Ban Glyphosate Nova Scotia

WHY Ban Glyphosate in Mi'kma'ki (Nova Scotia) and beyond — The SCIENCE

home | stop clearcutting | endangered species | carbon sequestration | ban glyphosate | resources | contact
Arrow to The News: Ban Glyphosate


WHY Ban Glyphosate — The News

Arrow to Ban Glyphosate - WHY?


WHY Ban Glyphosate — First Steps

Arrow to Ban Aerial Spraying Petition


e-Petition — moratorium on aerial spraying glyphosate herbicides in NS

Arrow to North Mtn Occupation Page


Don't Mess With North Mountain!
Fall/22 Occupation + links on glyphosate

Arrow to Bear River Occupation Page


Bear River Don't Spray Us!
Fall/22 Occupation

Glyphosate Fact Sheet 2022 Update
by Rob Bright and Nina Newington

Every year in Nova Scotia, corporations apply for permission to spray glyphosate-based herbicides on their land. Every year Nova Scotia Environment issues a bunch of licenses, and every year citizens object. The latest UN climate report makes it clear we cannot afford business as usual, but that is what the Nova Scotia government is bringing us. Again.

Why do these landowners want a helicopter to fly over their land and poison a majority of the plants that are growing there?

Companies spray a young forest with glyphosate-based herbicides after it has been clearcut, usually 2-5 years after the cut. Done in late August/September, the spray kills off everything with a leaf, including hardwood trees like maple, oak and birch, leaving only trees with needles, such as spruce and fir. Industrial forestry favours these softwoods. The intent is to get rid of competition so the preferred species grow faster. The effect is to prevent regeneration of the natural Wabanaki-Acadian forest, leaving in its place an industrial tree farm.

Isn't there a better way to reduce competition?

These corporations could pay workers to cut back the competing trees manually but that would cost more than hiring a helicopter to spray poison. In half an hour a helicopter can spray 200 acres. Aerial spraying is a "cheap" way to prevent the regeneration of a natural forest.

But getting rid of competition does help the trees grow, doesn't it?

As it turns out, the kill-the-competition model is based on outdated science. Forest ecologists are demonstrating that natural forests are healthier and more resilient because they are diverse. Different kinds of trees actually cooperate via fungal networks in the soil. Dr. Suzanne Simard's 40 years of research on forestry and forest ecology has proven that industrial forestry's kill-the-competition model of forest management is wrong.

What about all the costs the corporation isn't paying?

Instead of creating jobs, the corporation hires a helicopter to poison the land and water from the air.

Instead of allowing a natural forest to regrow, supporting complex webs of life that in turn support people with ecosystem services, ecological deserts are created.

Instead of using the precautionary principle to protect the health of humans and wildlife, both corporations and our government choose to trust industry-funded studies that have proven to be inaccurate and full of flaws.

Our government allows these corporations to take the profits while we — and the planet — pay the costs.

But hasn't Health Canada approved the use of glyphosate?

Yes. So has the EPA in the US. But there is a lot of money at stake for chemical companies. For a chilling look at how the system that is supposed to protect us works — or doesn't work — check out

The European Food Safety Authority (Europe), Health Canada's Pesticide Management Regulatory Authority (Canada) and the Food and Drug Administration (USA) only review the safety science done by the herbicide manufacturers. This research is usually unpublished, non-peer reviewed, and is often kept secret as proprietary information.

In 2015 the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) declared that glyphosate was a Probable Human Carcinogen. The IARC used only published, peer reviewed, publicly accessible research on glyphosate.

It's more than glyphosate
The safety research done on glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) only looks at the one ingredient, glyphosate. Research has found that the whole formulations of GBHs can be far more toxic than glyphosate alone, meaning the safety research does not realistically assess the true risks associated with using these herbicides.

In the United States, more than 120,000 lawsuits have been filed against Bayer-Monsanto claiming that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides has caused a cancer called non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The plaintiffs won the first three cases. Juries awarded the victims: Hardeman v. Monsanto, $80 million; Dewayne Lee Johnson v Monsanto, $289.2 million; and, Pilliod et al., v Monsanto, $2 billion. Bayer-Monsanto set aside $11.6 billion for settlements and litigation in the matter. In July 2021, they added a further $4.5 billion in case of an unfavourable ruling by the top U.S. court. They want any settlements they negotiate to state that there has been no admission of wrong doing and that they will still be allowed to sell glyphosate.

So Nova Scotia Environment has approved the aerial spraying of two glyphosate-based herbicides, Timberline and VisionMax, on parcels of privately-owned forested land. There are minimal safeguards: spraying shouldn't happen if the wind is over 10-15km/h; there are 10m buffer zones from boundaries. Much is made of the laser precision of the helicopter sprayers. They never spray streams or rivers, so the claim goes. But when a glyphosate-based herbicide rains down from the sky, it kills any amphibian whose skin it touches including salamanders, frogs and toads. It coats the berries and leaves that wildlife and sometimes humans eat. It enters the top 6" of soil and stays there for an undetermined length of time. Because glyphosate can permeate every part of a plant, it can remain in deep rooted plants far underground and into water courses. Anyone who has hiked in our woods knows there are swampy bits. These feed into more identifiable streams. So glyphosate ends up in watercourses. It is toxic to aquatic life. In lakes and ponds it feeds cyano-bacteria, the blue-green algae blooms that sicken people and kill pets.

There must be a better way to treat nature and ourselves. Cape Breton has a moratorium on the aerial spraying of herbicides and pesticides on forests. Quebec banned the use of glyphosate in forestry in 2001. Their economy did not crash and burn.

In 2022, Health Canada lost its appeal against Safe Food Matters which claimed the process and the science Health Canada used to reapprove glyphosate was faulty and irresponsible. Health Canada was ordered by the court to reassess its approval and renewal processes for pesticides and seek public input regarding this.

In 2022 in the US, the EPA's decision to reapprove glyphosate was deemed to be illegal as the EPA failed to evaluate cancer risks and risks to species at risk.

Other concerns and risks about glyphosate based herbicides:
1) Glyphosate was first patented as a chelator because it binds with metals. Because of its chelating abilities it was first used as a descaling agent in boiler and industrial pipes. Once concern about glyphosate's capacity to chelate metallic minerals is that it can concentrate toxic metals like arsenic and mercury. It can also bind with biologically important metals like calcium, chromium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, potassium, sodium and zinc making them biologically unavailable as nutrients.
2) Glyphosate was also patented as an antimicrobial. This raises concerns about its impact on soil structure and soil biology. It may kill or alter soil microbes which may in turn impact plant and animal life forms.
3) Industry science claims glyphosate only impacts plant life through a plant's metabolic pathway called the shikimate pathway. Industry claims that because mammals do not have this shikimate pathway, glyphosate is of no danger to mammals. However, the important bacteria in mammalian gut and digestive tracts DO have the shikimate pathway, and therefore are impacted by glyphosate. This raises concerns about the health of gut biota (micro-organisms in the gut) and how this could impact overall health of the organism. Gut health in mammals is a crucial factor in overall health.

Glyphosate - Canada Public Health Glyphosate fertility issues Glyphosate fertility issues
home | stop clearcutting | endangered species | carbon sequestration | ban glyphosate | resources | contact
top of page
2020 - 2023 eco-action Mi'kma'ki