The public role is to advance consideration of the chemical mixtures that we all experience, and that the environment experiences. CEPA takes the chemical-by-chemical approach to adjudicate according to set criteria. What CEPA isn't able to do and doesn't get a handle on is the totality, what is out there in total in the Canadian environment.
There is a mismatch here. You go, “You know what? We have done a great job on a chemical-by-chemical basis. We don't have hazard quotients above one on a chemical-by-chemical basis.” However, there is evidence out there to suggest that the totality of exposures could be causing adverse effects. These two pieces of information don't match.
What are we going to do? We have to have better consideration, then, of the totality of chemicals. Some would say cumulative risk assessment. I agree with my colleague, Mr. Khosla, who said that phthalates have now been bundled together to do a cumulative risk assessment for phthalates. That is a great first step. What it still doesn't get to is the totality of chemicals to which we are all exposed. Science is really struggling on this. We can get people to the moon, but this is really difficult.
What we can say is that, by putting provisions into CEPA to examine the totality of chemical emissions and effects, we demand that science move forward on this. When we put that into CEPA, we provide an impetus to work toward getting methods and answers.