main effects on the environment and health, and the gaps in the evaluation and supervision of pesticides, contributing to their mass dissemination. It also highlights that Canadian and Quebec food projects and policies, centered as they are on the development of intensive and technicized agro-industrial models for export and subject to the demand for economic growth, are hardly compatible with the requirements of biodiversity protection, health and food safety. Further, in a context of market globalization and free trade agreements with Europe, more concerned with the Principle of Precaution and consumer rights, neglect of these ecological and health issues constitutes something of an Achille’s heel.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Marie-Hélène Bacon, Louise Vandelac, Sébastien Petrie
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Work published in CFS/RCÉA prior to and including Vol. 8, No. 3 (2021) is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY license. Work published in Vol. 8, No. 4 (2021) and after is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA license. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. (See more on Open Access.)