Environment Committee on April 26th, 2007

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Soft rattles. What about all chewables, such as rubber duckies and such? Do we know whether there are phthalates in those? I'm just looking to see what assurances we know we have, if we're going to make a claim that this bill is not necessary because they're not in toys. Do we know this?

[Marion Axmith]

As I said before, they are not in teethers and soft rattles, things intended to be put into the mouths of children.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

So things intended—

[Marion Axmith]

Health Canada—and you would have to ask them for the studies—have been pulling these products off the shelves since 1998 and testing them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, it's ironic, only because when we had government officials here and asked them what veracity there was to make that claim—how often they are testing; how we know that imports aren't including these, the things in the dollar store.... We have no capacity to know this right now in Canada. So I caution you on making the claim.

I'm reminded, as I was walking here with my colleague today, that there's a great movie that I encourage witnesses and committee members to see, Thank You For Smoking. It's this wonderful diatribe and satirical movie about the ability to defend and make sure that things are framed.

The important thing for us to consider here is that I very much appreciate your passion in defending the interest you represent. I will remind committee members as we go through this process of the interests we are meant to represent, and that if there is a precaution out there.... The same argument that was used for so long, initially for smoking and then for second-hand smoking, about sound, scientific evidence just not being there, not being available, was used for decades to prevent action.

If we have substitutes available, which doctors in hospitals right now are saying are available for us to use, and if there is ample evidence showing that there should be some reason for caution over these products and these chemicals, it is beyond me to understand why we wouldn't take the cautious approach and ensure the greatest level of safety for Canadians. It's beyond me.

I'm too far gone in this comment, and I know my time is up, Mr. Chair. I apologize for running over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Cullen. I think you have the same passion for this that I have for garbage.

Let's go on with Mr. Warawa, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Allen.

I found the questioning of Mr. Cullen interesting. I think it was a little over the top, though, when he was equating smoking with phthalates in medical bags. I haven't heard of any studies of rats being tested for smoking and the effects of nicotine.

The EU had an emergency ban in 1999 on phthalates. I want to follow up on some of the questioning of Mr. McGuinty. The members of this committee have heard testimony about the risk of phthalates, and have also heard about it in the bill from Mr. Cullen. What do you believe is motivating the environmental NGOs to encourage the passage of this bill? And what do you believe caused the EU to have an emergency ban back in 1999?

[Marian Stanley]

It started in 1998.

We know that any plasticizer from a vinyl will migrate. There was a program to determine the migration of phthalates from vinyl toys and the level of that migration. In conjunction with that, there was a debate on test methods and a debate on the level that should be allowable.

As with many scientific studies, there were several competing methods. There was a chew and spit method; there was a head-over-heels extraction method, etc.; there were many methods. People couldn't come to a conclusion on how to determine migration limits, so the scientific committee in the EU at the time said they didn't believe there was a risk in phthalates. However, because no agreement could be reached on a migration level, an emergency ban was put in place.

Now, I think a reasonable question is, why were those six phthalates chosen? Those six phthalates were chosen because they were, at that time, undergoing risk assessments and scientific reviews in the EU. There are about 13 phthalates in commerce.

That emergency ban, which is a three-month emergency ban, was renewed 21 times. After the 21st time, there was a determination made in the European Parliament to ban phthalates in toys for very young children.

Subsequent to that ban, the EU risk assessments were published. They were completed in 2003 and finally put into the Official Journal of the European Union in 2005, I believe—but we can verify those dates. At any rate, as we've said here, a couple of those phthalates aren't even used in toys—butyl benzyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate—but they were being studied and were caught up in that ban. DEHP is used more in child care products.

When the risk assessments were finalized and the science came out, the science said there wasn't a concern for risks to children, as the exposure wasn't high enough. At about the same time, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission was involved. They commissioned a chronic hazard advisory panel and did a five-year study—which was probably the most comprehensive study of vinyl toys, because they were petitioned to ban vinyl in toys for children of five and under. They determined that the exposures were so low there wasn't a risk to children. They looked at mouthing behaviour, how children put things in their mouths, and time spent by objects in their mouths. They pulled products off the shelves and tested them. They determined there was no reason for a ban. That was published in 2003. They reiterated in February 2007 that they stood by their conclusions.

I know I threw a little bit of the U.S. experience in there too, but all of that was happening concurrently.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have five children and four grandchildren. With my grandchildren, everything goes in their mouths—anything that's near them—particularly with the young ones.

Do you feel comfortable with your children or grandchildren sticking things in their mouths with the products we have manufactured in Canada? Are you comfortable with the phtalate levels in the regulations we have in place and the way CEPA manages this?

[Marian Stanley]

Well, I certainly can speak for the U.S. What the CPSC showed was that while children are constantly putting things into their mouths, when they have an array of items, they don't always go for the vinyl toy.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Correct.

[Marian Stanley]

So you're getting an array of things there. The study was done both with parents observing and professional observers. They determined that the amount of time vinyl toys actually went into mouths was very short, and because of that there wasn't a concern.

Would I have a concern giving my children toys in the U.S.? No. Would I have a concern bringing my child into Canada and buying a whole new array of toys made in Canada and giving my child those toys? No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Allen.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you for your comments.

There are a couple of things I want to pursue a little bit. It's interesting that when we go through this bill next week to decide what we're going to do with it, the evidence that's been given on both sides of this issue is pretty tough to get your head around.

I'm going to go to page 4 of Ms. Stanley's presentation first--it's interesting that it happens on page 4 of both your presentations, Ms. Stanley's as well as Ms. Axmith's--where you use words like “but not those intended to be placed in the mouth”, and “banned by Bill C-307 and have generally found no significant risk”.

And then in Ms. Axmith's presentation it included, “DBP is not commonly used”, and then “soft plastic toys”.

To Mr. Warawa's point in terms of all these things ending up going in the mouth and everything else, I'm a little bit concerned that the words you're using here do not give me a great level of comfort that there is not an impact. Those words you're using just concern me.

When I'm looking at this bill next week, how can you allay my concerns that children are not going to be impacted by this?

[Marian Stanley]

We use those words because I can't give you an absolute. I haven't gone out and tested every single product on every single shelf, from every single reputable manufacturer, from every single importer.

We know from the Toy Industry Association, certainly in the U.S., that it's not common. These are U.S. manufacturers, large and small. But I can't give you a 100% unequivocal guarantee.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay.

Ms. Axmith, would you want to add anything to that before I ask my next question?

[Marion Axmith]

With regard to DBP and what is on slide 4, I can't think of a vinyl product where DBP is used.

With regard to DEHP, as we've mentioned, it's products that are inflatable, like beach balls, water wings, and that sort of thing, and raincoats, rain boots.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay. You've both taken me now to my next question. Thank you. It is with respect to the advantages and disadvantages or problems with substitutes.

Mr. Cullen brought up these 14 substitutes. And along his line of questioning when he talked about manufacturing, manufacturing in these chemicals causes cancer. I presume that if we use them in these other products they're a manufactured product and there is a chance that they could also cause cancer. Is that not true?

[Marian Stanley]

What you have with phthalates are remarkably well-characterized materials.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, for DEHP particularly, looked at all of the data. And the cancer that was caused was in rodents and in tumours, specifically liver tumours, by a mechanism that the International Agency for Research on Cancer determined wasn't relevant to humans. The metabolism of the rodent and the primate were so different that the cancer issue.... Actually, I think the U.S. is the only country in the world right now that actually hasn't changed its cancer classification for phthalates.

And I think you had another part to that.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

It was just around the substitutes and how—

[Marian Stanley]

The substitutes. When the Consumer Product Safety Commission did its very extensive study, it said to be very careful about using substitutes. They may not be as well studied and they may not perform as well. Products may be more brittle, and in toys may cause a choking hazard for children.

The way our regulatory system works is that for a test to be valid you've got to give a high enough dose to a rodent to cause an effect. Because of the expense and the ethics of testing, you don't test at 100 different doses. You have orders of magnitude between this. And Dr. Cammack can help me out here, because he's done the testing. You may test at 100 milligrams per kilogram, and then at 1,000 milligrams per kilogram. If you see no effects at 100 milligrams, but you do see effects at 1,000 milligrams, somewhere in there is the real effect level. It may be at 900 milligrams per kilogram.

So our regulatory system right now says that no effect is 100 milligrams per kilogram. We know there is no effect in a rodent now. We're now going to apply a safety factor to that for inter-species. We're going to apply another safety factor to that going from adults to children, and another safety factor may be applied. So you have a very precautionary regulatory system in place.

I don't know if Dr. Cammack wants to add to that.

[Jon Cammack]

The only thing I would add, and it's a follow-up to Mr. Cullen's comments, is in terms of the alternative materials question, absolutely those products exist. Our industry innovates new materials for new applications, but it's very focused on the functionality. No regulatory agency has indicated or enacted guidance that has forced us to move away from DEHP PVC, and as health care manufacturers of products in that setting, we have a very vested interest, unlike the tobacco industry, in ensuring the health of our patients.

So those alternative materials exist, alternative products. The reason is that's what we do. We evolve materials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

We'll go to Mr. Rota for five minutes, please.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today.

I'm looking at what we have and what I've heard in the past. There are a lot of conflicting reports on these items, and it just confuses things more than anything else. When we look at it, we see precautions for what are called sub-populations, but what I see are pregnant women and children. These are the ones we have to look at, some of our more precious commodities in society; it's our future.

So I get defensive when I hear that it's only one part of the population and it's not really dangerous, that if we give limited doses, it's not a problem, and that's what I'm hearing here.

When we look at children's toys or plastic nipples or bottles, what was the reason for eliminating them on those items? I haven't heard a clear answer on that one.

[Marion Axmith]

The reason for eliminating phthalate from those items back in 1998--and it was industry that stepped up and voluntarily withdrew phthalate out of teethers and soft rattles--was that it was done as a precautionary measure pending further research. That's a very important part of the statement: “pending further research”.

As Marian Stanley has outlined, further research has been done by the Consumer Product Safety Commission in the U.S. on those kinds of products and they have been deemed safe for continued use. The reason they're not back on the shelves here in Canada is Health Canada has not withdrawn the alert they issued in 1998. They have continued to take those products off the shelves and test them. And alternatives were readily available at that time, so there were products out there that consumers could use, and you know that in the marketplace products get displaced with other products. It happens in the plastics industry all the time. A better product comes along or a more economical product or a product that performs better, and that gets substituted in the marketplace. It's the way of business.