MINDEMOYA—A proposal to ban the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on municipal lands across Manitoulin Island has been voted down by the Manitoulin Municipal Association (MMA) following a discussion marked by hesitation and concern. When the motion was introduced, the room fell silent before one mover and seconder initiated the debate, reflecting the cautious approach of those in attendance.
The discussion highlighted the balance between environmental concerns and the agricultural community’s reliance on glyphosate.
The motion, which was requested by Zak Nichols on November 27, 2024, sought to have Manitoulin municipalities declare themselves “unwilling hosts” for glyphosate application on roadsides, rights-of-way and utility stations by the Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO), Hydro One, and their contractors, was met with significant resistance from municipal leaders, many of whom are farmers. While the proposed resolution did not include agricultural use, fears of a broader ban ultimately led to its rejection.
On January 15, 2025 the Ontario Federation of Agriculture requested to address the MMA on the same issue, citing “rigorous scientific assessment process that provides reasonable certainty that no harm to human health and the environment will occur when it is used according to label directions” by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and Health Canada.
However, four environmental organizations—including the David Suzuki Foundation and Environmental Defence—submitted 61 new scientific studies to Health Canada, highlighting previously unidentified or heightened risks linked to glyphosate resulting in a recent Federal Court ruling which found Health Canada’s previous safety review of glyphosate to be “unreasonable.” The ruling now requires Health Canada to conduct a more thorough assessment within six months. The deadline will fall in August of 2025.
A Complex Discussion
During the March 18 meeting in Mindemoya, municipal representatives debated the potential consequences of restricting glyphosate use. Some members raised concerns that passing the resolution could set a precedent for broader restrictions in the future, threatening the use of the herbicide in farming practices.
“Everybody knows I am a farmer. I use glyphosate myself,” said one council member. “One of the concerns I have with this is it’s a foot in the door for a total ban. If we lost this tool, we could be looking at a 50 percent reduction in food production.”
Another speaker expressed concern over the impact on phragmites control, a major conservation project on the Island. “I think every municipality here is part of the Phragmites Project with Judith Jones, and that is one of the tools they use—to control invasive species. It’s a last resort, but it is used. If we lose that option, what’s next?”
Others pointed to the broader issue of environmental contamination beyond glyphosate. “I was doing some research and found that Denmark banned glyphosate completely—but now their contamination rates are even higher. Turns out, they linked it to chemicals from personal care products and wastewater systems. The thing is, all these chemicals mix together in ways we don’t fully understand. It’s not just about Roundup; it’s about everything we’re putting into the environment.”
Another councillor pushed back on what they saw as misplaced blame on farmers. “I know that any farmer I’ve ever talked to says Roundup is the last resort. They do crop rotation, they try no-till, they do everything they can to avoid it. It’s not like it’s the only tool they have to do their job. And with everything happening in the economy right now, why would we attack farmers? Our food infrastructure is more important than ever.”
While some councillors opposed the resolution outright, others were more concerned with the lack of regulation and transparency around consumer glyphosate use. “You can walk into any hardware store and buy a jug of it for your lawn with little restriction, but as a farmer, I have to follow strict rules,” said one representative. “If there’s a problem, it’s not with responsible agricultural use—it’s with improper application elsewhere.”
A recent Federal Court ruling found Health Canada’s previous safety review of glyphosate to be “unreasonable,” as the agency failed to consider over 60 new scientific studies highlighting potential risks. Despite concerns raised about glyphosate’s environmental impact, the motion was ultimately defeated, with several members urging for stricter enforcement of existing regulations rather than an outright ban.
Looking Ahead
Although the resolution failed, the debate highlighted ongoing tensions between environmental advocacy, public health concerns and agricultural needs. With Health Canada set to reassess glyphosate’s safety, the conversation is unlikely to end here. For now, municipal rights-of-way and Hydro One corridors will continue to see glyphosate applications, despite concerns from some residents and environmental advocates.
As new scientific findings emerge and regulatory decisions unfold, Manitoulin’s municipalities may yet revisit the issue. Until then, glyphosate will remain a topic that raises larger questions about ecological stewardship, agricultural viability, and community decision-making in the face of evolving evidence.
The Manitoulin Expositor has put in a formal Freedom of Information request to the MTO to request further information on the volume of glyphosate used by the ministry, as well as a more informal request to Hydro One.
