The Agency needs to work better with farm groups.Ottawa-A recent Federal Court of Appeal decision in a case involving glyphosate pesticide amounts to an instruction to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to do a better job in explaining its actions in a review of the weed killer, says CropLife Canada.It said the court told the PMRA to better explain why a group that mounted a legal challenge of its approval of the pesticide in 2017 without holding a review panel did not meet scientific criteria in their notices of objection. “Despite what some activist groups are trying to claim, the ruling does not call into question the science behind the glyphosate decision, nor does it compel the PMRA to necessarily establish a review panel.”Like pesticide regulators around the world, Health Canada says that it has left no stone unturned in looking at the science behind glyphosate and found no health and safety concerns associated with its use as directed, CropLife said.“Canadians benefit from farmers' judicious use of pesticides, including glyphosate, which helps them produce some of the safest and most sustainable food in the world.”CropLife was responding to a statement by Safe Food Matters, which has been trying to obtain a court ruling that questions PMRA's 2017 decision that allows glyphosate to stay registered in Canada for another 15 plus years.“It's clear that the activist groups attacking glyphosate are not interested in science or in sustainable agriculture. If these groups truly had the best interests of Canadians in mind they would stop wasting Health Canada's time with legal challenges pertaining to a product that is among the most extensively studied in the world with an unmatched track record for safety.”Health Canada, which PMRA is part of, needs “to improve the way it communicates its scientific decisions,” CropLife said. “To support Canada's world-leading regulatory efforts when it comes to pesticides, we encourage Health Canada to work collaboratively with the agriculture industry to build public confidence in the system and the safety of the products the agency reviews.”Safe Food Matters said the Court decision reaffirmed that allowing the opportunity for public participation is a main pillar of the Pest Control Products Act that must be respected. However it was concerned about the unduly high threshold the Federal Court set for a member of the public to trigger an independent review panel of a PRMA decision.Among its objectives, the group wants PMRA to end to the pre-harvest use of glyphosate.