Back to In the News

March 13, 2006

Cabinet to be pushed on regulating ban on carcinogens

Simon Doyle

The Hill Times

Rising cancer statistics have critics questioning whether the government's regulations on toxic chemicals are doing enough to prevent cancer. Critics say it's not.

As government departments and agencies review and work towards more disclosure about toxic chemicals and carcinogens in consumer products, critics are pressuring the new Conservative government to ban or phase out some chemicals altogether.

Cancer rates are rising sharply and critics blame in part a number of carcinogens in the environment that people accumulate unknowingly. A carcinogen is a recognized cancer-causing agent, however, there are many suspected carcinogens whose links to cancer are not proven.

The Canadian Cancer Society says that 50 per cent of cancers are preventable. Although most preventable cancers can be attributed to smoking, people can unknowingly accumulate carcinogens in their bodies through inhalation, ingestion or skin contact. They can be found in pesticides and weed killers, household cleaners and detergents, personal care products, fruit with traces of pesticides, beef with growth hormones, composite wood products and plastics.

In the 1970s, one in five Canadians could expect to develop cancer in their lifetimes, according to Health Canada cancer statistics. Today, the chance for men is one in 2.4 and for women one in 2.7, and the rate is predicted to rise.

To reduce the risk of cancer, the Cancer Society recommends a number of health choices, such as not smoking, getting exercise, and avoiding cancer-causing substances. But rising cancer statistics have critics questioning whether the Canadian government's regulations on toxic chemicals are doing enough to prevent cancer.

The environment does not fall under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) five priority issues for this Parliament, but NDP MP Nathan Cullen ( Skeena-Bulkley Valley, BC), who sat on the Commons Environment Committee in the last Parliament, said the opposition parties have an opportunity to take up the issue.

"There's more than five things going on in the country," Mr. Cullen said in an interview last week. "Most estimates are pointing to one out of two children being born today will at some point have cancer in their lives. Now, it seems to me that something's happening because the rates are just escalating through the roof. And while care and treatment are important, why not try and prevent people from getting sick in the first place?"

Health Canada recently brought in new regulations that, starting in November 2006, will force ingredient labelling on cosmetic products. The department is also holding consultations on new regulations to label consumer products with carcinogens and bring Canada in line with European rules. Health Canada plans to finish the consultations this year and implement the new rules in 2008, Health Canada spokesman Paul Duchesne said.

During the 2006 election, the Conservatives also promised $260-million to go toward a national cancer strategy, the Canadian Cancer Society says, part of which will focus on cancer prevention. The society says that if the Conservatives deliver on their promise in the April Throne Speech, the strategy will prevent more than 1.2 million Canadians from developing cancer over the next 30 years.

Mr. Cullen said that better labelling of products is a good development but that they do not go far enough. Canada is an embarrassment compared to Scandinavian countries, he said, which are about 10 or 15 years ahead of Canada on the environment and health, and, he said, cancer-causing substances should be removed from consumer products.

"We will look back upon this in a number of years and just be astounded by the lunacy of it all," said Mr. Cullen.

There needs to be a debate in Parliament about health and the environment, Mr. Cullen added, and if there is a consensus on banning a number of substances, it could be done through Cabinet's regulatory powers. The Conservative government should also hold a time-limited consultation with key stakeholders to get moving on the issue, he said.

"You bring in the folks that know the issue, you bring in the industry representatives, and you make some immediate plans to give industry a deadline ... Be reasonable about it, but give them a year."

In November 2005, Environmental Defence, an environmental group in Toronto, released a study that tested a selection of 11 Canadians and found a large number of toxic chemicals, many of them carcinogens. The study tested for 88 chemicals with a 68 per cent success rate. They found 41 suspected carcinogens and 53 chemicals associated with reproductive disorders.

The Environmental Defence also found chemicals such as DDT, PCBs, mercury, lead and other harmful substances like stain repellents and flame retardants, which are linked to cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive disorders, respiratory illness and childhood development. Researchers still debate, however, over the degree to which certain toxins in the body result in cancer or other diseases.

Conservative MP Bob Mills (Red Deer, Alta.), who also sat on the Commons Environment Committee in the last Parliament as his party's environment critic and intends to again, said that after the Conservative government's five priorities are dealt with, he will push his Conservative leaders for heavier regulation of carcinogens and toxins.

"What I want to talk to [Environment Minister] Rona [Ambrose] about is, how can we push these items forward?" he said. Constituents have raised concerns about carcinogens in the environment, he said, adding that he hopes to see the Commons Environment Committee use its upcoming statutory review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to report recommendations to Parliament.

"The trick is to identify the problem before the person has cancer. The more carcinogens that are unidentified in our air, in our water in our food, the more serious that becomes," Mr. Mills said.

The Labour Environmental Alliance Society, a group of environmental activists in Vancouver that is consulting with Health Canada on product labelling, on March 6 released the latest edition of its CancerSmart Consumer Guide. The guide identifies known and suspected carcinogens in household cleaners, pesticides, personal care products and plastics. Over the last two decades, the guide says, manufacturing industries have introduced tens of thousands of new chemicals into Canadian homes, workplaces and the environment.

Criticism of the government's regulations comes on the heels of a CBC TV Marketplace report this month on a lack of cancer prevention in Canada. Wendy Mesley, who is recovering from breast cancer and who reported the story for her show Marketplace, had her blood tested for 60 heavy metals, pesticides and toxins to reveal that she was "full of carcinogens." These included recognized and suspected carcinogens such as PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, cadmium and Nickel.

The CBC report noted that, instead of focusing on cancer prevention, Canada's focus is "damage control" by treating cancer patients. Private companies find rewards in the multi-billion dollar industry of cancer treatment, but there is virtually no financial incentive in cancer prevention.

Pesticides are regulated nationally by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, a division of Health Canada. Products must be registered and undergo testing for adverse health effects. Recent amendments to the federal Pest Control Products Act are expected to force some pesticide ingredients off the market, and municipalities across Canada have restricted the use of pesticides locally.

Since 1995, the pest regulatory agency has required that all pesticides disclose active ingredients on product labels, but according to the Labour Environmental Society, the products are not required to list potential health risks of the chemicals.

Chris Krepski, a spokesman at the Labour Environmental Society, said product labels instruct consumers how to use the pesticides safely. "Label directions are based on our evaluations. If there's precautions to use, like gloves and a mask, you have to do that, otherwise you're putting your health at risk," Mr. Krepski said.

The regulatory agency is also reviewing the potential health risks of 401 active ingredients in products cleared for use prior to 1995. "We're re-evaluating a number of chemicals that have been on the market for some time now," Mr. Krepski said. "The goal of that is to make sure that these products continue to be acceptable for use based on the latest health and environmental standards, because science evolves over time."

Rick Smith, director of the Environmental Defence, an environmental group in Toronto, said the government's labelling initiatives are helpful, but it should start banning carcinogenic chemicals under the regulatory powers of CEPA, to catch up with progress in many U.S. states and the European Union.

"They could name the top 200 worst carcinogens, come up with a timeline, and come up with a percentage reduction target and just get moving today. That is the kind of simple and effective approach that we already see happening in a lot of U.S. states and throughout Europe," Mr. Smith said.

"The pollution debate is changing fundamentally, and it's being broken out of the little public policy pigeon hole it's been kept in for so many years. Increasingly pollution is not only an issue about protecting the environment, it's an issue about protecting people from disease and saving human life."

Two of the worst carcinogens that should be banned immediately, Smith said, are brominated flame retardants and the chemicals associated with Teflon.

Environment Minister Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove, Alta.) was not available for an interview, and Environment Canada referred questions to Health Canada spokeswoman Carolyn Sexauer, who said an unofficial temporary ban had been put on the two chemicals and they are under review with a number of other chemical agents.

News@hilltimes.com