Canadian agriculture analysis — governments and farm organizations keep telling us that decisions on our farms and in regulatory agencies must be “science-based.” Entwined with that demand is the idea that science is absolute and unbiased — never changing, never influenced by who paid for the research. That’s a fantasy, and Canadian farmers are the ones living with the consequences.
By Maplestime News Desk | Winnipeg, Manitoba | September 19, 2026
Sources: The Globe and Mail | Last updated: September 19, 2026
Key Takeaways
- “Science-based” decision-making assumes science is absolute and unbiased — but research is always shaped by who funds it
- On neonicotinoid insecticides: industry-funded studies show yield gains in corn and soy; independent and environmental studies link neonics to honey bee and pollinator deaths
- The federal government has dismantled public research infrastructure, including the world-renowned Freshwater Institute library in Winnipeg
- The National Research Council’s mandate was reshaped to take its scientific cues from industry
- Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, accelerated the trend toward industry-supplied science and private plant breeding over farm-saved seed
Science Is Never Neutral
Our understanding of our world — and of our own farms — is ever-changing. Yesterday’s knowledge leads to new discoveries today, which lead to new understandings tomorrow. Scientific knowledge can never be absolute, because if we’re open to learning, it constantly leads us to new discoveries.
Consider seed: from the time farmers started collecting and replanting seeds to grow food and feed, we’ve been actively adding to our collective, ever-changing knowledge of science and plant breeding. Millennia of farmer knowledge — and it counts for nothing in Ottawa’s “science-based” framework unless it comes with a peer-reviewed stamp and a corporate funder.
No scientific investigation can ever be truly unbiased. When we set out to deepen our understanding of how best to grow crops or raise livestock, we bring our knowledge, experience — and our personal values.
The Neonicotinoid Split: Follow the Funding
Take neonicotinoid insecticides and the question of whether they should continue to be used as they are today. Some farm organizations and chemical-company lobby groups insist any new regulations or restrictions must be “science-based.” They point to research showing neonicotinoid seed treatments increase yields of crops like corn and soybeans.
That research, however, is funded by companies that produce and sell the insecticides. It serves their best interests to show farmers benefit from their products.
Meanwhile, other farm organizations and environmental groups point to studies showing neonicotinoids are responsible for the deaths of honey bees and other invertebrates. They see the loss of bees, native pollinators, and other beneficial insects as a long-term economic hit on farms and on natural ecosystems.
Same phrase — “science-based.” Opposite conclusions. The difference is who paid for the science.
The Public Research Canada Is Throwing Away
A society making “science-based” decisions should have access to a variety of studies when regulators decide — studies from different sources, funded from different places, not just the private sector that can afford to fund research. Publicly funded scientists have provided that diversity for generations, researching the effects of discoveries like insecticides on our water, our farms, our air, and our terrestrial ecosystems.
But daily, the federal government touts “science-based” decisions while dismantling Canada’s public research infrastructure and undermining the ability of globally respected public scientists to do their work.
World-renowned public libraries — like the Freshwater Institute library in Winnipeg — have been closed, with much of the invaluable material carted off to dumpsters, according to scientists who observed the closures. The destruction of that critical environmental and cultural baseline data, gathered in the public interest with public funding, represents a tremendous loss of knowledge — information that could have helped us understand how our climate is changing, how agricultural practices affect our water and ecosystems, and whether industrial and agricultural chemicals are accumulating in our environment.
And today, the public funds still available for scientific research are being handed to private industry to support commercialization. The May 7, 2013 issue of The Globe and Mail, covering the change in mandate of the National Research Council, put it bluntly: “The National Research Council, which gave the country canola and the atomic clock, will now be taking its scientific cues from Canadian industry as part of a makeover of the country’s flagship research labs.”
Where is the public interest when the government proclaims it is making “science-based” decisions?
Bill C-18 and the Seed Question
In December 2013, the federal government introduced Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act — an omnibus bill amending several agricultural acts. If passed, it would continue the government’s trend of refusing to acknowledge the scientific base of plant-breeding knowledge built by farmers through millennia of selecting and saving seed.
Bill C-18 accelerates the trend of using science supplied by multinational chemical and seed companies for “science-based” decisions — while dismantling and undermining public research, opening more gates for private plant breeding with profits accruing to multinational seed companies, and closing the gates to farm-saved seed and public breeding in the public interest.
Related: How I Eat a Vegan Diet on $400 a Month With Rising Food Costs
In Whose Interest?
Our environment, our farms, and our food sovereignty are all under threat if we keep giving multinational agribusiness corporations control over the science used to make “science-based” decisions on our farms — and in regulations on health, agriculture, and our environment.
The question was never whether decisions should be science-based. It’s whose science counts.
Maplestime will provide updates on Canadian agriculture and farm policy as announcements are made.
Have a tip about farming in Canada? Email [email protected]
Have a correction? Email [email protected]
Should “science-based” mean science anyone can fund — or science anyone can buy? Tell us in the comments. And share this with every Canadian who eats food grown on this land.
