The whole issue around cosmetics and consumer products really gets to the heart of the multiple discussions we've been having around CEPA with regard to the chemicals management plan and the virtual elimination of toxic chemicals, these bioaccumulative chemicals. One of the key aspects of that is this whole notion we have today that everything is based on risk-based analysis rather than hazard-based analysis.
I couldn't agree more that as a government we can't afford to test every single product out there that comes onto the market, but if we took a hazard-based approach, then we would put it on the industry to do that, whether it was the chemical industry that is creating these chemicals that the consumer products companies are then utilizing or the consumer products companies did it themselves or ensured that it was being done.
The federal government's duty includes protection of the environment and human health through the application of the precautionary principle. Ms. Gelfand once again is highlighting that this is not being done today. From a Health Canada standpoint, what tools do you need to ensure that we are following the precautionary principle?
I'll use the example of 1,4-dioxane. This is a chemical that exists in cosmetics and that has been shown to be a toxic carcinogen. Not only is it on the consumer products side but these products also end up in landfills and contaminate surrounding water that ends up contaminating residential wells.
Many people have heard me talk about this many times, but I've spent the last 20 years fighting the expansion of a landfill, because the old landfill was leaking 1,4-dioxane into the environment. There's no drinking water standard for 1,4-dioxane, and therefore, the company has no need to report that this is actually contaminating people's wells.
What tools do you need to make sure this kind of stuff doesn't happen and so that we can virtually eliminate these chemicals not just from drinking water but also from consumer products?