Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today.
I would like to begin my remarks with some of the impartial findings of the International Joint Commission, the IJC. Many of you know the IJC was created under the Boundary Waters Treaty and they hold the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as a standing reference.
The binational treaty organization is responsible for oversight of government progress in restoring and maintaining the integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem. To address toxic threats, they articulated a new approach that the governments of Canada and the United States committed to when they signed the revised agreement.
The IJC's position is that given the inherent complexities and limitations of evaluating chemicals in isolation from each other, in addition to the scientific uncertainties proving causal relationships between specific chemicals and corresponding health effects, society should eliminate the production and release of chemicals that can not be safely regulated.
The IJC identified a class of chemicals, called “persistent toxic substances”, that cannot be safely regulated. These chemicals include those that cause death, disease, behavioural abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation, physiological or reproductive malfunctions, or physical deformities in an organism or its offspring. Please note that cancer is not the only end point that the commission was discussing; there are many other end points. It's also worth remembering that cancer is an end point that can take decades to emerge, and its etiology--its cause--can be even much longer to determine.
Article II, to which Canada committed with the United States, says in part that it is the policy of the parties that
the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts be prohibited, and the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substances be virtually eliminated.
In fact, in this entire annex that Canada committed to signing when they signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement--annex 12, on persistent toxic substances--the general principle, the intent, of the program specific to this annex is to virtually eliminate the inputs of persistent toxic substances in order to protect human health and the continued health and productivity of aquatic living resources.
The list of chemicals also includes those that bioaccumulate--that become more concentrated as they work up the food chain--and chemicals that are persistent. “Persistent” is defined as a half-life greater than eight weeks in water, soil, or living things. If a chemical falls within these classifications, the IJC says it should be eliminated. The approach does not require exhaustive causal proof of harm; rather, decisions are based on a weight of evidence. When there is reasonable documentation that certain chemicals are linked to certain effects, this evidence is sufficient to trigger preventative measures to eliminate the toxic sources. For example, since many chlorinated chemicals studied to date exhibit one or many of these characteristics, the IJC recommended, in its 1992 biennial report, that these chemicals be eliminated from the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Let's turn to government, then. Governments typically regulate chemical releases in order to reduce the occupational, environmental, and public health threats of toxic chemicals. They do this assuming that there are acceptable levels of emissions. End-of-pipe control technology is now at odds with the more sustainable green chemistry that invests in innovative, clean production technologies that eliminate the use of toxic or unnecessary chemicals in the first place.
Further, typical government standard-setting and regulatory approaches to date have been based on risk assessment that evaluates chemicals in isolation from each other to determine the relative risk they pose to environment and health. This approach has allowed the continued production and use of thousands of chemicals, despite their potentially destructive impacts. We've heard approximately 70,000 to 85,000 different chemicals are now in commercial use; most have not been screened to learn whether they cause cancer or have any other effects on the nervous system, immune system, endocrine system, or reproductive system.
Based on quantitative structure activity relationships, which is the relationship between the structure of a chemical and its pharmacological action, one could predict that one chemical will act like another class of chemicals if they look similar in structure. For example, one would predict that the polybrominated diphenyl ethers would have properties very similar to those of PCBs. In fact, they're both highly stable at high temperatures. We understand the toxicity threats posed by PCBs and take measures to stop PCB production, so when the use of QSAR principles shows the likelihood they will behave like PCBs is high, why would we have to prove PBDE toxicity?
In my submission, which is more detailed, I actually present to you the structures of PCBs and PBDEs, and you'll see that they look very much alike.
So what's the European Union doing? Let's look elsewhere for some guidance.
The proposal on the new EU regulatory framework for the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals, REACH, which some of you have heard of, was adopted in 2003. And I'll quote:
REACH aims to improve the protection of human health and the environment while maintaining the competitiveness and enhancing the innovative capability of the EU chemicals industry. A preventive and precautionary approach seeks to shift the burden of proof onto the chemical manufacturers to prove that a chemical is not hazardous to human health or the environment before it is introduced to commercial use, rather than wait for massive injury before any protective action is taken.
I want to come down to some terminology.
There's a lot of research and debate about the ability of certain chemical compounds to cause endocrine disruption at critical stages of fetal and childhood development. This kind of disruption fundamentally challenges the current policy assumptions that there is a safe threshold for exposure to toxic chemicals. It also challenges the regulatory paradigm of the last quarter of a century, which has evaluated chemicals on their ability to cause cancer. I frankly think we've learned a bit more since the sixteenth century about chemicals--the dose causes the disease.
Here's the precautionary principle, as defined right within CEPA, an internationally recognized principle for action that states:
where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation;
Let's contrast this with sound science. Wikipedia offers the following definition of “sound science”, and I quote:
Sound science is a phrase often used by corporate business and industry public relations and by government agencies to describe the scientific research that is used to justify their political claims or positions, or to vilify research threatening their interests hence safeguarding their revenue. Sound science, however, has no specific scientific definition itself, so the phrase is used subjectively.
Wikipedia offers the following definition of “junk science”, which I rather like: “Junk science is a term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are driven by political, financial or other questionable motives.”
And then there's the really interesting phrase “scientific certainty”. I'm a scientist and I've never, ever encountered scientific certainty. So scientists could define “scientific certainty” as “being 95% sure that cause and effect have been correctly identified.” It is exceedingly rare for a large group of scientists to be 95% certain about anything, especially about anything as complex as environmental problems. When you're talking about living systems, great scientific uncertainty is the norm.
How is scientific uncertainty currently treated in environmental protection? Well, let's look at the classic case.
The classic case is the introduction of tetraethyl lead into gasoline. When chemical and automobile corporations announced that they were starting to put highly toxic tetraethyl lead into gas in 1922, numerous public health officials thought it was a bad idea and they urged delay and careful studies. The corporations argued that there was no scientific agreement about the threat, and in the absence of convincing evidence of widespread harm, which was impossible because they hadn't even taken the action yet, they insisted that they had the right to proceed. The consequences of that decision are now a matter of record: tens of millions of Canadians and Americans suffered brain damage, their IQs permanently diminished by exposure to lead dust.
Finally, I'd like to conclude with the Canada-Ontario agreement and come back to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, COA, is a federal-provincial agreement aimed at enhancing and protecting Great Lakes basin ecosystems. The agreement outlines how the two governments will cooperate and coordinate their efforts. The most recent COA was signed in 2002. It expires in 2007. The agreement fundamentally has been helping Canada meet some of its commitments under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The COA has an annex called harmful pollutants. Under the goals of the harmful pollutants annex are to virtually eliminate or reduce harmful pollutants in the Great Lakes. Of the ten expected results under the annex, six are focused on reductions of prioritized chemicals.
Let me note some of the principles in the 2002 COA--and these are included in more detail in my submission--I'll just name a few: adaptive management, openness, continuous learning, progress, improvement, pollution reduction, the precautionary principle, prevention, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability.
As we examine and currently witness the government's review of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement that's under way right now, it will become increasingly important to examine the current science policy and the emerging concepts in ecosystem protection and the protection of human health. The CEPA review is highly relevant to this review. It could set Canada's tone for addressing chemical insults for which the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement contains many federal commitments.
Finally, most risk assessment and risk management methodologies consider that the greater the persistence of the chemical, the greater the potential risk to the ecosystem. I'd like for CEPA to consider that some pollutants arise from substances that are in use on a continual basis, high-production chemicals, chemicals that are in personal care products, pharmaceuticals that have value to society but are constantly introduced into the environment, and of which, for all intents and purposes, the supply is continuously replenished. Therefore, even substances that don't have long half-lives in the environment should be subject to scrutiny through CEPA.
To conclude, I recommend the precautionary principle of CEPA be not only upheld but applied vigorously to protect the most sensitive use; that debates that centre around sound science be excused as immaterial; and that scientific certainty is recognized to be a myth--as no such thing exists. I'm not arguing that toxic substances can derive from natural or man-made sources, there are toxic substances that are in use that the precautionary principle of CEPA needs to look at extremely carefully.
Thank you.