March 2005

Paul Webster (“Everyday Poisons,” December/January) clearly demonstrates the variety of “forces” that come into play when a federal government department considers taking regulatory action, for political (or economic) reasons, or because the science demands it. The comments attributed to Mr. David Anderson, the former federal environment minister, strike me as ironic and duplicitous. For example, Mr. Anderson indicates that he would have been quick to support the scientists at Environment Canada regarding their recommendations about penta- and octa-polybrominated diphenyl ethers (pbdes) if he were still the minister. Is Mr. Anderson implying that pbdes are the only chemical to date—out of the backlogged 23,000 chemicals being reviewed between 2001 and 2006—that may lead to some type of regulatory action? The laws of probability would have me think otherwise.

The former minister also mentions that the government has excellent scientists and labs that “will do the work that others won’t.” However, I believe Mr. Anderson sat at the Cabinet table while government scientists were laid off, and government laboratories were shut down in the late nineties. Either Mr. Anderson has forgotten about that, or he is a “born-again” supporter of government science.
Bruce Webster
Richmond, Ontario

I would like to congratulate Paul Webster for his well-balanced presentation of a topic which is only belatedly receiving recognition in the press. I was struck by the statement that “contamination levels across the continent are doubling every five years.” If one goes to the Web site mentioned by Mr. Webster, there are two articles by Health Canada researchers that clearly indicate contamination levels of pbdes are increasing dramatically across the continent, and that levels of pbdes in breast milk and fetal tissue are mirroring this increase. What will it take for the government to act? The scientific support to take regulatory action against pbdes is adequate, but has taken a back seat to political considerations, which is unfortunate for Canadians.
Diane Cloutier
Ottawa, Ontario

Paul Webster’s article is a story we’ve heard before, and will likely hear again, about weak chemical regulations in Canada, and the risks they pose to our health. The Hazardous Products Act only applies if there is a specific regulation for a specific product, which is why there are limits on the amount of lead in paint, but Canadian discount stores can legally sell jewelry that is nearly all lead. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (cepa) is no help because it does not effectively address the presence of chemicals in consumer products. Products may leach substances already declared toxic under cepa, but the act cannot prevent them from polluting our homes and building up in our bodies.

There are better regulations of newer substances, but they are still far from adequate. Moreover, the information submitted on new chemicals, and the basis for any legislative action, is hidden from the public.

With a review of cepa coming soon, health and environmental advocates hope the government will strengthen the act, thus preventing the likelihood of another flame retardant blunder. An act that applies to substances in consumer products, and requires thorough and transparent evaluations of new chemicals, would be a huge improvement. A government truly willing to get serious about chemical contamination would be even better.
Dr. Kapil Khatter
President, Canadian Association of
Physicians for the Environment
Toronto, Ontario