Health Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, it doesn't. You see, we don't have a precautionary principle, really, either in government now or in this legislation. It's in the preamble, but that doesn't make it a precautionary principle.

I don't see the “do no harm” principle entrenched very far in this bill. In fact, all kinds of products with lead and phthalates and bisphenol A and others will still be allowed on the market and there won't be labelling. There won't be information to the public. There won't be any way for any of us to make informed decisions.

[Shannon Coombs]

With respect to the lead in toys, for example, the situation we were faced with a year ago was that there was lead in toys. I don't think, by having a labelling provision for lead, the companies that illegally used lead and put it in toys would label for it. I just think there's a disconnect there.

With respect to GHS and dealing with chronic hazards, I think GHS is something that will not target all the products that you want to target. GHS is going to be focused on dealing with products that are subject to CCCR, which is my products as well as paint, for example, but it won't deal with things like food or cosmetics or other products.

So if you're going to do a labelling approach and you want to change it from a risk communication approach and move into hazard, then you need to look at all the facts and provide meaningful information to consumers.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

As a mom, if you know that lead is bad if it's put in the mouth of a child, and you don't want your child to do that, and there's a product that's allowed on the market because the government hasn't banned all lead products....

They're not necessarily going to do it through it this bill. They're not banning all lead products. They came to the committee and said they were working separately on lead. They might have a separate formulation. They might have something down the road sometime.

So they might do something on lead, but there are other products. What do we do in the meantime? You as a mom want to prevent your kid from sucking on something with lead in it, and you can't even find that on the label. Wouldn't that be—

[Shannon Coombs]

I wouldn't expect it to be in the product.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

But it is.

[Shannon Coombs]

Then the government should take it off the market.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

We heard from the departmental witnesses that they've banned it in children's jewellery, but they haven't banned it in terms of other children's products that have lead in them. They haven't banned phthalates from all those plastic toys that cause serious developmental--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

I'm so sorry, but our time is up, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. I'll have to go to Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to put my first question to the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists. I thank you very much for your testimony today.

The government agrees with the objective of improving toy safety, particularly in the area of noise-emitting toys. As Dr. Schwarcz was saying, we are dealing with science here. I think we would all be interested in whether you could present evidence that Canadian children are sustaining permanent damage from noisy toys in this country. Do you have anything scientific that we could look at?

[Ondina Love]

That's a very good question. I can have Dr. Kealey respond to this a little bit more, but there is a lot of evidence to support noise-induced hearing loss, the noise damage caused by products that are too noisy.

There is very little or no research specific to toys, but there's a lot of scientific evidence saying that exposure to noise at certain decibel levels is dangerous and can cause noise-induced hearing loss.

Chantal.

[Dr. Chantal Kealey, Director of Audiology and Supportive Personnel, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists]

I'd just like to add that we are lacking a lot of research in Canada on this topic. Again, for years there have been many research studies done on noise, linking noise, obviously, with permanent hearing loss.

In the U.S. there have been recent studies to show that permanent hearing loss is on the rise among school-aged children, close to 12%, actually, of school-aged children. This is being linked to certain behaviours, such as the use of iPods and other MP3 players. We can only extrapolate that it's the noise factor that is the common denominator.

That's what's going on with the toys. These levels are just beyond what is necessary and beyond what is safe.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I think we would be interested in any of the science that you could bring forward. I have a 15-year-old who uses an iPod and I think part of its purpose is to play it really loud. Whatever you have, even international stuff, would be great.

I was also going to ask you if you are aware that Health Canada is currently working on a proposal to decrease the allowable limit of sound-emitting toys, based on recognized international standards. Were you aware of that?

[Ondina Love]

Yes.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay. That's great.

In my next series of questions, I think maybe I'd like to ask Ms. Coombs and Dr. Schwarcz about this labelling stuff. I like to eat healthy. I eat almonds and I eat apples, and I enjoy apples very much, but I'm a dad, too, and I think the key here is balance. I would like to get information from everyone.

Ms. Coombs, do you have any ideas on proposition 65 in the States, which I believe was brought up in the last session? If we did something like that, do you have any idea of how much it would cost industry? Do you know? Do you have any numbers for us?

[Shannon Coombs]

No. I don't have anything off the top of my head with respect to the costs. That law has been in place for about twenty years, from what I understand. However, I do know that in the last ten years a great deal of the focus has been on litigation with respect to food products and the cost to industry has been outstanding.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Are there other areas in the world, like Europe or Australia, that have done similar things and that could give us an idea of what the costs would be to members such as yours in regard to the labelling or anything along those lines?

[Shannon Coombs]

No.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Okay.

Dr. Schwarcz, do you have more comments? You had a really good opening presentation and we kind of had to cut you off. Would you be able to comment on proposition 65? Do you have any thoughts about that?

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

It's interesting that you bring that up, because I was just in California on a lecture tour and spoke at a number of schools and to public groups and got a real feel for what is going on down there.

Of course the warnings on proposition 65 are everywhere in California. You go fill up on gas, and of course there's a sign saying “known to the State of California” that gasoline vapours are carcinogenic. That's known only to the State of California; nobody else knows this.

The end result is that these things become invisible because the warnings are everywhere. When you cry wolf too often, nobody pays attention when the real wolf comes to the door. This is what is happening with proposition 65. Even in California they're making a joke of it, because you go into a supermarket and the labels are absolutely everywhere, saying that everything is “known to the State of California” to be carcinogenic. I see a real problem with that. When you make a warning, it has to be meaningful. It has to be meaningful, and not just because something in some dose did something in some animal.

The labelling problem is a real fly in the ointment. There's no question about that. We all, of course, want to have the best possible information. I'm certainly not against labelling. I think we need to have important stuff on that label. The difficulty is in deciding what should be on that label so that it really makes for a meaningful decision.

I don't have anything against a toy listing phthalates as an ingredient if it is known to be in there and it's a legal ingredient, which it is. Even in California, only six different phthalates have been banned. All the others are legal. Sure, put it on the label, and then let people look up what that really means. Yes, I agree with that.

The lead is a bit of a different issue, which you addressed, because lead is not put in there on purpose. Lead gets into toys in one of two ways. One is that it gets in illegally, when they're using lead-based paints, which you should not be using. The other thing is that lead is ubiquitous in the environment and it is virtually impossible to exclude it. It depends on what level you're going to investigate it at.

As I tell my colleagues, the analytical chemists, they're the root of all of our problems, because they're too good. Now they're down to parts per trillion. That's one second in 32,000 years. Or if you don't like that analogy, it's one drop of water in 1,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. We can find that. This is not finding a needle in a haystack; this is finding a needle in a world full of haystacks.

Now, the question is, what does that mean? Just because something is there doesn't mean that it's causing harm. The dose is very, very important, and there are doses below which the chemical does not do any harm.

The lead is a real problem because it's not supposed to be in there, so how can you label for something that should not be in there?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you very much, Mr. Schwarcz, for your insightful comments.

We now have to go into round two, with five minutes for questions and answers. We'll start with Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all of you for coming. We really appreciate your time, your efforts, and your expertise.

Dr. Schwarcz, I'm struggling with some of the testimony I'm hearing. I think what history teaches us is the precautionary principle. Many times in the past, I think we've learned “late lessons from early warnings”, and the examples I would provide would be asbestos, BSE, benzene, DDT, and PCBs.

You talk about concentration. I think of ozone. We used to think that 82 parts per billion was dangerous to the lungs. We know that damage occurs below that, even in healthy people.

So here's my first question. Certain chemicals that are suspected carcinogens have been found in consumer products sold by some of those members represented here. Some international health authorities have identified that there is no safe level of exposure. Do you think that these should remain in children's products or household items if there are safer alternatives?

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

You have to be more specific. Give me an example.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Well, you talked at length about different chemicals, so I'd like to hear from you. I was very specific when I talked about benzene and DDT.

[Dr. Joe Schwarcz]

Benzene is not put into any substance on purpose.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

In the past it was used for bicycle tires, and we know the damage that has done to bone marrow.