Health Canada Awareness and Confidence in Canada's Pesticide Regulatory System

March 31st, 2020

Ipsos Public Affairs

1 Nicholas Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa ON K1N 7B7
Tel: 613.241.5802
Fax: 613.248.7981
www.ipsos.ca

« Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français »

Award Date: 2020-01-20
Contract Number: HT372-193972/001/CY
POR-070-19
Contact Information: por-rop@hc-sc.gc.ca

© 2020 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not be disclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.

POLITICAL NEUTRALITY STATEMENT

I hereby certify as a Representative of Ipsos that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders. Mike Colledge President Ipsos Public Affairs

Catalogue number:
H114-39/2020E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN):
978-0-660-34951-0

Related publications (registration number: POR 070-19):
Catalogue number H114-39/2020F-PDF (Final report, French)
ISBN 978-0-660-34952-7

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2020

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction and Background

The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is the branch of Health Canada responsible for regulating pesticides under the authority of the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA). PMRA's primary mandate is to prevent unacceptable risks to Canadians and the environment from the use of these products. In 2016, the PMRA published a Strategic Plan for the agency which included a new vision statement: Canadians are confident that Canada's pesticide regulatory system protects their health and the environment. Related to this vision, the Strategic Plan features two Strategic Outcomes tied to the views and opinions of Canadians: i) PMRA makes evidence-based regulatory decisions and policies that are protective of human health and the environment, in a timely, open and transparent manner, and ii) Canadians recognize that PMRA makes pesticide regulatory decisions that protect their health and the environment. To support the Strategic Plan, by ensuring the Strategic Outcomes are achieved and the new vision is realized, a Communications and Outreach Strategy has been developed. While PMRA works diligently to make and implement decisions that protect the health and environment of Canadians, efforts to communicate and engage with Canadians have not kept pace. A more deliberate, proactive, open and transparent engagement of Canadians will help to increase understanding of, and confidence in, PMRA's work. In turn, this will support compliance with the requirements of the PCPA and the broader effectiveness of PMRA's efforts to protect the health and environment of Canadians. To support the development of approaches for communications and engagement that are evidence-based and supported by meaningful data - so that resources are directed toward activities that deliver real value to Canadians - quantitative and qualitative research was conducted among a sample of the Canadian general public.

Research Objectives

In 2016, Ipsos conducted research on behalf of PMRA to establish the baseline awareness and opinions of Canadians about the pesticide regulatory system in Canada and assess the key messages and techniques as part of the 5-year Communications and Outreach Strategy. As a follow-up to the 2016 research, this research was conducted to measure changes over time and develop a further understanding of Canadians' awareness and confidence in Canada's pesticide regulatory system. Specific objectives for each phase of research included:

Quantitative research

Qualitative research

The research is intended to inform the development of approaches for communications and engagement that are evidence-based and supported by meaningful data so that resources are directed toward activities that deliver real value to Canadians. The research will also assist with developing indicators which can help assess the impacts of these activities. The outcome of the research will provide direction on how to develop a more effective communications and outreach strategy regarding pesticide regulatory decisions as a part of ongoing communications and public outreach work. Ultimately, research findings will be used to help improve the nature of communications and engagement with Canadians about pesticides so that they can make more informed decisions about pesticide use which will prevent incidents of misuse and help protect their health and environment. This report details the results of this research, conducted in two parts (quantitative and qualitative), between February 2020 and March 2020. The total contract value of this research was $99,754.37 including HST. The key audience for this study include members of the Canadian general public, aged 18 or older.

Overview of Methodology

This research was conducted in two phases:

Incentives/honoraria

For the quantitative survey, the Ipsos i-Say panel provided a number of innovative incentive programs to participants tailored to the specific requirements of each survey, depending on the length of the survey, the subject matter of the study, and the time required to complete a minimum number of interviews. A point-based system is used where participants can redeem points for various items. For the qualitative focus groups, Ipsos provided an honorarium of $85.00 CDN to participants to attend the focus groups in order to encourage full attendance.

This Report

This report contains the findings from both the quantitative online survey and the qualitative focus group sessions. The data were weighted to the Canadian population data by region, gender, and age. All sample surveys and polls may be subject to other sources of error, including, but not limited to coverage error and measurement error. Where figures do not sum to 100, this is due to the effects of rounding. Symbols have been used to indicate statistically significant results compared to 2016, wherever applicable.

Key Findings

Quantitative research

Overall awareness of pesticides and the pesticide regulatory process continues to be low. Notably however, higher levels of recall about pesticides are seen among those aged 18 to 34, those who are aware that Health Canada assesses pesticide safety, and those who are not confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment. Potentially negative associations may be contributing to more recall. Even amidst low awareness levels, respondents continue to associate pesticides with negative connotations. Survey results show that women, those who report lower levels of knowledge about the pesticides regulatory system and those who do not use pesticides, are more likely to associate them with negative thoughts. Despite any prevailing health and safety concerns or negative associations, more respondents agree than disagree that pesticides are necessary and serve a purpose, and men are more likely to agree than women. The groups that are more likely to agree on the necessity of pesticides also include those who are knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory process in Canada, and those who are aware that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered in Canada, and are confident that the PMRA is doing its job. A very small minority indicated that they are at least somewhat knowledgeable about the pesticide regulatory process in Canada. Even fewer indicated they had a high level of understanding about how pesticides regulatory decisions are made. While an increasing majority compared to 2016 believe that the Federal Government has responsibilities for regulating pesticides in Canada, most think it is the department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that is responsible for this. At the same time, the identification of Health Canada is also high and has increased since 2016. Despite low levels of knowledge about the pesticide regulatory process itself, Canadians exhibit increased confidence that Health Canada's PMRA protects the health and the environment, and trust in decision making has also improved since 2016. The extent of acceptability of pesticides continues to be determined by factors such as personal or industrial use (such as when used by a consumer around the home, compared to industrial or agricultural use) as well as scale or extent of use (private use at home, compared to publicly i.e. in the commercial forestry sector or public green spaces). In fact, while acceptability is still high, it has declined compared to 2016 for use in residential areas or in and around barns where agricultural animals are housed. Respondents continued to be most cautious about the use of pesticides on food imported into Canada and on fruits and vegetables, and their products, sold in Canada or exported. Groups with higher knowledge of the regulatory system, who frequently use pesticides, are aware of Health Canada's assessment of pesticide safety, or have confidence in the PMRA to protect health and the environment display higher ratings of acceptability.

Though a slightly higher proportion of Canadians in 2020 have sought information on pesticides than in 2016, the information seeking behaviour is largely consistent. Those seeking information about pesticides on the Internet primarily turn to Google or a pesticide product website as sources, and a majority would consider consulting the Health Canada website if they were looking for information about pesticides. This indicates that while those seeking information may not currently think about visiting the Health Canada website, that they are open to receiving information from the department. Health Canada scientists are the most trusted source of information on pesticides, an increase since 2016.

In the 2020 survey, additional demographic and identity information was collected. 13% of respondents identified as being an Immigrant and/or born outside of Canada, 7% identified as having a disability, 7% as LGBTQ2S+, 6% as a member of an ethnocultural or a visible minority group (not including Indigenous) and 4% as Indigenous. Additionally, out of all those surveyed, 1% of respondents indicated they live on a reserve.

Qualitative research

As was the case in 2016, most focus group participants - in all three locations - associate pesticides with three broad areas of concern, namely:

Most participants realize that pesticides and pesticide usage, particularly in the context of commercial or agricultural applications, are a necessity of doing business in order to ensure Canadian crops and produce are of good quality and can be exported to foreign markets. Most feel it is possible to 'manage' unintended side effects of pesticide usage by following prescribed application rates and usage guidelines.

Most agree that there is a role for government/academia, farmers, environmental protection agencies and the public when it comes to decisions related to pesticides to be used in Canada. Few see a role for pesticide industry representatives here as participants are of the view that if there are commercial interests involved money/profits would supersede all other considerations.

Very few participants take the time necessary to research more detailed pesticide related information, whether online or via any other source, such as by government or otherwise. Despite this, most felt that if the intent was indeed to effectively disseminate this type or information, verified or trusted web enabled channels (such as Health Canada's site or other government sites) would likely be preferred.

Reactions to all materials presented are more positive than negative. Of the three videos presented, 'What do Health Canada scientists do' is less well received than 'Is there a risk to the environment' and 'Is there a risk to health'. This was particularly true for sessions in Toronto and Calgary.

Despite some concerns related to script in 'What do Health Canada Scientists do' specifically, and some reservations about various elements in all three videos, overall messaging in all three video treatments appeared to be effective, Participants felt that Health Canada is focused on pesticide usage in Canada and is taking steps to ensure pesticides are used safely and in an environmentally responsible way.

Quantitative Detailed Findings

The analyses presented in this report are derived from both qualitative and quantitative phases of research. As each phase had separate objectives, each warranted its own section. For clarity, the first section focuses solely on quantitative findings, while the final section of the report on message testing comes from the qualitative portion of the research.

1.1 Awareness of Pesticides

Section Overview

Respondents continue to conjure negative associations with pesticides, which has increased since 2016, particularly among men. However, the vast majority say they haven't seen, read or heard anything about pesticides in the past three months. A higher proportion compared to 2016 have in fact seen, read or heard 'nothing at all' about pesticides in the past three months. Women, those who report low levels of knowledge about the pesticides regulatory system, and those who do not use pesticides, are more likely to associate pesticides with negative thoughts. Young people (aged 18 to 34 years) and those who use pesticides are more likely to have heard something, as are those who are not confident that the PMRA is doing its job.

Top-of-Mind Thoughts About Pesticides and Pesticide Use

Top-of-mind thoughts about pesticides and pesticide use continue to be dominated by negative associations, which increased since 2016 (53%, +4 points since 2016). Negative perceptions include 'Bad for people/ unhealthy/ health issues' (15%, +3 points since 2016), 'Bad/ harmful/ dangerous for the environment' (9%) and toxic (9%). Association with cancer, while still low, doubled (6% vs. 3% in 2016). Around one in five (19%) mentioned a more positive association with pesticides, highlighting the benefits of pesticides such as 'Pest/ weed control' (11%), and 'Protect crops/ plants/ agriculture products' (5%). However, the association with pest/weed control decreased since 2019 (-3 points since 2016). An increase in negative perceptions about pesticides was partially due to more negative views held by men (47% vs. 43% in 2016) as well as among those aged 55+ (58% vs. 50% in 2016).

Figure 1: Top-of-Mind Thoughts About Pesticides and Pesticide Use
Figure 1. Text version below.
Figure 1 - Text description
  2020 2016
Top-of-Mind Thoughts About Pesticides and Pesticide Use All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Negative - Net 53% 49%
Bad for people/ unhealthy/ health issues 15% 12%
Bad/ harmful/ dangerous for the environment 9% 9%
Toxic 9% 9%
Harmful/ dangerous 9% 7%
Cancer 6% 3%
Bad for animals/ insects/ living organisms 4% 4%
Damage the food/ pesticides on food/ crops 4% 2%
Pollution/ contamination (water, air, soil, ecosystems) 3% 4%
Bad/ not good/ don't like them (unspecified) 3% 4%
Killing/ extinction of bees 3% 3%
Overused/ not used properly 3% 2%
Neutral - Net 30% 27%
Health/ environment - Subnet 16% 13%
For agricultural products/ farm (unspecified) 7% 6%
Bugs/ insects/ animals 4% 2%
Pesticide/ Chemical Product - Subnet 6% 7%
Chemicals 7% 5%
Roundup 3% 2%
Other neutral mentions 4% 3%
Positive - Net 19% 21%
Pest/ weed control 11% 14%
Protect crops/ plants/ agricultural product 5% 4%
Necessary/ need to use 3% 4%
Miscellaneous - Net 6% 7%
They should be regulated/ controlled 3% 3%
None 5% 5%
Don't know 3% 5%

Q1. What comes to mind when you think about pesticides and pesticide use? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2029)

Only mentions of 3% or greater shown in chart. 'NETS' shown are combined groups of similar answers. Respondents in Quebec (61%), Atlantic Canada (57%), British Columbia (55%), and Ontario (53%) are significantly more likely to cite negative connotations, compared to those in other regions, as are women (59%) compared to men (47%), those who indicate they are not very or not at all knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory process in Canada (55% vs. 46% very/somewhat knowledgeable), those who indicate they rarely or never use pesticides (59% vs. 40% often/sometimes) and those who are not very or not at all confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment (65% vs. 50% very/somewhat confident).

Seen, Read or Heard About Pesticides Over Last Three Months

Although many initially indicate negative associations when thinking about pesticides, less than 1 in 5 say they had actually seen, read or heard about pesticides in the past three months (18%), at par with 2016. A higher proportion compared to 2016 had seen, read or heard 'nothing at all' (49%, +5 points since 2016) about pesticides in the past three months. This suggests that while connotations surrounding pesticides may be negative, it is not information that respondents actively recall.

Figure 2: Seen, Read, or Heard About Pesticides Over Last Three Months
Figure 2. Text version below.
Figure 2 - Text description
  2020 2016
Seen, Read, or Heard About Pesticides Over Last Three Months All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
A lot 4% 4%
Something 13% 14%
Not too much 31% 34%
Nothing at all 49% 44%
Don't Know 3% 4%

Q5. Over the last three months, how much have you seen, read or heard about pesticides? [SINGLE CODE] Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2029)

Higher levels of recall about pesticides are seen among those aged 18 to 34 years (22% vs. 35-54 17%, 55+ 15%), Quebec residents (24%) compared to other regions, those who indicate French is their mother tongue (23%) compared to English or other (both 16%), immigrants/those born outside Canada (23%); those who are knowledgeable about pesticides (45%) and those who have often/sometime used a pesticide or pest control product in the past 12 months (28%). Those who are aware that Health Canada assesses pesticide safety (31% vs. 10% those who are not) are more likely to indicate that they recalled a lot/something about pesticides over the past three months. Results indicate that those who associate Health Canada with pesticide safety have a higher recall. At the same time, those who indicate they are not very/not at all confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment were more likely to indicate that they recalled a lot/something about pesticides over the last three months (22%), compared to those who are confident (17%).

1.2 Perceptions of Pesticides and Personal Use

Section Overview

Similar to 2016, more respondents agree that pesticides are necessary and serve a purpose than disagree. Respondents who are more likely to agree include those with higher income levels, those who use pesticides at least sometimes, who consider themselves to be knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory system in Canada, those who are aware that Health Canada regulates them, and those who are confident in the job they are doing. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to disagree.

While most agree that pesticide use in building materials and by homeowners on residential properties is acceptable, there has been a decline in acceptability of use on residential properties, particularly among men and those aged 55 or older. Views are more mixed over whether pesticides are acceptable in the commercial forestry sector, as well as in and around barns housing agricultural animals, for which acceptability has seen a decline. Higher ratings of acceptability are seen among those with knowledge of the regulatory system, those who use pesticides, or are confident in the PMRA drive higher ratings of acceptability. Older Canadians offer lower acceptability ratings in most areas.

Awareness that there are natural alternatives to conventional pesticides decreased but a majority is still aware (rating of five to seven on a seven-point scale). However, despite lower awareness, desire to use pesticides is higher, with two-thirds of respondents indicating they would prefer to use them. Older respondents and women are more likely to agree that pesticides are available and that they would prefer to use them. The same is true for those who have heard at least something about pesticides in the past three months, rarely or never use pesticides, or report low levels of confidence in the PMRA.

In general, the data suggests that low level of awareness about pesticides and not feeling adequately informed about these products may result in concerns about the safety of their use. Women and residents of Quebec are also more likely to be apprehensive. Compared to 2016, those aged 55 years or older are increasingly concerned.

These concerns are assuaged by confidence in Health Canada's PMRA to protect health and the environment. When asked about a range of specific pesticide products, agreement that they can all be used safely is high but decreased compared to 2016. Men, those who at least sometimes use pesticides, and those who are confident in PMRA to do its job are more likely to agree that all products listed can be used safely.

Just over a quarter of respondents use pesticides often or sometimes, and this proportion is more likely to be higher among men and rural area residents. Those who consider themselves to be knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory system in Canada, those aware that Health Canada regulates the sector and those who are confident that the PMRA is doing its job, are also more likely to report a higher frequency of use.

Seven in 10 respondents agree that they always read the label when they use pesticides. However, only half say they can use pesticides safely if required. Again, men are more likely to agree that they can use a pesticide product safely while women are more likely to agree that they always read the label. Those who display knowledge, use, and confidence in the PMRA continue to show higher agreement that respondents can use pesticides safely and that they always read the label.

Necessary and Serve a Purpose

Despite any prevailing health and safety concerns or negative associations, around three in 10 (27%) completely agree (rating of six or seven on a 7-point scale) that pesticides are necessary and serve a purpose. This goes up to just under half (49%) when considering the top-three box rating (five to seven). There is an increase in agreement among those aged 18-34 years (50%, +9 points since 2016), while there is a decline in agreement among those aged 55 years or older (49% -10 points since 2016). British Columbia residents show an even sharper decline in agreement (46%, -11 points).

Figure 3: Agreement That Pesticides Are Necessary and Serve a Purpose
Figure 3. Text version below.
Figure 3 - Text description
  2020 Survey Strongly Agree
(Rated 5/6/7)
Agree/Disagree 7 - Completely agree 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Not at all Don't Know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
Pesticides Are Necessary and Serve a Purpose 13% 14% 22% 22% 10% 7% 6% 6% 49% 51%
All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Q6. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where ''1'' is not at all and ''7'' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? Pesticides are necessary and serve a purpose. [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those more likely to agree (rating of 5,6,7) that pesticides are necessary and serve a purpose include men (55% vs. 44% women), those living in higher income households ($100K+, 52%; $60-<$100K 55%) compared to those in lower income households (<$40K 43%), those living in suburban areas (53% vs. urban areas 48%), those who have used pesticide or pest control products often or sometimes within the past 12 months (74%, vs. 41% who have not), those who indicate they are very or somewhat knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory process in Canada (60% vs. 47% who are not knowledgeable), those who are aware that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered in Canada (62% vs. 43% who are not aware) and those who are confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment (60% vs. 31% who are not confident). Those more likely to 'sit on the fence' (providing a rating of four) and therefore, a potential target to sway, include those in British Columbia (25%), Quebec (23%), Ontario (23%) or Atlantic (24%) (vs. those in Saskatchewan/Manitoba (16%), those who rarely or never use pesticide products (25% vs. those who often/sometimes use them 15%), those who have seen, read or heard 'not too much'/'nothing at all' (24% vs. those who have seen, read or heard 'a lot'/'something' 15%), and those who are not aware that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides (25% vs. those who are aware of this 16%).

Acceptable Use of Pesticides

When asked to rate the extent to which a variety of possible uses of pesticides are acceptable, six in 10 say is either very or somewhat acceptable to use them on building materials such as plywood and hardwood flooring. Though a majority find it acceptable to use pesticides on residential private property, by homeowners, acceptability has fallen (59%, -5 points since 2016). Men (63% -6 points since 2016) and those aged 55 years or older (53%, -12 points) are driving this decline. Respondents are more divided on views over whether pesticides are acceptable in the commercial forestry sector (51%) and in and around barns housing agricultural animals (45%, -3 points since 2016). The largest decline in acceptability of pesticides in and around barns is seen among those aged 55 years or older (43%, -7 points). Similar to 2016, when it comes to using pesticides in 'public green spaces' more respondents (53%) say it is either not very or not at all acceptable, while only four in 10 deem it acceptable (39%). In the same vein, 52% find it unacceptable to use pesticides on food to be imported into Canada or on fruits and vegetables, and their products to be sold in Canada or exported.

Figure 4: Acceptability of Pesticides / Pest Control Product Use
Figure 4. Text version below.
Figure 4 - Text description
  2020 Survey Very/Somewhat Acceptable
Acceptability of Pesticides / Pest Control Product Use Very acceptable Somewhat acceptable Not very acceptable Not at all acceptable Don't know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
On building materials such as plywood and hardwood flooring 16% 43% 19% 9% 12% 60% 60%
Residential private property, by homeowners 18% 41% 22% 11% 7% 59% 64%
In the commercial forestry sector 11% 40% 23% 14% 12% 51% 53%
In and around barns where agricultural animals are housed, such as poultry houses and cattle barns 10% 34% 26% 20% 10% 45% 48%
Public green spaces 8% 31% 32% 21% 8% 39% 41%
Fruits and vegetables, and their products to be sold in Canada or exported 8% 31% 28% 25% 8% 39% 39%
Food to be imported into Canada 10% 28% 26% 27% 9% 38% 38%
All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Q4. To what extent do you think it is acceptable to use pesticides/pest control products in each of the following areas? [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those aged 55 years or older are least likely to find it acceptable to use pesticides in any of the locations tested except in and around barns and in the commercial forestry sector, where acceptability does not differ by age.

Those more likely to say that it is either very or somewhat acceptable to use pesticides in all locations or sectors tested include men, those with $60-<$100K income (vs. <$40K), and those who:

Further, those who say they have seen, read or heard 'not too much' or 'nothing at all' about pesticides in the last three months are more likely to say that it is acceptable to use pesticides in 'residential private property, by homeowners' (61% vs. 54% among those who have seen, read or heard 'a lot' or 'something'). Residents of Alberta and Saskatchewan/Manitoba are more likely to find it acceptable to use pesticides/pest control products in all areas, except commercial forestry sector and building materials where Alberta alone shows the highest acceptability.

Natural Alternatives to Conventional/Registered Pesticides

Respondents were asked, on a scale of agreement where seven means 'completely agree' and one means 'not at all', whether they agree that they 'would prefer to use a homemade/natural/organic pest control option than a registered pesticide.' Similar to 2016, two-thirds of respondents (67%) agree, providing a rating of 5,6, or 7. Half of respondents (52%) offer a rating of either six or seven, indicating strong agreement with this statement. A third (35%) offer a rating of seven, displaying complete agreement. This preference is consistent with levels shown in 2016, though agreement has increased among Ontario residents (68%, +5 points since 2016). Though still a majority, fewer respondents (54%, -4 points since 2016) agree at least somewhat (rating of 5,6,7) that 'there are natural alternatives to pesticides that are as effective as conventional pesticides.'. Only two in 10 completely agree (Rating of 7) with the statement, which has also shown a downtick (19%, -3 points since 2016). One in 10 indicate that they do not know. Compared to 2016, decreased agreement is seen among women (58%, -4 points) as well as among those aged 35 to 54 years (52% -8 points since 2016).

Figure 5: Agree/Disagree
Figure 5. Text version below.
Figure 5 - Text description
  2020 Survey Strongly Agree
(Rated 5/6/7)
Agree/Disagree 7 - Completely agree 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Not at all Don't know

2020
Survey

 2016 Survey
I would prefer to use a homemade/ natural/ organic pest control option than a registered pesticide 35% 17% 15% 13% 6% 4% 4% 6% 67% 65%
There are natural alternatives to pesticides that are as effective as conventional pesticides 19% 16% 19% 16% 8% 5% 4% 13% 54% 58%
All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Q6. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where ''1'' is not at all and ''7'' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? There are natural alternatives to pesticides that are as effective as conventional pesticides. / I would prefer to use a homemade/ natural/ organic pest control option than a registered pesticide. [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those most likely to completely agree (6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) that they 'would prefer to use a homemade/ natural/ organic pest control option than a registered pesticide' include:

And, those who:

Those most likely to completely agree (6 or 7 on a 7-point scale) that 'there are natural alternatives to pesticides that are as effective as conventional pesticides' include:

And, those who:

Those more likely to provide a rating of four (neither agreeing, nor disagreeing) to this statement include those who are 'somewhat confident' that Health Canada's PMRA protects health/environment (19% vs. those who are not very confident 13% or not at all confident 11%). So, those who have not made up their mind in their confidence in PMRA are also not sure about the effectiveness of natural alternatives to pesticides.

Safety of Pesticide Use

In addition to low levels of awareness about pesticides, as well as inadequate knowledge about these products, there are related concerns about the safety of their use. Six in 10 agree that they are concerned that pesticides, even when used as directed, are not safe (60% providing a rating of 5,6,7, +3 points, since 2016). This is particularly so for respondents in Quebec (68%), compared to respondents in all other regions, as well as women (65% vs. 55% men), Compared to 2016, Ontario residents (61%, +7 points since 2016), individuals with high income of $100K or more, +8 points since 2016) and those aged 55 years or older are more concerned that pesticides and pest controls products are not safe even when used as directed. (60%, +7 points since 2016). Those who are not very or not at all confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment are significantly more likely to agree that they are concerned that pesticides, even when used as directed, are not safe (74%), compared to 57% who agree with this statement among those who are very or somewhat confident in the PMRA.

Those more likely to provide a rating of four (neither agreeing nor disagreeing) include men (19% vs. 14% women) those who have seen, read or heard 'not too much' or 'nothing at all' about pesticides (17% vs. those who have heard 'a lot' or 'something', 11%), those who often/sometimes use pesticides (20% vs. 15% rarely/never use), those who are very/somewhat confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health/environment (19% vs. 12% who are not very/not at all confident).

A minority agree that they 'think pesticides currently used in agriculture in Canada are safe when used as directed' (42% providing a rating of 5,6,7). Men (48% vs. 37% women) and respondents in Saskatchewan/Manitoba (64%) and Alberta (53%) compared to other regions are significantly more likely to agree with this statement (indicating a rating of 5, 6, 7). Compared to 2016, those aged 55 years or older (42%, -9 points since 2016) are less likely to agree that pesticides used in agriculture are safe. Those with higher income of $60K to less than $100K (47%) or $100K and over (45%) compared to those earning under $40K (37%). Likelihood to agree that pesticides currently used in agriculture in Canada are safe is higher among those who often/sometimes use pesticides (65% vs. 34% rarely/never use), are knowledgeable about pesticides (58% vs. 39% not knowledgeable), ever looked for information on pesticides (46% vs. 37% those who have not), and those who are aware that Health Canada assesses pesticide safety. Those who are very or somewhat confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment are significantly more likely to agree (providing a rating of 5,6,7) (53%), compared to 22% who are not very confident or not at all confident in the PMRA.

Figure 6: Agree/Disagree
Figure 6. Text version below.
Figure 6 - Text description
  2020 Survey Strongly Agree
(Rated 5/6/7)
Agree/Disagree 7 - Completely agree 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Not at all Don't know 2020
Survey		 2016 Survey
I am concerned that pesticides and pest control products, even when used as directed, are not safe 21% 17% 22% 16% 9% 5% 4% 5% 60% 57%
I think pesticides currently used in agriculture in Canada are safe when used as directed 10% 12% 20% 19% 11% 7% 8% 12% 42% 45%

Q6. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where ''1'' is not at all and ''7'' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? I am concerned that pesticides and pest control products, even when used as directed, are not safe. / I think pesticides currently used in agriculture in Canada are safe when used as directed. [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Safety of Specific Products

Six in 10 (60%) are concerned about the safety of pesticides, even when used as directed. However, when asked to indicate their level of agreement on whether specific pesticide and pest control products can be used safely, majorities agree that they can be. Agreement about safety has decreased by three to four points on most pesticides, except insecticides and rodenticides. Compared to 2016, those aged 55 years or older have shown a 9-11-point decline in agreement about the safety of all pesticides. Men have also shown a 4 to 7-point decline since 2016 in agreement about the safety of pesticides, except for insecticides, fungicides, and material & wood preservatives. Residents of Quebec are less likely to agree compared to 2016 (7 to 12-point declines) that herbicides, insecticides, animal and insect repellants and insect and rodent controlling devices are safe. Three-quarters of respondents (75% -3 points since 2016) agree that insect and rodent controlling devices, such as mosquito zappers and mouse traps can be used safely, while around six in 10 agree that animal and insect repellents (60%, -4 points since 2016), algicides used to control algae in pools and spas (59%, -4 points since 2016), material and wood preservatives (56%, -4 points since 2016), and insecticides (55%, unchanged since 2016) can be used safely. Respondents are still least likely to agree that herbicides can be used safely, even though proportion of agreement has declined (48%, -5 points since 2016).

Figure 7: Agreement That Pesticides Can Be Used Safely
Figure 7. Text version below.
Figure 7 - Text description
  2020 Survey Strongly /Somewhat Agree
Agreement That Pesticides and Pest Control Products Can Be Used Safely Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree Don't know 2020
Survey		 2016 Survey
Insect- and rodent-controlling devices, such as mosquito zappers and mouse traps 35% 40% 10% 7% 9% 75% 78%
Animal and insect repellents 16% 44% 19% 10% 10% 60% 64%
Algicides, which can be used to control algae in pools and spas 16% 44% 16% 7% 17% 59% 63%
Material and wood preservatives 15% 41% 19% 7% 18% 56% 60%
Insecticides, which are used against bugs 16% 39% 22% 13% 10% 55% 57%
Fungicides and antimicrobial agents, which are used against fungus and other micro organisms 14% 40% 19% 8% 19% 54% 58%
Rodenticides, which are used against mice and rats 16% 37% 20% 13% 13% 53% 56%
Herbicides, which are used against weeds 13% 35% 26% 16% 10% 48% 53%

Q2. To what extent do you agree that the following pesticides and pest control products can be used safely? [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Overall agreement (strongly/somewhat) that products presented can be used safely continues to be highest among men. However, for insect and rodent controlling devices and algicides, agreement does not differ by gender. Agreement is also highest among those who:

Frequency of Personal Use of Pesticides in the Past 12 Months

A quarter (26%) indicate they have used a pesticide or pest control product often (4%) or sometimes (22%) within the past 12 months, while four in 10 (39%) have not. Frequency of use remains on par with levels seen in 2016, however, those aged 18 to 34 years have started using them more frequently (29%, +7 points since 2016) while those aged 55 years or older have shown reduced frequency of usage (24%, -7 points since 2016). Frequency of usage has decreased in British Columbia (18%, -8 points since 2016) while it has increased in Ontario (31%, +5 points since 2016).

Figure 8: Frequency of Use of Pesticides or Pest Control Products in Past 12 Months
Figure 8. Text version below.
Figure 8 - Text description
  2020 2016
Frequency of Use of Pesticides or Pest Control Products in Past 12 Months All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Often 4% 5%
Sometimes 22% 22%
Rarely 33% 32%
Never 39% 40%
Don't know 2% 2%

Q3. How frequently within the past 12 months have you used a pesticide or pest control product (such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, insect repellants and rodent traps)? [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Men are more likely to indicate frequent use of pesticide or pest control products, with a third (31%) often/sometimes using such products, compared to a quarter (23%) of women. Those in rural areas are more likely to indicate they often (8%) used such products.

Residents of British Columbia (18%) and Quebec (18%) are less likely than other regions to indicate they have frequently used a pesticide or pest control products.

Frequency is also higher among those who indicate they are very or somewhat knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory process in Canada (very/somewhat, 49% vs. Not very/not at all 22%), those who are aware that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered in Canada (36%), and those who are confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment (very/somewhat, 32%), or aware of the pesticide regulatory process in Canada (41%).

Safe Personal Use of Pesticides

Seven in 10 (74%) agree (providing a rating of 5,6,7) that when they use a pesticide product they 'always read the label.' Just eight percent offer a rating of either one, two or three. However, one in 10 respondents (9%) don't know to what extent they agree or disagree with this statement.

Those more likely to provide a rating of 4 (neither agreeing, nor disagreeing) include men (11% vs. 7% women), those aged 18 to 34 years (12% vs. those aged 55 years or older, 6%), who are not aware that Health Canada assesses pesticide safety (9% vs. 6% aware) and those who have never looked for information on pesticides 10% vs. those who have,8%).

However, there is some uncertainty over whether or not one can use pesticides safely if required. Around half (49%) of respondents agree (providing a rating of 5,6,7) with the statement 'I can use pesticides safely if required'. Just three in 10 (28%) rate their agreement with this statement as a six or seven on a seven-point scale where seven means 'completely agree' and one means 'not at all.' Nearly half (48%) offer a rating of three, four or five and another 12% rate their agreement as a one or two.

Those more likely to be unsure and provide a rating of 4 (neither agreeing, nor disagreeing) include residents of Quebec (20% vs. those in Ontario (15%) or Saskatchewan/Manitoba (12%), those aged 18-34 years (19% vs. those aged 35-54 years, 15%) those who rarely or never use pesticide products (18% vs. 14% who use them sometimes or often), and those who are either somewhat (19%) or not very confident (18%) that PMRA protects health/environment (vs. those who have made up their minds and are either very confident 10% or not at all confident 9%).

Figure 9: Agree/Disagree
Figure 9. Text version below.
Figure 9 - Text description
  2020 Survey Strongly Agree
(Rated 5/6/7)
Agree/Disagree 7 - Completely agree 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Not at all Don't know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
When I use a pesticide product, I always read the label 45% 16% 13% 9% 4% 3% 3% 9% 74% 74%
I can use pesticides safely if required 13% 15% 21% 17% 10% 6% 7% 11% 49% 52%

Q6. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where ''1'' is not at all and ''7'' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? I can use pesticides safely if required. / When I use a pesticide product, I always read the label. [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those more likely to completely agree (6 or 7) with the statement 'I can use pesticides safely if required' include:

And those who say they:

While overall agreement (rating of 5, 6, 7) has stayed consistent since 2016, a six point decline in agreement was seen in complete agreement with a rating of 6 or 7 (28%, -6 points since 2016). Groups in particular which have shown a shift include those aged 35 to 54 years (29%, -5 points since 2016), 55 years or older (28%, -14 points since 2016), residents of British Columbia (28%, -8 points since 2016), urban (27%, -5 points, since 2016) and suburban residents(27%, -10 points since 2016) and those with income of $100K or more (27%, -11 points since 2016).

Those more likely to completely agree (6 or 7) with 'when I use a pesticide product, always read the label' include:

And those who say they:

Agreement, especially strong agreement, has stayed consistent since 2016. However, men are less likely to completely agree providing a rating of 6 or 7 (57%, -4 points since 2016), as are those aged 55 years or older (70%, -9 points since 2016). Residents of Saskatchewan (65%, -22 points since 2016), and urban residents (57%, -5 points since 2016).

1.3 Knowledge and Information Sources

Section Overview

Men and residents of rural areas are more likely to agree that they are informed. Respondents who have been exposed to information about pesticides in the past three months, are knowledgeable about the pesticide regulatory system in Canada, use pesticides, or are confident in the PMRA are more likely to agree that they are adequately informed and that they can get the information they need.

Health Canada's website and home improvement and garden centres continue to be the most likely sources consulted by respondents when looking for information about pesticides, while blogs are the least likely source. Men and those who are not immigrants are less likely to consult the Health Canada website.

Compared to 2016, likelihood has also increased to consult pesticide product websites and pesticide service providers.

When consulting for information on pesticides, the internet and garden centres are the most popular sources. On the internet, the most visited sources are Google, and after a large margin it is followed by pesticide product websites and the Health Canada website.

Respondents are most likely to look for safe use and health related information during their search. Respondents are now most likely to believe a Health Canada Scientist on the issue of pesticides, which has moved up from 3rd place in 2016 to the 1st place, followed by the Canadian Cancer Society, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, and a medical doctor. A Health Canada spokesperson comes in seventh on the list. This suggests that a Health Canada Scientist is the most credible source of communications compared to a spokesperson or partnering with other stakeholders.

Perceived Knowledge and Access to Information.

Respondents tend to agree that there is access to pesticides information when needed. Six in 10 respondents (59%, -5 points since 2016) rate their agreement with the statement 'when I need information about pesticides, I am able to get it' as a five, six or seven on the scale. Around one in ten (13%) offer a rating of one, two or three and a further one in 10 (12%) answered 'don't know'.

Those more likely to provide a rating of 4 (neither agreeing, nor disagreeing) include men (18% vs. women 15%) university graduates (20% vs. high school 13%, Post-Secondary 15%).

Even though there is low recall of information on pesticides in the past three months ('a lot' or 'something', 18%), nearly a third of respondents agree with the statement 'I am adequately informed about pesticides and pest control products,' (32% offering a rating of five, six or seven on a seven-point scale where seven means 'completely agree' and one means 'not at all'). Around 4 in 10 (41%) disagree with this statement (providing a rating of 1,2,3) indicating that some do not feel adequately informed about pesticides. Six percent of respondents provided a response of 'don't know'.

Those more likely to provide a rating of 4 (neither agreeing, nor disagreeing) include residents of Alberta (24%) and Ontario (22%) vs. those in Saskatchewan/Manitoba (14%) and those who indicate they have heard not too much or nothing at all about pesticides in the past three months (23% vs. those who have heard a lot/something 17%) and those who are only somewhat confident that PMRA protects health/environment (25% vs. those who are very confident 16% or not at all confident 10%).

Figure 10: Agree/Disagree
Figure 10. Text version below.
Figure 10 - Text description
  2020 Survey Strongly Agree
(Rated 5/6/7)
Agree/Disagree 7 - Completely agree 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Not at all Don't know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
When I need information about pesticides, I am able to get it 21% 18% 20% 16% 6% 4% 3% 12% 59% 64%
I feel I am adequately informed about pesticides and pest control products 7% 10% 15% 22% 16% 12% 13% 6% 32% 37%

Q6. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where ''1'' is not at all and ''7'' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? I feel I am adequately informed about pesticides and pest control products. / When I need information about pesticides, I am able to get it. [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those more likely to completely agree (six or seven) with the statement 'when I need information about pesticides, I am able to get it' include:

And those who say they:

While a decline overall is seen in complete agreement since 2016 (39%, -6 points since 2016), it should be noted that some groups in particular showed a decline: women (39%, -7 points), those aged 35 to 54 years (36%, -7 points) and those aged 55 years or older (44%, -12 points since 2016), residents of Quebec (37%, -7 points), suburban (37%, -7 points since 2016) and rural (42%, -11 points since 2016) area residents, and those with post secondary education (41%, -5 points since 2016) or university graduates (34%, -9 points since 2016).

Those more likely to completely agree (six or seven) with the statement 'I feel I am adequately informed about pesticides and pest control products' include:

And, those who say they:

Complete agreement with this statement has seen a smaller decline (17%, -3 points since 2016), with declines seen among women (14%, -4 points since 2016), those aged 55 years or older (17%, -5 points), Ontario residents (16%, -5 points), university graduates (15%, -5 points), and suburban residents (16%. -4 points).

Likely Information Sources about Pesticides

Among the potential sources for information on pesticides, respondents are most likely to look to a 'Health Canada' website for this kind of information. Two thirds of respondents (66%) say they are either very (25%) or somewhat (41%) likely to consult this source, while three in 10 (27%) say they are either not very (19%) or not at all (8%) likely to do so. 'A home improvement store/garden centre' receives similar ratings, with sixty-four percent saying they are very (19%) or somewhat (45%) likely to consult this source. Nearly as many are either very (20%) or somewhat (43%) likely to consult 'pesticides product websites' for which likelihood to consult has increased (63%, +5 points, since 2016) or 'government of Canada websites' (60%).

Seeing an increase since 2016, nearly half (50%, +5 points since 2016) say they are very (12%) or somewhat (38%) likely to consult a 'pesticide service provider,' while fewer (44%) are either not very (25%) or not at all (16%) likely to do so.

Views are mixed when consulting 'a pesticide service provider' or 'environmental groups' for information about pesticides. Four in 10 (44%) say they would be very (14%) or somewhat (30%) likely to consult 'environmental groups' and half (49%) say they are not very (28%) or not at all (21%) likely to turn to them for this kind of information. 'Blogs' are the source that are least likely to be consulted for information about pesticides with two thirds (68%) saying they are either not very (26%) or not at all (42%) likely to consult them. Only two in 10 (23%) say they are either very (6%) or somewhat (17%) likely to consult a blog for information on this subject.

For each potential source of information, roughly one in 10 (ranging from 6% to 9%) say they don't know if they are likely to consult that source.

One in 10 (11%) say they are very/somewhat likely to consult other sources than those presented.

In addition to the given responses, respondents indicated other sources that they would potentially consult. The internet made up fourteen percent of mentions, followed by family and friends mentioned by another one in 10 (9%).

As mentioned, since 2016, pesticide product websites and pesticide service providers, are now more likely to be consulted as a source of information on pesticides (+5 points each since 2016). Residents of British Columbia are particularly more likely than before to turn to pesticide product websites (66%, +8 points since 2016) and to pesticide service providers (58%, +12 points since 2016). Residents of rural areas are also more likely than before to turn to pesticide product websites (64%, +7 points since 2016) and to pesticide service providers (52%, +7 points since 2016). Notably, those aged 18 to 34 years are more likely than before to turn not only to pesticide product websites (68% +14 points since 2016), and pesticide service providers (56%, +14 points since 2016) but also government of Canada websites (66%. +7 points since 2016) and the Health Canada website (70%, +6 points since 2016).

Figure 11: Sources Likely to Reference for Information About Pesticides
Figure 11. Text version below.
Figure 11 - Text description
  2020 Survey Very/Somewhat Likely
Sources Likely to Reference for Information About Pesticides Very likely Somewhat likely Not very likely Not at all likely Don't know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
Health Canada website 25% 41% 19% 8% 6% 66% 64%
Home improvement store/garden centre 19% 45% 18% 10% 7% 64% 63%
Pesticide product websites 20% 43% 18% 12% 7% 63% 58%
Government of Canada websites 21% 40% 22% 10% 7% 60% 58%
A pesticide service provider 12% 38% 25% 16% 9% 50% 45%
Environmental groups 14% 30% 28% 21% 8% 44% 43%
Blogs 6% 17% 26% 42% 9% 23% 22%

Q22. If you were looking for information about pesticides, how likely would you be to consult the following sources? [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those who indicate they are 'not very' or 'not at all likely' to consult the 'Health Canada website' (27%) include:

And, those who say they:

Those more likely to say they are 'very' or 'somewhat likely' to consult a 'home improvement store/garden centre' (64%) include:

And, those who say they:

Information Sources Consulted

Among a list of sources, respondents were also asked to indicate which they had consulted for information on pesticides. Nearly four in 10 (41%) respondents have looked for information on pesticides 'on the internet', and this has risen since 2016 (+5 points). Given that two-thirds of respondents indicated they are likely to consult a 'home improvement store/garden centre,' as expected, three in 10 (31%) say they have consulted a 'garden centre' and another quarter (24%) have consulted a 'hardware store', which has also seen an increase since 2016 (+5 points). One in 10 (12%) say they have consulted a 'pest control company/pest control operator' and a similar proportion (10%) say they have consulted 'a friend.' Few have ever consulted a doctor (4%) and four in 10 respondents (42%) have never consulted any of the sources presented.

The increase since 2016 in looking for information on the internet has particularly been seen among men (42%, +7 points since 2016), those aged 18 to 34 years (48%, +14 points since 2016), 35 to 54 years (39%, +5 points since 2016), Alberta (47%+11 points) and Ontario (42% +9 points since 2016) residents, as well as residents of urban areas (41%, +5 points since 2016).

Figure 12: Ever Looked for Information on Pesticides from Any of the Following Sources
Figure 12. Text version below.
Figure 12 - Text description

Figure 12: Ever Looked for Information on Pesticides from Any of the Following Sources

  2020 2016
Ever Looked for Information on Pesticides from Any of the Following Sources All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2015)
On the internet 41% 36%
Garden centre 31% 29%
Hardware store 24% 19%
Pest control company /Pest control operator 12% 10%
A friend 10% 8%
A doctor 4% 4%
Other 2% 1%
None of the above 42% 46%

Q20a. Have you ever looked for information on pesticides from any of the following sources? [MULTICODE] Labels not shown for 3% and lower. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those more likely to say they have looked for information 'on the internet' (41%) include:

And, those who say they:

Internet Information Sources Consulted

Among those who looked for information about pesticides on the internet, seven in 10 (71%, +7 points since 2016) had visited 'Google.' Four in 10 (38%) went to a 'pesticide product website' and a quarter (27%) to the 'Health Canada website' or a 'Government of Canada website' (25%, +6 points since 2016). Two in 10 (22%) went to the 'environmental groups website' and roughly half as many (14%) went to a 'Youtube' (14%, +7 points since 2016) or municipal government website (12%). Fewer than one in 10 visited 'blogs' (8%), or 'Facebook' (7%).

Figure 13: Where Looked for Information about Pesticides on the Internet
Figure 13. Text version below.
Figure 13 - Text description
  2020 2016
Where Looked for Information about Pesticides on the Internet All who looked for information about pesticides on the internet (n=826) All who looked for information about pesticides on the internet (n=716)
Google 71% 64%
Pesticide product website 38% 38%
Health Canada website 27% 24%
Government of Canada website 25% 19%
Environmental groups website 22% 24%
Youtube 14% 7%
Municipal government website 12% 11%
Blogs 8% 6%
Facebook 7% 5%
Other 4% 1%
Don't know 4% 2%

Q20b. You indicated you have looked for information about pesticides on the Internet. From the following list, please indicate which websites you have visited? [MULTICODE] Labels not shown for 3% and lower. Base: All who looked for information about pesticides on the internet 2016 (n=716); 2020 (n=826)

Those most likely to say they visited the 'Health Canada website' include those who say they:

Likely Subject of Search

Among those who searched for pesticide information on the internet, six in 10, similar to last year, indicate that they searched for information on 'safe-use' (64%), 'health related information' (60%), or 'how to get rid of pests' (57%). Just under half (49%) looked for 'environmental impact information.' Four in 10 for information on 'chemical content' (43%, +5 points since 2016) or 'product selection information' (37%). A third (33%) looked for information on 'how to identify pests.'

Figure 14: What Would Be Most Likely to Search for on the Internet About Pesticides
Figure 14. Text version below.
Figure 14 - Text description
  2020 2016
What Would Be Most Likely to Search for on the Internet About Pesticides All who looked for information about pesticides on the internet (n=826) All who looked for information about pesticides on the internet (n=716)
Safe-use information 64% 65%
Health related information 60% 59%
How to get rid of pests 57% 55%
Environmental impact information 49% 47%
Chemical content 43% 37%
Product selection information 37% 37%
How to identify pests 33% 28%
Other 1% 3%
None of the above 1% 1%

Q21. If you were to look for information about pesticides, what would you be most likely to search for? [MULTICODE] Labels not shown for 3% and lower. Base: All who looked for information about pesticides on the internet 2016 (n=716); 2020 (n=826)

Older respondents are more likely to have searched for 'how to get rid of pests', and 'product selection' information while women are more likely to seek information on most listed topics except 'health related information', 'chemical content', and 'product selection' for which information seeking does not vary by gender. Those in households earning an annual income of $100K or more (44%) are more likely to look for 'product selection' information compared to those in households with annual incomes of $60K to less than $100K (34%) and less than $40K (32%).

Those more likely to have looked for information on the internet about 'safe use information' (64%) include those who say they:

Those more likely to have looked for information on the internet about 'health related information' (60%) include those who say they:

Those more likely to have looked for information on the internet about 'how to get rid of pests' (56%) include those who say they:

Those most likely to have looked for information on the internet about 'environmental impact' (48%) include those who say they:

Those most likely to have looked for information on the internet about 'chemical content' (38%) include those who say they:

Credibility of Information Sources

When rating potential spokespersons on credibility regarding risk of pesticide information, respondents are now most likely to rate the 'a Health Canada scientist' as believable (45% providing a rating of 6 or 7), which has moved up 8 points since 2016, and has risen among most demographics. The Canadian Cancer Society is seen as next most believable source with four in 10 (39%) offering a rating of either six (24%) or seven (16%). A similar proportion overall (38%) rate 'Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons' as either a six (25%) or a seven (13%), with believability decreasing (-4 points since 2016) putting it at par with credibility of a medical doctor (38% providing a rating of 6 or 7), which has increased in credibility since 2016 (+9 points). Three in 10 can believe a university professor, which has nearly doubled in believability across nearly all demographics (30%, +14 points since 2016).

The 'David Suzuki Foundation' (29%), a Health Canada Spokesperson (29%) and Canadian Environmental Law Associate (28%) receive similar positive ratings, each with around three in 10 offering a rating of either a six or a seven. However, a higher proportion of respondents rate the 'David Suzuki Foundation' as a one, two or three (21%) indicating they 'believe none of what they say', compared to those who provide a similarly low rating for a Health Canada Spokesperson (15%) or Canadian Environmental Law Associate (16%). Notably, credibility for a Health Canada Spokesperson has remained consistent overall since 2016, ratings have increased among those aged 55 years or older (24%, +5 points since 2016).

A quarter rate 'the Health Minister' (24%) as believable (six or seven on the scale). Finally, 'a pesticide manufacturer spokesperson' is seen as the least believable with only eight percent offering a rating of six (5%) or seven (3%). Almost half (47%) of respondents rate this source as either a one (23%) or a two (18%).

Figure 15: Believability of Sources
Figure 15. Text version below.
Figure 15 - Text description
  2020 Survey % Believe
Believability of Sources 7 - Believe most of what they say 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Believe none of what they say Don't know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
A Health Canada Scientist 18% 27% 24% 15% 5% 2% 1% 7% 45% 37%
Canadian Cancer Society 16% 24% 25% 17% 6% 3% 2% 8% 39% 39%
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons 13% 25% 24% 18% 6% 3% 2% 9% 38% 42%
A medical doctor 14% 24% 27% 18% 6% 2% 1% 7% 38% 29%
A university professor 11% 19% 25% 22% 9% 4% 2% 9% 30% 16%
David Suzuki Foundation 13% 16% 18% 16% 8% 5% 7% 17% 29% 31%
A Health Canada Spokesperson 10% 19% 27% 22% 7% 4% 3% 7% 29% 27%
Canadian Environmental Law Association 10% 18% 24% 22% 8% 5% 3% 10% 28% 22%
The Health Minister 8% 17% 24% 23% 10% 7% 5% 7% 24% 20%
A Pesticide Manufacturer Spokesperson 3% 5% 9% 18% 16% 18% 23% 8% 8% 6%

Q11. Thinking about the various people or organizations who may provide information about the risks of pesticides, to what extent do you think you can believe what they say? [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Labels not shown for 2% and lower. Base: 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2029)

For all sources, except 'David Suzuki Foundation' respondents who say they are 'very' or 'somewhat' confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment are more likely to rate all the people or organizations presented as either a six or a seven, compared to those who say they are 'not very' or 'not at all confident.' Additionally, those who are aware that Health Canada assesses pesticide safety (compared to those who are not aware) and those who have heard a lot of something about pesticides in the past three months (compared to those who have heard not too much or nothing at all) are also more likely to believe (rating of 6 or 7) information about the risks of pesticides from all the given sources.

Those who are very/somewhat knowledgeable about pesticides are more likely than those who are not to believe all sources of information except 'David Suzuki Foundation' and 'medical doctor.'

Women continue to be more likely than men to offer a rating of six or seven to the David Suzuki Foundation (33% vs. men, 25%), and the Canadian Environmental Law Association (30% vs. men, 26%).

Those most likely to give a 'Health Canada Scientist' a rating of six or seven include university graduates (50% vs. high school 41%, post-secondary 45%).

Age influences ratings of either six or seven for the Canadian Cancer Society. Those who offer a rating of six or seven are more likely to include respondents aged 55 years or older (46 vs. 18 to 34 years 36%, 35 to 54 years 35%).

Those most likely to rate the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons as believable (six or seven) include those aged 55 years or older (43% vs. 18 to 34 years 35%, 35 to 54 years 36%) and those who live in households earning $60K to less than $100K (42%) or $100K or more annually (41%) compared to those earning between $40K to less than $60K (33%).

Those more likely to give the 'David Suzuki Foundation' a rating of six or seven also include women (33%) compared to men (25%), those aged 35 to 54 years (30%) and those aged 55 years or older (33%) (vs. 18 to 34 years (22%) and residents of Atlantic (36%), Quebec (32%) compared to other regions.

Those more likely to give the 'Health Minister' a rating of six or seven also include those aged 18 to 34 years (30%), compared to those aged 35 to 54 years (21%) or those 55 years and older (24%) and respondents living in Quebec (28%) or Ontario (26%) (vs. Manitoba 16% or Atlantic 17%).

1.4 Regulatory System

Section Overview

Awareness that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered for sale and use in Canada continues to be low.

However, a majority, increasing since 2016, attribute responsibility for pesticide regulation to the federal government. That said, of these respondents, most believe it falls under the purview of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, though six in 10 associate it with Health Canada. Older respondents, those with higher income and men, are most likely to attribute this role to the federal level, while younger respondents are more likely to attribute it to Health Canada in particular.

Knowledge of pesticides regulatory processes in Canada also continues to be very low, with 85% responding that they are 'not very knowledgeable' or 'not at all knowledgeable' about this process. In fact, less than one in 10 rate their understanding about pesticide regulatory decisions as a five, six or seven out of seven.

Level of Knowledge About the Pesticides Regulatory Process in Canada

Most of respondents are not knowledgeable about the pesticides regulatory process in Canada. Eighty-five percent of respondents say they are not very (44%) or not at all (41%) knowledgeable about the process, consistent with knowledge levels seen in 2016. However, there has been an increase in knowledge among males (20%, +4 points since 2016) and among those aged 35 to 54 years (16%, +5 points), while a decrease has been seen among those 55 years or older (12%, -4 points).

Figure 16: How Knowledgeable About Pesticides Regulatory Process in Canada
Figure 16. Text version below.
Figure 16 - Text description
  2020 2016
How knowledgeable About Pesticides Regulatory Process in Canada All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Very knowledgeable 2% 1%
Somewhat knowledgeable 13% 13%
Not very knowledgeable 44% 45%
Not at all knowledgeable 41% 41%

Q8. Overall, how knowledgeable are you about the pesticides regulatory process in Canada? [SINGLE CODE] Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those more likely to indicate they are 'very' or 'somewhat' knowledgeable include:

And those who say they:

Awareness of Health Canada Assessment

Respondents were asked whether they were previously aware that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered for sale and use in Canada. Awareness that Health Canada plays this role continues to remain low with only three in 10 (30%) offering a rating of five, six or seven (out of seven) compared to nearly half (44%) who offer a rating of one, two or three. Two in 10 (20%) respondents offer a neutral rating of four out of seven and six percent say they don't know if they are aware.

Figure 17: Agree/Disagree: 'Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered for sale and use in Canada.'
Figure 17. Text version below.
Figure 17 - Text description
  2020 Survey Completely Aware
(Rated 5/6/7)
Aware/Not aware 7 - Completely aware 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Not at all aware Don't Know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered for sale and use in Canada.' 6% 7% 16% 20% 12% 10% 22% 6% 30% 31%

Q12. Before today, to what extent were you aware that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered for sale and use in Canada? [SINGLE CODE]. 'Don't know' response not shown. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those more likely to say they were previously aware (providing a rating of 5, 6 or 7) that Health Canada 'assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered for sale and use in Canada' include:

And, those who say they:

Knowledge of Jurisdiction Responsible for Pesticide Regulation

Two-thirds (65%, +3 points since 2016) believe that the 'Federal government' is responsible for pesticide regulation in Canada. An increase in selection of federal government since 2016 is seen among men (71%, +5 points since 2016) and residents of Alberta (72%, +10 points since 2016) and those with income of less than $40K (61%, +9 points).

A third of respondents (34%) say responsibility falls under the provincial government's jurisdiction while two in 10 (17%, -3 points since 2016) select 'municipal government.' Two in 10 (18%) say they 'don't know.'

Among those who cited federal government, three quarters (75%) of responses mentioned 'Agriculture and Agri-food Canada' while six in 10 (60%) mentioned 'Health Canada'. Four in 10 (41%) mentions related to 'Environment and Climate Change.'

Similarly, among those who chose provincial government, a majority of responses (74%) indicate the Ministry of Agriculture, while two-thirds (66%) mention the Ministry of the Environment. Six in 10 mentions (58%) relate to the Ministry of Health.

Figure 18: Level of Government Responsible for Regulating Pesticides in Canada
Figure 18. Text version below.
Figure 18 - Text description
  2020 2016
Level of Government Responsible for Regulating Pesticides in Canada All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Federal government 65% 62%
Provincial government 34% 34%
Municipal government 17% 20%
Don't know 18% 18%
Provincial Government All who think the Provincial government is responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada (2020, n=685)
Minister of Agriculture 74%
Minster of the Environment 66%
Minister of Health 58%
Don't know 7%

Q9a. Which level (or levels) of government do you think are responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada? [MULTICODE] Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)/ Q9b. And which... department(s) do you think is/are responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada? - Federal government [MULTICODE] Base: All who think the Federal government is responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada 2016 (n=1257); 2020 (n=1321) / Q9b. And which... department(s) do you think is/are responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada? - Provincial government [MULTICODE] Base: All who think the Provincial government is responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada 2016 (n=696); 2020 (n=685)

Those more likely to say that the Federal Government is responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada include:

And those who say they:

Those most likely to say that they 'don't know' which level of government is responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada include:

Understanding About Regulatory Decision-Making Process

Understanding of how regulatory decisions are made is very low. Only one in ten (12%) indicate an understanding of the process (providing a rating of five, six or seven on a scale of one to seven where one means 'do not understand at all' and 7 means 'high level of understanding'). Nearly three quarters (72%) of respondents indicate they do not understand the process (offering a rating of one (33%), two (21%) of three (17%)).

Figure 19: Level of Understanding About How Pesticides Regulatory Decisions Are Made
Figure 19. Text version below.
Figure 19 - Text description
  2020 Survey Level of understanding
(Rated 5/6/7)
Level of understanding 7 - High level of understanding 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Do not understand at all 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
Level of Understanding About How Pesticide Regulatory Decisions Are Made 1% 3% 8% 16% 17% 21% 33% 12% 11%
All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Q10. What is your level of understanding about how pesticide regulatory decisions are made? [SINGLE CODE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

An analysis of those who offer a rating of five, six or seven shows it is more likely to include men (15%), compared to women (9%) and younger respondents aged 18 to 34 years (16%) and those aged 35 to 54 years (13%) compared to those aged 55 years or older (8%).

And, it also includes those who say they:

Residents of the Atlantic region are least likely to indicate understanding with ratings of five, six or seven (5%) compared to most other regions.

Knowledge of What Products are Regulated

Half of respondents (51%) say that 'weed killer (herbicides)' are regulated as pesticides in Canada. Four in 10 say that 'insect repellants/bug spray' (43%) and ant traps (37%, +4 points since 2016) are regulated. A third say that 'swimming pool chemicals' (33%) and 'treated wood' (31%) are regulated as pesticides. A quarter (27%, +2 points) say that 'pet flea collars' are regulated and just nineteen percent (+3 points) say the same for 'bug zappers.' Two percent say 'none of the above' are regulated. Just over a third (36%) say they 'don't know' if any of the products listed are regulated as pesticides in Canada, once again indicating low knowledge levels.

Those aged 18 to 34 years are more likely than in 2016 to indicate that all of the given products are regulated as pesticides in Canada, while a higher proportion of Ontario residents compared to 2016 also indicate that given products except for weed killer and treated wood are regulated as pesticides in Canada.

Figure 20: Products Regulated as Pesticides in Canada
Figure 20. Text version below.
Figure 20 - Text description
Products Regulated as Pesticides in Canada All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Weed Killer (Herbicides) 51% 51%
Insect repellants/ bug spray 43% 41%
Ant traps (Insecticides) 37% 33%
Swimming pool chemicals 33% 31%
Treated wood 31% 30%
Pet flea collars 27% 25%
Bug zapper 19% 16%
None of the above 2% 4%
Don't know 36% 36%

Q7. Which of the following products, if any, are regulated as pesticides in Canada? [MULTICODE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Respondents who say any of the products are regulated as pesticides in Canada include those who say they:

Those who are 'somewhat' or 'very' confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment are more likely to say that 'weed killer (herbicides),' 'insect repellants/bug spray,' 'ant traps' and 'swimming pool chemicals,' are regulated.

While older respondents are more likely to indicate that most of the products are regulated as pesticides in Canada, those aged 18 to 34 years are more likely to indicate that ant traps and bug zappers are regulated as pesticides.

Those who 'don't know' whether any of the products are regulated as a pesticide in Canada include:

And, those who say they:

1.5 Views of Pest Management Regulatory Agency

Section Overview

Perceptions regarding the PMRA's effectiveness remain moderately strong with a majority agreeing, even more so than in 2016. However, while agreement has increased since 2016, less than half agree that Health Canada acts quickly enough to remove unsafe pesticides from the market.

There is increasing awareness compared to 2016 that various tasks related to pesticides are the responsibility of PMRA.

Most respondents, however, are unaware that the PMRA consults with the public as part of the process; only three percent know how to participate in the decision-making process.

Even so, confidence that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment has increased since 2016, with six in 10 claiming confidence in PMRA. A quarter continue to not be confident.

Respondents tend to say that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is the same as or worse than that of the EU but are more likely to say that Canada's system is the same or better than the U.S.'s system and is better than China's system.

Perceptions of PMRA

Perceptions about effectiveness of Health Canada's PMRA have increased since 2016. A majority of six in 10 (60%, +7 points since 2016) agree (providing a rating of five, six, or seven) that when pesticides pose unacceptable risks, they are removed from the Canadian market. Over half agree that they are confident that PMRA has adequate processes in place to keep food and drinking water safe from pesticide residues (53%) and that it keeps pace with modern science in its pesticide decisions (52%, +4 points since 2016). Agreement that it keeps pace with modern science is up among those aged 18 to 34 years (52%, +7 points since 2016). At the same time, agreement that pesticides posing unacceptable risks are removed from market is up among those aged 18 to 34 years (59%, +12 points since 2016), residents of Alberta (59%, +11 points since 2016) and Ontario (62%, +9 points since 2016).

Perceptions remain weak, regarding PMRA acting quickly enough to remove unsafe pesticides from the market (44% agree). Agreement has still increased since 2016 (+4 points) mainly among men (46%, +5 points) and Ontario residents (47%, +7 points).

Figure 21: Agree/Disagree
Figure 21. Text version below.
Figure 21 - Text description
2020 Survey Completely Agree
(Rated 5/6/7)
Agree/Disagree 7 - Completely agree 6 5 4 3 2 1 - Do not agree at all Don't know 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
When pesticides pose unacceptable risks they are removed from the Canadian market 18% 19% 23% 14% 7% 4% 3% 13% 60% 53%
I am confident that Health Canada's PMRA has adequate processes in place to keep my food and drinking water safe from pesticide residues 10% 20% 23% 19% 8% 5% 4% 12% 53% 54%
Health Canada's PMRA keep pace with modern science in its pesticide decisions 10% 18% 23% 18% 7% 3% 3% 18% 52% 48%
Health Canada's PMRA acts quickly enough to remove unsafe pesticides from the market 9% 13% 21% 18% 8% 5% 5% 20% 44% 40%

Q17. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where '1' is not at all and '7' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements? [SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Respondents more likely to completely agree (providing a rating of 6 or 7) with each of the statements include those who say they:

PMRA Responsibilities

Even though awareness is low for recognizing Health Canada's role in regulating pesticides through the PMRA, awareness of the PMRA's responsibilities is relatively high. Seven in 10 are aware it is the PMRA's responsibility to be 'making sure a product meets health standards (69%), 'requiring specific warning statements on product labels' (65%), and 'making sure a product meets environmental standards' (65%). Roughly two-thirds are aware that the PMRA is responsible for 'pulling unsafe products from the shelves' (63%), 'setting safety standards for companies to follow' (63%, +4 points since 2016), 'Reviewing products on the market on an ongoing basis to make sure they continue to meet safety standards' (62%, +4 points since 2016) and 'making sure products contain the ingredients they say they do' (62%, +5 points since 2016).

Half say they are responsible for 'ensuring products are not contaminated' (50%, +7 points) and 'making sure a product is effective for controlling pests' (45%). Just a third (33%, +4 points since 2016) say the PMRA is responsible for 'reviewing product advertising' and two in 10 (17%) say they 'don't know'.

Compared to 2016, higher proportions of those aged 18 to 34 years are aware of PMRA's responsibilities with regards to pesticides except for the task of making sure a product meets environmental standards. Alberta residents are also more likely to be aware of PMRA's responsibilities compared to 2016 except for the task of making sure a product meets environmental standards as well as requiring specific warning statements on product labels.

Figure 22: Tasks Health Canada's PMRA is Responsible for with Regards to Pesticides
Figure 22. Text version below.
Figure 22 - Text description
  2020 2016
Tasks Health Canada's PMRA is Responsible for with Regards to Pesticides All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Making sure a product meets health standards 69% 67%
Requiring specific warning statements on product labels 65% 64%
Making sure a product meets environmental standards 65% 64%
Pulling unsafe products from the shelves 63% 61%
Setting safety standards for companies to follow 63% 59%
Reviewing products on the market on an ongoing basis to make sure they continue to meet safety standards 62% 58%
Making sure products contain the ingredients they say they do 62% 57%
Ensuring products are not contaminated 50% 43%
Making sure a product is effective for controlling pests 45% 42%
Reviewing product advertising 33% 29%
None of the above 17% 19%
Don't know 1% 1%

Q16. Which tasks, if any, do you believe Health Canada's PMRA is responsible for with regards to pesticides? [MULTICODE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Women are more likely to be aware of all responsibilities except for making sure a product is effective for pest control and reviewing product advertising, Additionally, those more likely to be aware include older respondents, with awareness increasing with age, and those who say they:

Awareness and Knowledge of PMRA Public Consultation Process

Awareness that Health Canada' PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides is very low and it is even lower in terms of knowing how to participate in the pesticides decision making process. Only twelve percent are aware that the PMRA consults with the public.

Figure 23: Aware that Health Canada's PMRA Consults with the Public on Decisions Related to Pesticides?
Figure 23. Text version below.
Figure 23 - Text description
  2020 Survey %Yes
Aware that Health Canada's PMRA Consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides? Yes No 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
12% 88% 12% 13%
All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Q18. Were you aware that Health Canada's PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides? [SINGLE CODE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Of those who are aware that PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides, three in 10 are also aware of how to participate in pesticide decision making processes carried out by the PMRA.

Within the context of the total survey sample (n=2,029), this represents three percent of respondents who know how to participate in this process.

Figure 24: Know How to Participate in the Pesticides Decision Making Process Carried Out By Health Canada's PMRA?
Figure 24. Text version below.
Figure 24 - Text description
  2020 Survey %Yes
Know how to participate in the pesticides decision making process carried out by Health Canada's PMRA? Yes No 2020 Survey 2016 Survey
30% 70% 30% 27%
All who are aware that Health Canada's PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides 2016 (n=270); 2020 (n=228)

Q19. Do you know how to participate in the pesticide decision making process carried out by Health Canada's PMRA? [SINGLE CODE]. Base: All who are aware that Health Canada's PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides 2016 (n=270); 2020 (n=228)

Those more likely to be aware that Health Canada's PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides includes:

Among those who are aware that Health Canada's PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides, those who are more likely to know how to participate in the decision making process include:

Confidence in PMRA

Six in 10 (63%, +6 points since 2016) respondents are either 'very' (10%) or 'somewhat' (54%) confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment. That said, a quarter (22%) are 'not very confident' and another one in 10 (6%) are 'not at all confident'. Since 2016, confidence in PMRA has increased among younger respondents aged 18 to 35 years (65%, +11 points since 2016) and 35 to 54 years (62%, +5 points since 2016) and residents of Alberta (75%, +16 points since 2016), and Ontario (65%, +7 points since 2016).

Figure 25: Confidence in Health Canada's PMRA
Figure 25. Text version below.
Figure 25 - Text description
  2020 2016
Confidence in Health Canada's PMRA All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Very confident 10% 8%
Somewhat confident 54% 49%
Not very confident 22% 23%
Not at all confident 6% 7%
Don't know 8% 13%

Q14. How confident are you that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment as per the Pest Control Products Act? [SINGLE CODE]. Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)

Those more likely to say that they are 'very' or 'somewhat' confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment include:

Those who responded 'don't know' when asked the extent to which they are confident that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment include:

When asked for the reason behind their confidence rating, negative mentions (41%) include possible concerns that lobbyists have too much influence/control over the government (7%) and poor regulatory system/enforcement (6%). Other negative mentions include that the review period should be less than 15 years because science progresses faster than that (6%).

On the other hand, positive mentions (34%) indicating confidence in PMRA, include that they have a good regulatory system/enforcement (7%), are trustworthy/reliable (7%), are committed to health and safety (5%) and do testing and research before public releases (5%).

Figure 26: Reasons for Confidence in Health Canada's PMRA
Figure 26. Text version below.
Figure 26 - Text description

Long description goes here

Q14b. Why do you say that? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: Respondents confident or not confident in PMRA at Q14; 2020 (n=1860) Only mentions of 3% or greater shown in chart.

Comparison to the European Union

When comparing Canada's pesticide regulatory system to that of the European Union (EU), six in 10 (55%) say that our system is the 'same as' the EU's and another quarter (28%) say that Canada's system is 'worse than' than that of the EU. Only two in 10 (17%) say that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is 'better than' that of the EU. Comparisons to the European Union remain similar to those seen in 2016, however, those aged 18 to 34 years (30%, +6 points since 2016) are more likely to think it is worse than that of the European Union.

When respondents are asked for a reason for their belief that Canada's system is worse, nearly half (48%) indicated that 'Europe has a better regulatory system/enforcement'. Other mentions include 'Europe is more environmentally friendly' (12%), and 'Europe is more progressive/advanced' (11%). Those who say Canada's system is better mention 'Canada has a better regulatory system/enforcement' (18%), and that European Union has 'poor/worse/lack of regulatory systems' (8%), and 'in Canada, more based on research/scientific data/better experience' (4%).

Figure 27: How Canada's Pesticide Regulatory System Compares to the European Union Compared to the European Union, Canada's pesticide regulatory system is…
Figure 27. Text version below.
Figure 27 - Text description
  2020 2016
Compared to the European Union, Canada's pesticide regulatory system is… All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Better than 17% 17%
Same as 55% 57%
Worse than 28% 26%
Better than : Why do you say that ? All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is BETTER THAN the European Union (2020, n=339)
Canada has a better regulatory system/ enforcement 18%
(European Union) Poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems 8%
In Canada, more based on research/ scientific data/ better experience 4%
Not familiar/ never heard before 4%
Worse than : Why do you say that ? All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is WORSE THAN the European Union (2020, n=578)
Europe has a better regulatory system/ enforcement 48%
Europe is more environmentally friendly 12%
Europe is more progressive/ advanced 11%
Europe is more focused on people/ health/ safety standards 8%
Europe use more natural/ organics/ fertilizer free methods 6%
(Canada) Poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems 6%
Europe is more based on research/ scientific data/ better experience 4%

Q15a. [European Union] Based on your current level of knowledge, how do you think Canada's pesticide regulatory system compares to each of the following? [SINGLE CODE] Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)/ Q15b. Why do you say that? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is BETTER THAN the European Union 2016 (n=341); 2020 (n=339)/ Q15b. Why do you say that? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is WORSE THAN the European Union 2016 (n=533); 2020 (n=578)

Those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is comparatively better than the European Union include:

Those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is comparatively worse than the European Union include:

And those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is the same as than the European Union include:

Comparison to the United States

When respondents compare Canada's pesticide regulatory system to that of the United States (U.S.), half of respondents (45%, +6 points since 2016) say that our system is the 'better than' the United States and another half (49%) say that Canada's system is the 'same as' the U.S. Only one in 10 (6%) say that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is 'worse than' that of the U.S. Therefore, while our system was seen as the same as or worse than that of the EU, respondents believe our system fares either the same as or better than United States.

Those who say Canada's system is better mention 'U.S. is less regulated/poor regulatory system' (30%), Canada has a better regulatory system/enforcement' (21%), 'U.S. has strong/influential lobbyists/government lobbying system' (7%) and 'US has less environmental concerns/not eco-friendly' (7%). When asked why they say Canada's system is worse, two in 10 (18%) indicated that 'U.S. have a better regulatory system' with a reference to 'enforcement' and 'US is less regulated/poor regulatory system' (8%). Men (45%, +9 points since 2016) and those aged 18 to 34 years (50%, +13 points since 2016) have contributed to the increasing proportion indicating that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is better than the United States.

Figure 28: How Canada's Pesticide Regulatory Process Compares to the United States Compared to the United States, Canada's pesticide regulatory system is…
Figure 28. Text version below.
Figure 28 - Text description
2020 2016
Compared to the United States, Canada's pesticide regulatory system is… All Respondents (n=2,029) All Respondents (n=2,015)
Better than 45% 39%
Same as 49% 50%
Worse than 6% 11%
Better than: Why do you say that? All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is BETTER THAN the United States (2020, n=915)
US is less regulated/ poor regulatory system 30%
Canada has a better regulatory system/ enforcement 21%
US has strong/ influential lobbyists/ government lobbying system 7%
US has less environmental concerns/ not eco-friendly 7%
US has more pesticides/ herbicides available in stores 6%
US is less concerned about people/ health/ safety standards 6%
Worse than : Why do you say that? All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is WORSE THAN the United States (2020, n=122)
US has better regulatory system/ enforcement 18%
US is less regulated/ poor regulatory system 8%
Canada has a better regulatory system/ enforcement 7%
Poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems 7%

Q15a. [United States] Based on your current level of knowledge, how do you think Canada's pesticide regulatory system compares to each of the following? [SINGLE CODE] Base: All Respondents 2016 (n=2,015); 2020 (n=2,029)/ Q15b. Why do you say that? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is BETTER THAN the United States 2016 (n=789); 2020 (n=915)/ Q15b. Why do you say that? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is WORSE THAN the United States (n=215); 2020 (n=122)

Those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is comparatively better than the United States include:

Those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is comparatively worse than the United States include:

And those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is the same as than the United States include:

Comparison to China

In 2020, as a new comparison, respondents were also asked to compare Canada's pesticide regulatory system to that of China. A majority, i.e. three-quarters (74%) say that our system is the 'better than' the China while fifteen percent say that Canada's system is the 'same as' China. Only one in 10 (11%) say that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is 'worse than' that of the China.

Those who say Canada's system is better mention 'China has poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems' (35%), 'China has less environmental concerns/ not eco-friendly' (15%), and China is less concerned about people/ health/ safety standards (14%). When asked why they say Canada's system is worse, one in 10 (14%) indicated that 'China has poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems' (7%).

Figure 29: How Canada's Pesticide Regulatory Process Compares to China Compared to China, Canada's pesticide regulatory system is…
Figure 29. Text version below.
Figure 29 - Text description
  2020
Compared to China, Canada's pesticide regulatory system is… All Respondents (n=2,029)
Better than 74%
Same as 15%
Worse than 11%
Better than: Why do you say that? All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is BETTER THAN China (2020, n=1497)
China has poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems 35%
China has less environmental concerns/ not eco-friendly 15%
China is less concerned about people/ health/ safety standards 14%
Canada has a better regulatory system/ enforcement 7%
China is more concerned about economic growth/ profit-oriented 6%
China is not trustworthy/ has unreliable system 6%
China is terrible/ has a poor reputation 5%
Illness outbreak (e.g., coronavirus, SARS, etc.) 4%
Worse than : Why do you say that? All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is WORSE THAN China (2020, n=224)
China has poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems 14%
Poor/ worse/ lack of regulatory systems 7%
China has less environmental concerns/ not eco-friendly 6%
China is less concerned about people/ health/ safety standards 5%
China is more progressive/ advanced 4%
Illness outbreak (e.g., coronavirus, SARS, etc.) 4%
China is too overcrowded/ overpopulated to manage 4%
China is not trustworthy/ has unreliable system 4%
Canada has a better regulatory system/ enforcement 4%

Q15a. [CHINA] Based on your current level of knowledge, how do you think Canada's pesticide regulatory system compares to each of the following? [SINGLE CODE] Base: All Respondents 2020 (n=2,029) / Q15b. Why do you say that? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is BETTER THAN China 2020 (n=1497) / Q15b. Why do you say that? [OPEN RESPONSE] Base: All who think that the pesticides regulatory system in Canada is WORSE THAN China 2020 (n=224)

Those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is comparatively better than the China include:

Those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is comparatively worse than the China include:

Those more likely to think that Canada's pesticide regulatory system is the same as China include:

1.6 Qualitative Findings

Awareness of Pesticide Products

Top-of-mind associations with pesticides during focus group discussions, gathered through a free-association exercise using the word "pesticide," closely mirrored survey results. As was the case in 2016, most focus group participants, in all three locations, instinctively associated pesticides with three broad areas of concern, namely:

Similar to findings in 2016, unprompted discussion of pesticides and pesticide usage tended to focus on negative associations with industrial or commercial applications rather than household uses for pets or for insect repellent.

Despite these negative connotations, for most participants there was a realization that pesticides and pesticide usage, particularly in the context of commercial or agricultural applications, are a necessity of doing business in order to ensure our crops and produce are of good quality and can be exported to foreign markets. Furthermore, participants are generally of the view that it was possible to 'manage' unintended side effects by following prescribed application rates and usage guidelines.

Broadly speaking, according to participants, pesticides and pesticide usage was a topic that has not been in the news much lately. It should be noted however that awareness appeared to be slightly higher among Montreal participants and lower among those in Calgary. Furthermore, most participants appeared to not have given much thought to pesticides or their use prior to group discussions.

In order to better frame the discussion and ensure that a common frame of reference for all those in attendance, all participants were presented with a sheet that included a series of visual cues that illustrated various pesticides and common pesticide usages. This exercise was useful in providing participants with additional context and reframing the conversation and perspectives to also include household pesticide products that many had simply not considered up until that point. Typically, when asked for their perspectives on commonly used household pesticide products, participants were less likely to focus on potential dangers associated with exposure and more likely to focus on proper usage directions which appear on labels.

Public Safety Concerns and Perceptions of the Current Regulatory System

There was a clear sense among focus group participants that there is either a lack of information or conflicting information as it relates to pesticide usage as well as the current pesticides regulatory system. This perception led those more skeptical to wonder aloud about what was being hidden while others simply stated they were not sure what to believe. Others yet were content to simply say they 'assumed' or 'hoped' regulation in place ensured that products available and used in Canada were being used responsibly and safely.

Interestingly, some participants pointed to Canadian government restrictions on some pesticide products which are otherwise available in the U.S. This was proof positive that there is a regulatory framework in place to ensure that pesticide products available for use in this country are safe and that steps are being taken to safeguard their usage.

When participants were specifically asked about their own use of pesticides, most acknowledged having personally used some type of pesticide product. Most commonly referenced domestic uses included insect repellents, domestic pest control applications and domestic herbicides used for gardens and lawn care. Most participants also acknowledged that preventative measures most commonly used in the context of personal/domestic use were generally limited to using gloves when handling pesticide products, reading labels before usage and minimizing use indoors or in confined spaces.

As was the case in 2016, participants once again expressed higher levels of concern related to the use of pesticides for large scale agricultural applications or in agricultural settings. Despite this, they also readily acknowledged that the use of agricultural pesticides was for all intents and purposes inevitable if Canadian farmers hoped to ensure the production of quality crops and produce available here in Canada. Participants also noted the economic importance of ensuring quality agricultural products/ crops for export into foreign markets.

Moreover, there tended to be relative trust that Canadian farmers use these products appropriately and responsibly. This view appeared to be largely driven by participants' perceptions that farmers have heightened familiarity with the use of these products due to repeated exposure/use.

Participants had similar responses when discussing the use of pesticides by pest control companies. Again, there was general agreement that these service providers are licensed and regulated and are much more familiar than the average homeowner with application rates and contraindications.

There were, however, those who questioned the use of herbicides in residential applications (i.e. for cosmetic use). It should be noted that participants in Toronto and Montreal were much more likely to feel this way than were their counterparts in Calgary.

Interestingly, whereas, despite underlying concerns, participants in all sessions tended to trust that Canadian farmers and pest control operators use pesticide products in a responsible way, participants were much less likely to express the same levels of trust in terms of pesticide usage when it came to foreign farmers. Concerns here were largely based on the lack of knowledge as to the existence of regulatory frameworks in exporting countries. Some assumed that commercial interest in getting their agricultural products to market would supersede interest in ensuring the health and safety of consumers here in Canada. Moreover, this conversation often led to questions about how much actual control the Canadian government has over the use of pesticides in food and other products imported into Canada.

Participants were specifically asked to share their perspectives on perceived risks associated with their own pesticide usage. Typically, participants characterized the risks as minor to moderate, although there were a few references in each session to perceived connection between pesticide exposure and cancer (i.e. Lymphoma).

It is worth mentioning that in one of the Montreal sessions, as well as in both Calgary sessions, there was a vocal minority who expressed higher levels of health-related concerns. In Calgary, specifically, one participant made a point of sharing a personal story of his father having passed away from cancer which the participant attributed to the regular use of pesticides on the family farm.

Views and Awareness of the Role of Government

Typically, when asked who is, or should be, involved in decisions related to what pesticides are, or should be, available in Canada, participants in all sessions tend to agree that this list should, at a minimum, include the following:

Participants in all sessions expressed both a desire and an expectation that stakeholders would make a point of collaborating in order to reach more reasoned and targeted solutions. Some participants also spoke of the need for, and importance of, an 'independent body' with no vested interest, economic or otherwise, in eventual decisions made.

It is important to note that, when specifically prompted, participants were very skeptical about including pesticide industry representatives as a stakeholder audience involved in ongoing decisions related to what pesticides should or should not be made available in Canada. When further pressed to explain their position, most simply said that pesticide industry representatives could not be trusted to 'do the right thing'. They most often surmised that if there were commercial interests involved, money/profits would supersede all other considerations.

Focus group participants were subsequently presented with a brief backgrounder hand-out that highlighted the PMRA's mission and mandate and were asked to take a few moments to review prior to opening the floor for discussion. Participants' initial reactions to the information presented were positive for the most part.

When asked for first impressions, many participants characterized the information presented as 'reassuring'. There was a general sense, in all sessions, that the information presented was aligned with what they had expected the PMRA's mandate would be and, as such, this served to further reinforce their belief that there were in fact regulatory safeguards in place in Canada. However, it is noteworthy that participants in all sessions did express surprise at the 15-year product review cycle referenced in the handout and questioned the extent to which this was effective, with several participants saying this seemed too long.

In summary, based on the information provided, their own perceptions of pesticide usage in Canada and anecdotal information available, most participants said PMRA does a good job, although a few said it did an adequate job or that they were simply unable to say one way or the other due to lack of information (this latter view was more common in Calgary). It should be noted that familiarity with the organization was non-existent prior to being presented with the handout document.

Transparency and Availability of Information

Next, focus group participants in all markets were asked to discuss how they typically went about obtaining information related to pesticide usage. According to most, information searches are most frequently limited to simply reading labels before using the products. Furthermore, actual information sought revolves around whether the product will be effective in addressing the specific problem for which it was purchased. It appears from focus group findings that very few people take the time to research more detailed pesticide related information, whether it be online or via any other source, be it government or otherwise.

When further pressed, participants spoke of reading directions to ensure personal safety while using pesticide products. According to many, the primary focus in this case is ensuring safe use of the product; labelling information related to chemical content was rarely consulted as participants did not expect that this information would be easily understood (i.e. chemical nomenclature).

Participants were then questioned as to what channel would be most effective if the intent was to provide them with additional pesticide related information. While there was some agreement that retailers have a responsibility to provide consumers with such information, many participants felt this would be less effective due to: 1) retailers commercial interest in selling these products; and, 2) the feeling that in many cases retail staff would not necessarily be any more knowledgeable than those purchasing.

Thus, most participants settled on web enabled channels as the preferred modes to communicate pesticide related information. When further pressed as to which web-based resources they would be most likely to rely on for pesticide related information, most participants spoke of a verified or trusted web source such as Health Canada's site or other government sites.

In addition, many participants mentioned, unprompted, that using social media platforms could be effective in the dissemination targeted pesticide related information in order to raise awareness about these products. Social media channels specifically mentioned included:

Some participants also suggested that, apart from stand-alone social media communications, establishing relationships with targeted social media influencers could also be an effective method for disseminating key pesticide related information. One participant suggested tapping into celebrity chefs, for instance, to promote how best to clean fruits and vegetables treated with pesticides prior to cooking.

Despite participants' penchant for the use of social media platforms, it is worth mentioning that participants also felt that using traditional media sources should not be discounted. There was general agreement that this type of information should likely be made available via multiple streams.

Reactions to Video treatments

The second half of the focus group discussions centered on participant reactions to a series of communications materials; three pesticide related YouTube videos prepared by Health Canada's PMRA branch. More specifically, the videos tested were as follows:

Pesticides: What do Health Canada Scientists do?

Pesticides: Is there a risk to the environment?

Pesticides: Is there a risk to health?

Due to time constraints, participants in each session were asked to view two out of the three videos. The selection of videos was rotated between sessions. Videos were played twice before opening the floor for discussion. Upon having viewed each video, participants were then queried as to their overall impressions, perceived key messages and their anticipated actions after having viewed the video. In all sessions the 'What do Health Canada scientists do' video appeared first with the ordering for the other two videos being rotated from one session to the next in order to control for any potential ordering bias.

On balance, reactions to all materials presented were more positive than negative. That said, there were some key differences, namely:

The visceral negative reaction to 'Pesticides: What do Health Canada Scientists do?' appeared to be a direct result of both the overall impression that it lacked in specificity (was too general in tone) as well as the assertion that Canadians should not be concerned about pesticides. This reaction was limited to participants in the English-speaking sessions; French speaking participants in Montreal did not share this perspective. When further pressed, it appears that the negative reactions by participants in Toronto and Calgary were partly underpinned by skepticism that Health Canada could make such a claim given that pesticide products are constantly being reviewed and taken off the market. Participants often referenced 'Roundup' and 'Monsanto' specifically to underscore their point.

For those who reacted strongly, the assertion that Canadians should not be concerned was also problematic in terms of perceived tone; it was considered condescending and the preference would have been to be shown the facts and let viewers decide for themselves on whether there is a reason for concern. This, coupled with the repeated mention of the word "science", was not appealing to some as they felt was a "hard sell" and lacking in tangible information.

The 'Pesticides: Is there a risk to the environment?' and 'Pesticides: Is there a risk to Health?' videos were generally well received in all but one group in Montreal where, despite recognizing the importance of communicating this information, participants were generally underwhelmed by their execution. Both of 'Pesticides: Is there a risk to the environment?' and 'Pesticides: is there a risk to Health?' were well received in Calgary as they were seen as addressing the issues that mattered to participants in a manner that came across as more factual and objective.

Messaging in all three video treatments appeared to be effective; Health Canada is focused on pesticide usage in Canada and is taking steps to ensure they are used safely and in an environmentally responsible way.

The animation treatment used in all three videos made some initially wonder out loud if these were meant for children or for all audiences. Upon further consideration, most felt the approach was appropriate and in line with what they might have come to expect from the Government of Canada. That said, Montreal group #2 and some participants in Calgary had lukewarm reactions at best, with several participants saying they were underwhelmed by the animation. In Calgary, it was the combination of animation, the condescending tone noted above and the overly upbeat music in 'Pesticides: What do Health Canada Scientists do?' that appeared to be most problematic.

Participants generally had less issues with the animation in 'Pesticides: Is there a risk to the environment? 'and 'Pesticides: is there a risk to Health? Likewise, the female narration of the English videos was generally well received although a few participants did express some reservations. Furthermore, some participants commented on the use of multiple conditionals used in the English script for 'Pesticides: What do Health Canada Scientists do?' According to these individuals, the script for this video seemed to suggest that Health Canada may not have all the answers. This view was not widely held, however, and did not come up at all in Calgary. If anything, Calgarians, especially those in the first group, interpreted definitive statements as biased information.

Appendix

Respondent Profile

In total, n=2,029 surveys were completed. The respondent profile is below:

Table 1: Respondent Profilen
 

Unweighted Sample Size

 Proportion of sample
Education
Some high school or less 83 4%
High School diploma or equivalent 476 23%
Registered Apprenticeship or other trades certificate or diploma 113 6%
College, CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma 555 27%
University certificate or diploma below bachelor's level 135 7%
Bachelor's degree 444 22%
Post graduate degree above bachelor's level 210 10%
Prefer not to disclose 13 1%
Income
<$40k 540 27%
$40k - <$60k 343 17%
$60k - <$100k 557 27%
$100k+ 366 18%
Location
Rural 462 23%
Suburban 706 35%
Urban 836 41%
Don't know/Prefer not to answer 25 1%
Mother Tongue
English 1435 71%
French 513 25%
Other 179 9%
Prefer not to disclose 15 1%
Employment Status
Working full-time, that is, 35 or more hours per week 741 37%
Working part-time, that is, less than 35 hours per week 204 10%
Self-employed 122 6%
Unemployed, but looking for work 130 6%
A student attending school full-time 122 6%
Retired 482 24%
Not in the workforce (full-time homemaker, unemployed, not looking for work) 166 8%
Other 37 2%
Prefer not to disclose 25 1%
If live on a reserve
Yes 21 1%
No 1998 98%
Prefer not to answer 10 -
If identify as any of the following
Immigrant and/or born outside of Canada 268 13%
Person with a disability 142 7%
LGBTQ2S+ 138 7%
A member of an ethno-cultural or a visible minority group (not including Indigenous) 121 6%
Indigenous (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) 76 4%
None of the above 1357 67%
Prefer not to answer 51 3%

Quantitative Survey Methodological Report

Ipsos conducted a 15-minute online survey among a nationwide sample of Canadian adults between February 10th and February 19th, 2020. In total, n=2,029 surveys were completed. The survey instrument consisted of a series of closed-end and open-end questions designed in consultation with the Health Canada Project Authority. The sample is a non-probability online panel sample. Ipsos panel-based resource, iSay panel (which is a diversely-sourced and actively maintained panel of over 200,000 Canadian adults) was used for data collection. Extrapolation: The table below indicates the unweighted geographical distribution of the sample. Weighting was applied to the sample to ensure that the final data reflects the adult population of Canada by region, age and gender according to the 2016 Census.

Table 2: Sample Weighting
  Unweighted Sample Size Weighted Sample Size
Canada 2029 2029
Region
British Columbia 236 275
Alberta 233 233
Saskatchewan/Manitoba 140 132
Ontario 792 777
Québec 483 475
Atlantic Canada 145 138
Prefer not to disclose - -
Gender
Male 956 980
Female 1065 1040
Others/Prefer not to answer 8 9
Age
18-34 527 555
35-54 707 691
55+ 795 783
Prefer not to disclose - -

The following table provides the case dispositions and response rate calculation for this online survey.

Table 3: Response Rate Calculation
Calculation for Data Collection Panel Non-panel Total
Total Email Invitations Issued 23537 510* 24047
Unresolved (U) (no response) 16555 0 16555
In-scope - non-responding (IS) 250 0 250
Qualified respondent break-off (incomplete) 153 31 184
In-scope - Responding units (R) 6982 510 7492
Over quota 2972 108 3080
Other disqualified 515 33 548
Completed Interviews 1509 86 1595
Response Rate = R/(U+IS+R) 29% 100% 31%
*Non panel provider did not issue invitations but instead used internet traffic re-allocations.

Non Response Analysis

There exists within the current sample the possibility of non-response bias. In particular, this survey would not include members of the population who do not have access to the Internet (either via a personal computer or mobile device) or who are not capable of responding to a survey in either English or French. In addition, some groups within the population are systemically less likely to answer surveys. The table below compares the unweighted sample to the 2016 Census results by region, age and gender. Variations in proportions have been corrected in the weighting to reflect 2016 Census values.

Table 4: Non Response Analysis
  Unweighted Percent Census 2016 Proportions
Region
British Columbia 11.63% 14%
Alberta 11.48% 11%
Saskatchewan/Manitoba 6.90% 7%
Ontario 39.03% 38%
Quebec 23.80% 23%
Atlantic 7.15% 7%
Gender
Male 47.12% 49%
Female 52.49% 51%
Others/Prefer not to answer 0.39% -
Age
18-34 25.97% 27%
35-54 34.84% 34%
55+ 39.18% 39%

Qualitative Methodology

The qualitative phase of research took the form of six, 90 minutes focus groups conducted in Toronto on February 25th, 2020, Montreal (in French) on February 26th, 2020 and Calgary (in English) on February 27th, 2020. Groups were held at 5:30pm and 7:30pm in all locations. All participants were provided with a $85 honorarium to compensate them for their time and effort to attend in person. A total of 60 participants were recruited over the phone using the screening questionnaire included in this appendix. Of the 60 people recruited, a total of 48 attended the discussions. There were 8 and 7 participants respectively in Toronto session, 8 participants in each of the Montreal sessions (two sessions), in addition to 8 and 9 participants respectively in each Calgary session. Screening ensured that we obtained a good mix of participants according to age, gender, ethnicity income and education levels. Focus group participants were selected according to the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Qualitative Research. It should be noted that the qualitative findings are not generalizable to a larger population, and that they should be considered directional only. Focus groups were led by an Ipsos senior research professional using a discussion guide that was developed by Ipsos in collaboration with the Project Authority at Health Canada. The complete discussion guide is included in this appendix.

Quantitative Survey Instrument

[ENGLISH]
[INTRODUCTION]

This survey is being conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the Government of Canada. This survey will help measure Canadians' awareness and confidence in Canada's pesticide regulatory system. This survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. All responses will be kept strictly confidential and will remain anonymous. Responses are recorded in statistical form only. You can complete the survey in either English or French by selecting the language at the top of the survey screen.

[PREQUALIFYING QUESTIONS FOR QUOTAS - ASKED BEFORE DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO THE SURVEY]
[Gender]
[SINGLE CODE]

What is your gender?

[Age1a]
[DROP DOWN]

In what year were you born?

[YEAR DROP DOWN]

Prefer not to answer

[IF PREFERS NOT TO PROVIDE A PRECISE BIRTH YEAR, ASK:]
[Age2]
[SINGLE CODE]

Would you be willing to indicate in which of the following age categories you belong?

[PROV]
[SINGLE CODE]

PROV. What province do you live in?

[FSA]
[NUMERICAL RESPONSE]

FSA. And what is your postal code?

[MAIN QUESITONNAIRE]

[AWARENESS & USE SECTION]
[ASK ALL]
[OPEN]

Q1. What comes to mind when you think about pesticides and pesticide use?

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]

Q2. To what extent do you agree that the following pesticides and pest control products can be used safely?

[SCALE]

[STATEMENTS]
[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q3. How frequently within the past 12 months have you used a pesticide or pest control product (such as herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, insect repellants and rodent traps)?

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Don't know

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]

Q4. To what extent do you think it is acceptable to use pesticides/pest control products in each of the following areas?

[SCALE]

[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q5. Over the last three months, how much have you seen, read or heard about pesticides?

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]

Q6. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where '1' is not at all and '7' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements?

[SCALE]

[STATEMENTS]
[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[MULTICODE]

Q7. Which of the following products, if any, are regulated as pesticides in Canada? Select all that apply.

[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q8. Overall, how knowledgeable are you about the pesticides regulatory process in Canada?

[SCALE]

[ASK ALL]
[MULTICODE]

Q9a. Which level (or levels) of government do you think are responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada?

[ASK ALL WHO SELECT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT AT Q9a]
[MULTICODE]

Q9b. And which [INSERT RESPONSE FROM Q9a] department(s) do you think is/are responsible for regulating pesticides in Canada?

Select all that apply.

[RANDOMIZE]
[IF 'FEDERAL' AT Q9a - SHOW:]

[IF 'PROVINCIAL' AT Q9a - SHOW]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q10. What is your level of understanding about how pesticide regulatory decisions are made?

[SCALE]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]

Q11. Thinking about the various people or organizations who may provide information about the risks of pesticides, to what extent do you think you can believe what they say?

[SCALE]

[STATEMENTS]
[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q12. Before today, to what extent were you aware that Health Canada assesses the safety of pesticides before deciding whether they can be registered for sale and use in Canada?

[SCALE]

[PREAMBLE]

The Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is the Federal organization responsible for pesticide regulation in Canada. Pesticides are stringently regulated in Canada to ensure they pose minimal risk to human health and the environment. Under authority of the Pest Control Products Act, Health Canada:

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q14. How confident are you that Health Canada's PMRA protects health and the environment as per the Pest Control Products Act?

[OPEN]
[APPEARS AFTER EACH RESPONSE ABOVE] SKIP IF ANSWERED DON'T KNOW IN Q14

Q14B. Why do you say that?

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q15A. Based on your current level of knowledge, how do you think Canada's pesticide regulatory system compares to each of the following? Is Canada's system…

[SCALE]

[COUNTRIES]
[RANDOMIZE]

[OPEN]
[APPEARS AFTER EACH RESPONSE ABOVE]

Q15B. Why do you say that?

[HEALTH CANADA INVOLVEMENT SECTION]
[ASK ALL]
[MULTICODE]

Q16. Which tasks, if any, do you believe Health Canada's PMRA is responsible for with regards to pesticides?

Select all that apply.

[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE PER ATTRIBUTE]

Q17. Using a scale from 1 to 7 where '1' is not at all and '7' is completely, to what extent do you agree with each of the following statements?

[SCALE]

[STATEMENTS]
[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q18. Were you aware that Health Canada's PMRA consults with the public on decisions related to pesticides?

[ASK IF 'YES' SELECTED AT Q18]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q19. Do you know how to participate in the pesticide decision making process carried out by Health Canada's PMRA?

[INFORMATION SECTION]
[ASK ALL]
[MULTICODE]

Q20a. Have you ever looked for information on pesticides from any of the following sources? Select all that apply.

[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL WHO LOOKED FOR INFO ON INTERNET AT Q20a]
[MULTICODE]

Q20b. You indicated you have looked for information about pesticides on the Internet. From the following list, please indicate which websites you have visited? Select all that apply.

[RANDOMIZE]

[ASK ALL]
[MULTICODE]

Q21. If you were to look for information about pesticides, what would you be most likely to search for? Select all that apply.

[RANDOMIZE]

Health related information Environmental impact information Chemical content Safe-use information Product selection information How to identify pests How to get rid of pests Other, specify None of the above

[ASK ALL]
[MULTICODE]

Q22. If you were looking for information about pesticides, how likely would you be to consult the following sources?

[SCALE]

[RANDOMIZE]

Government of Canada websites Health Canada website Pesticide product websites Blogs Environmental groups Home improvement store/garden centre A pesticide service provider Other (specify)

[DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION]
The last few questions are strictly for statistical purposes. All of your answers are completely confidential.
[ASK ALL]
[SINGLE CODE]

Q23. Would you describe the area you live in as rural, urban or suburban?

[SINGLE CODE]

Do you live on a reserve?

[Identity information]
[MULTICODE]

Do you identify as any of the following? Select all that apply.

[Education]
[SINGLE CODE]

What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

[Mother Tongue]
[MULTICODE]

What is the language you first learned at home as a child and still understand? Select all that apply.

[Employment Status]
[SINGLE CODE]

Which of the following categories best describes your current employment status?

[Household Income]
[SINGLE CODE]

Which of the following categories best describes your total household income? That is, the total income of all persons in your household combined, before taxes?

Under $20,000

Qualitative Screener

Focus Group Recruitment Screener (English)

INTERVIEWER:

DATE:

INTERVIEW TIME: minutes

Introduction

Good morning/afternoon/evening (Bonjour), my name is - and I am calling from Ipsos, a national marketing research organization. First off, let me assure you that we are not trying to sell you anything. We are a professional public opinion research firm that gathers opinions from people. From time to time, we solicit opinions by talking with people in a group discussion setting with up to 10 participants.

We are preparing to conduct a series of these discussions on behalf of the Government of Canada about issues that are important to Canadians and would like to know if you would be willing to participate.

As part of these discussions you will be asked to review and provide feedback on materials and policies in a group setting. Do you feel comfortable doing this?

Please be assured, your participation is voluntary and should you agree to participate your identity will remain confidential. The information collected will be used for research purposes only and handled according to the Privacy Act of Canada.*

  1. Do you currently reside in [INSERT CITY FROM BELOW]?
  2. Would you be interested in participating in this discussion which will be held at a location in on ?

*IF ASKED: The personal information you provide is protected in accordance with the Privacy Act and is being collected under the authority of section 4 of the Department of Health Act. The information you provide will not be linked with your name on any document including the consent form or the discussion form. In addition to protecting your personal information, the Privacy Act gives you the right to request access to and correction of your personal information. You also have the right to file a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner if you feel your personal information has been handled improperly. For more information about these rights, or about our privacy practices, please contact Health Canada's Privacy Coordinator at 613-948-1219 or hc.privacy-vie.privee.sc@canada.ca.

Needs caption
Location Audience Time Dates
Toronto Mix by age, gender, ethnicity 5:30pm February 25th
Toronto Mix by age, gender, ethnicity 7:30pm February 25th
Montreal (FRENCH) Mix by age, gender, ethnicity 5:30pm February 26th
Montreal (FRENCH) Mix by age, gender, ethnicity 7:30pm February 26th
Calgary Mix by age, gender, ethnicity 5:30pm February 27th
Calgary Mix by age, gender, ethnicity 7:30pm February 27th
Past Participation Screener Questions

Now, I would like to ask you a few questions to see if you qualify to attend. This will take about 5 minutes.

(INTERVIEWER RECORD GENDER, DO NOT ASK) (AIM FOR GOOD MIX)
Male (Continue for possible recruit)
Female (Continue for possible recruit)
Other (Continue for possible recruit)

  1. Do you or does anyone in your household work in any of the following industries? (READ LIST) IF "YES" TO ANY - THANK AND TERMINATE
  2. Have you ever attended a consumer group discussion, completed an interview or a survey which was arranged in advance and for which you received a sum of money? [NO MORE THAN THREE RECRUITS WITHIN EACH GROUP MAY SAY YES] IF Q2= YES, ASK Q3-5, ELSE SKIP TO Q6
  3. How many focus groups have you attended in the past five years? TERMINATE IF MORE THAN 4
  4. What were the main topics of these discussions? Answer: IF RELATED TO PESTICIDES, THANK AND TERMINATE
  5. Have you attended a discussion group or a market research focus group in the past six months? IF "YES" - THANK AND TERMINATE
Study Specific Screener
  1. Are you a citizen or permanent resident of Canada, or you are living here temporarily, for example, are you here on a work visa or on another temporary basis?
    1. Citizen/Permanent Resident [CONTINUE]
    2. Temporary Resident [THANK AND TERMINATE]
  2. Were you born in Canada or were you born elsewhere?
    1. Born in Canada
    2. Born elsewhere [ENSURE MINIMUM OF TWO PER GROUP]
  3. What was your household's income for 2019? Was it…? [ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF INCOMES IN EACH GROUP]
    1. $19,999 or less
    2. Between $20,001 and $39,999
    3. Between $40,000 and $59,999
    4. Between $60,00 and $79,999
    5. Between $80,00 and $99,999
    6. $100,000 and above
  4. I am going to read you a series of age categories, please stop me when I get to the one that applies to you. [ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF AGES IN EACH GROUP]
    1. Less than 18 years old [THANK AND TERMINATE]
    2. 18-24 years
    3. 25-34 years
    4. 35-44 years
    5. 45-54 years
    6. 55-64 years
    7. 65 years or more [MAXIMUM 2 PER GROUP]
  5. What is the highest level of education you have attained? (Do not read list). [DO NOT READ LIST - ENSURE A GOOD MIX IN EACH GROUP]
    1. Some high school or less
    2. Completed high school
    3. Post-secondary technical training
    4. Some college/university
    5. Completed college/university
    6. Post-graduate studies
  6. Current employment status? ENSURE A GOOD MIX OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Confirmation
  1. Participants in discussion groups are asked to voice their opinions and thoughts. How comfortable are you in voicing your opinions in front of others? Are you… (READ LIST)
  2. Sometimes participants are asked to read text and/or review images during the discussion. Is there any reason why you could not participate?

TERMINATE IF RESPONDENT OFFERS ANY REASON FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY OR TAKE PART IN THE DISCUSSION IN ANY WAY, SUCH AS SIGHT OR HEARING PROBLEM, A WRITTEN OR VERBAL LANGUAGE PROBLEM. ALSO TERMINATE IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT PARTICIPANTS ABILITY TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LANGUAGE TO BE USED DURING SESSION.

****(IN EACH LOCATION, PLEASE ENSURE 10 PARTICIPANTS ARE RECRUITED FOR 8-10 TO SHOW)****

[Read to Stand-by Respondents]

Thank you for answering my questions. Unfortunately, at this time, the group you qualify for is full. We would like to place you on our stand-by list. This means that if there is an opening in the group, we would then call you back and see if you are available to attend the group. May I please have a daytime contact number, an evening contact number an email address, if you have one, so that we can contact you as soon as possible if an opening become available? [RECORD CONTACT INFO]

[Read to Screened in Respondents] Wonderful, you qualify to participate in one of these group discussions which will take place on, (DATE) @ (TIME) for no more than 2 hours. The Government of Canada is sponsoring this research. All those who participate will receive an $85 honorarium as a thank you for their time.

Do you have a pen handy so that I can give you the address where the group will be held? It will be held at:

Needs caption
Location Address Time Dates
Toronto CRC Research 2 Bloor Street West, 3rd floor 5:30pm February 25th
Toronto CRC Research 2 Bloor Street West, 3rd floor 7:30pm February 25th
Montreal (FRENCH)

AD HOC RECHERCHE 400, boul. de Maisonneuve Ouest, bureau 1200

 5:30pm February 26th
Montreal (FRENCH)

AD HOC RECHERCHE 400, boul. de Maisonneuve Ouest, bureau 1200

 7:30pm February 26th
Calgary

Qualitative Coordination Suite 120, 707 10th Avenue SW T2R 0B3

 5:30pm February 27th
Calgary

Qualitative Coordination Suite 120, 707 10th Avenue SW T2R 0B3

 7:30pm February 27th

We ask that you arrive at least 20 minutes early to be sure you locate the facility and have time to check-in with the hosts. Prior to being admitted into the focus group room you will be required to sign a non-disclosure agreement, failure to do so will result in you being denied participation in the focus group session for which you have been selected, payment of the incentive is contingent on participation in the focus group sessions.

In addition, we will be checking your identification prior to the group, so please be sure to bring two pieces of government issued photo identification with you (i.e. driver's license, health card or other). Also, if you require glasses for reading, please bring them with you.

At the discussion you will be audio- and videotaped. This taping is being done to assist us with our report writing. Also, in this room there is a one-way mirror. Sitting behind the mirror may be Government of Canada staff, including members of the staff from the departments that sponsored this research, and by staff members from Ipsos. Other Government of Canada staff may stream the session live online. This is standard focus group procedure to get a first-hand look at the research process and to hear first-hand your impressions and views on the research topic. Do you agree to be observed for research purposes only?

As we are only inviting a small number of people, your participation is very important to us. As we have invited you to participate based on the questions we went through a moment ago, we ask that you do not send a representative on your behalf should you be unable to participate. IF FOR SOME REASON YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE CALL SO THAT WE MAY GET SOMEONE TO REPLACE YOU. You can reach us at 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx at our office. Someone will call you the day before to remind you about the discussion.

Thank you for very much for your help!

Qualitative Discussion Guide

Final Discussion Guide PMRA Pesticide Awareness Research

INTRODUCTIONS (10 MINS)
Section 1 - Warm-Up Discussion (10 MINS)
Section 2 - Broad Public Safety Concerns and Perceptions of the Current Regulatory System (15 MINS)

And, do you feel risk is significant, moderate or minor? I'm trying to get a sense for how serious you think this is?

Section 3 - Views & Awareness of the Role of Government (25 minutes)

[MODERATOR HAND OUT PRINTED VERSION AND HAVE PARTICIPANTS REVIEW AND CIRCLE ANY SURPRISING INFO GOOD OR BAD - DISCUSS]

The Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is the Federal organization responsible for pesticide regulation in Canada. Pesticides are stringently regulated in Canada to ensure they pose minimal risk to human health and the environment. Under authority of the Pest Control Products Act, Health Canada:

Section 4 - Transparency and Availability of Information (15 minutes)
Section 5 - Individual Concept Review (20 MINS each - 40 MINS TOTAL)
Needs caption
LOCATION ENVIRONMENTAL VIDEO HEALTH VIDEO
TORONTO 2ND IN ROTATION FOR GROUP #1 2ND IN ROTATION FOR GROUP #2
MONTREAL 2ND IN ROTATION FOR GROUP #1 2ND IN ROTATION FOR GROUP #2
CALGARY 2ND IN ROTATION FOR GROUP #1 2ND IN ROTATION FOR GROUP #2

[MODERATOR READ] As I mentioned at the start, a large part of our discussion this evening will be focussed on a series of communications materials developed and intended for people like you. We'd like to better understand your overall reactions to these materials and more specifically understand:

2 VIDEOS TO REVIEW - EACH VIDEO IS ROUGHLY 2 MINUTES IN LENGTH.

AS PER TABLE ABOVE ROTATE SECOND VIDEO PRESENTED IN EACH SESSION BETWEEN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL THEMED VIDEO PLAY TWICE (PRESENT PMRA 101 IN ALL SESSIONS AND ALWAYS PRESENT FIRST IN ROTATION AS IT PROVIDES OVERVIEW).

EXERCISE 1: There is a handout I'd like you to complete on your immediate reactions and thoughts (below).

GROUP DISCUSSION ON THE CONCEPT

TONE PROBES

MAIN MESSAGE VERBAL PROBES

CALL TO ACTION PROBES

What would you do as a result of watching this video? What specifically would you do?

GENERAL IMPRESSIONS RELATED TO PESTICIDES REGULATORY SYSTEM

Now let's look at the next video - we are going to go through the same process for this one as we just did. PLAY NEXT VIDEO:

[MODERATOR HAVE PARTICIPANTS COMPLETE THOUGHT BUBBLE EXERCISE AND REPEAT SAME LINE OF QUESTIONNING FOR EACH SUBSEQUENT VIDEO]

Section 6 - Wrap up (5 MINS)

What other information do you need/want the HEALTH CANADA to provide about what we have discussed this evening? Why is this information important to you? How should this information be provided to you?

That is all the time we have this evening but before we wrap things up do you have any final comments?