A September 2025 special review decision signaled removal of key dicamba uses in DT soybeans. Manitoba Agriculture says the outcome could affect seed production and weed management strategies across the Prairies.
Dicamba’s future in Canada is now tied to more than weed control. It’s tied to the country’s regulatory system, and to whether farmers and applicators can prove they can use the product without damaging non-target plants.
In a recent Manitoba government presentation given last week at the CropConnect Conference in Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba Regulations and Minor Use Specialist Pratisara Bajracharya and Seeds Specialist Kim Brown walked an audience through how pesticide decisions are made in Canada, why dicamba is under a federal special review, and what that could mean for soybean growers in Manitoba and beyond.
Bajracharya began by laying out the three main entities involved in pesticide regulation in Canada.
At the federal level, she said, pesticide registration and re-evaluation fall under Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), governed by the Pest Control Products Act. “That oversees registration of pesticides and re-evaluations and special reviews,” she said.
In Manitoba, she explained, provincial regulation is handled through the Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Act, which governs licensing of applicators and dealers. A third layer is the Environment Act, which can require licensing for large pesticide storage sites and permits for applications in areas where the public may have access.
Why dicamba is under special review
The dicamba debate has been on farmers’ radar for years, but Bajracharya said the current process is specifically a “special review,” not just a routine re-evaluation.
Re-evaluations, she explained, happen on a long cycle — roughly every 15 years — where PMRA revisits older registrations using updated scientific standards. But special reviews can be triggered at any time under Section 17 of the federal act, particularly when an issue is flagged in another OECD country.
“With special reviews… the aspects of concern are known,” she said.
In dicamba’s case, that concern is environmental: “the risk to non-target plants from the over-the-top application of that product,” Bajracharya said.
The September 2025 decision that shook soybean production
Bajracharya pointed to a federal special review decision posted Sept. 17, 2025, which proposed removing major dicamba uses from the label, particularly post-emergent use in dicamba-tolerant soybeans.
“The gist of it was, we were not going to have post-emergent uses on tolerant DT soybeans,” she said. She added that seed production uses were also proposed to be removed.
From a farmer perspective, she said, “that’s huge.”
The concern wasn’t theoretical. Bajracharya said the proposed changes would make it impossible to produce certain types of soybean seed in Canada. “What that decision meant was that we were not going to be able to produce seeds for DT soybeans,” she said. “Obviously not ideal.”
Where things stand now: comment period over, final decision pending
As of early 2026, the process is still not finished. Bajracharya said the consultation period for the special review ended in January 2026, and the industry is now waiting for PMRA’s final decision.
“We are awaiting final review, final decision on that special review,” she said.
She also reminded the audience that the regulatory process doesn’t necessarily end with a final decision. “If you do not agree with the decision, and you have further scientific evidence to suggest otherwise… you can still apply for objection… within the 60 days,” she said.
Kim Brown: “For farmers in 2026… it’s business as usual”
Brown delivered what many growers most wanted to hear: nothing changes overnight.
“So what does this mean for farmers in 2026? Basically it’s business as usual,” Brown said.
She emphasized that until PMRA issues a final decision and labels are updated, the current dicamba label remains legally binding. “Going forward, the business as usual — the existing label is the law,” she said. “We are going to use that dicamba the way we have always used that dicamba, because the existing labels right now are still the law, and they will be until that changes.”
Brown cautioned farmers not to expect a quick turnaround. “It’s going to take a while for PMRA to go through all that,” she said, referencing the expected volume of submissions from individuals, farm groups, and registrant companies.
Stewardship will decide whether dicamba survives
Both speakers repeatedly returned to the idea that dicamba’s future depends on more than regulatory timelines. It depends on performance in the field, specifically, avoiding off-target injury.
“I think it’s on all of us to be really, really good stewards of all the products that we’re spraying,” Brown said. “It’s really important that we are applying them properly and doing our best to keep those molecules so we can still use them.”
Brown’s message was blunt: dicamba will only remain viable if applicators can show they can prevent drift and volatility issues. “We have to be using dicamba properly,” she said. “We have to be good stewards of this product.”
She walked through key label stewardship points — nozzle selection, coarse droplet requirements, boom height, buffer zones, water volume, and strict tank mix restrictions. In particular, she warned against ammonium sulfate. “No ammonium sulfate. So no products with ammonium sulfate, no AMS,” she said, adding that ammonium sources can increase volatility risk and “negate” the product improvements meant to reduce off-target movement.
Dicamba’s role in Manitoba: kochia, waterhemp, and resistance pressure
Brown framed dicamba as a major tool in Manitoba’s fight against herbicide-resistant weeds, especially kochia and waterhemp.
“I’m always bringing it back to herbicide resistance weeds,” she said. “I think that’s the single biggest thing facing farmers right now.”
She listed the weeds she sees as the biggest threats: “wild oats, kochia, downy brome, waterhemp, and Palmer amaranth.”
Dicamba, she said, is particularly important in soybean programs targeting kochia and waterhemp. “Dicamba greatly affects kochia,” she said, adding that post-emergent dicamba is “crucial” for weeds like kochia, waterhemp, and Palmer amaranth.
The bigger issue: fewer modes of action, more dependence on contact herbicides
Brown also warned that if dicamba’s post-emergent role is reduced, farmers will lean harder on other tools — especially glufosinate (Liberty), a contact herbicide that requires near-perfect application.
“We are becoming heavily reliant on this active ingredient,” she said. “This is a contact herbicide, so coverage is crucial.”
In other words, dicamba isn’t being evaluated in a vacuum. It’s part of a broader trend: fewer available modes of action, more resistance, and a shrinking margin for error in herbicide programs.
What comes next
For now, growers are waiting.
Bajracharya said the next step is PMRA’s final special review decision, which will include “summary of comments received… PMRA’s response, and final regulatory decision,” along with an implementation timeline.
And even then, she warned, the story doesn’t end. Between cyclical re-evaluations, special reviews triggered internationally, and what PMRA describes as ongoing oversight, Bajracharya said the regulatory environment will continue to shift.
