adjacent states.7 Moreover, price differences in the U.S. and Canadian markets have also
led agricultural commodity organizations on both sides of the border to seek legislation
that would “harmonize” U.S. and Canadian pesticide use regulations.
The U.S. initiative, embodied in Senate Bill 1406, was introduced in 2003 and
cosponsored by Senators Dorgan and Conrad of North Dakota, Daschle and Johnson of
South Dakota, and Burns and Baucus of Montana. The Bill would amend FIFRA to
permit the EPA Administrator to register a Canadian pesticide with identical active
ingredients and similar (though not necessarily identical) formulations to a pesticide
already approved by EPA for use. In Congressional hearings in June of 2004, Mr. Jay
Vroom, the president of CropLife America, the trade association representing
manufacturers, distributors and formulators of agricultural chemicals, testified against the
bill.
If, in fact, chemical manufacturers are concerned about losing opportunities for
price discrimination, the industry’s position vis a vis the legislation is hardly surprising.
In addition to several other concerns,8 the industry’s representative claimed that no
legislation was needed because Great Plains producers spent less on pesticides than did
Canadian producers. This, of course, was not an “apples to apples” comparison. Canada
includes many agricultural regions with much higher rainfall and much more severe
pesticide problems than the semi-arid region of the Northern Great Plains, where dryland
7 Prior to 2002, when Monsanato’s U.S. patent on Roundup was still active, using surveys of agricultural
chemical dealers, McEwan and Daley (1997), Carlson et. al (1999), and Freshwater (2003) reported that the
product was substantially cheaper in Manitoba than in North Dakota. In 2000, Larry Johnson, a farmer and
past president of the Montana Grain Growers Association, was found guilty of over 30 federal counts of
conspiring illegally to sell the Canadian registered version of the product in the United States (The Great
Falls Tribune, February, 2000).
8 One of the industry representative’s more profound assertions was that U.S. producers would be confused
by Canadian chemical labels because the same information was provided in both English and French,
although English speaking Canadians seemed to cope with the challenge quite well.