Health Committee on April 27th, 2010

[François Therrien]

Thank you.

Sunday, on Radio-Canada, Dan Krewski—who many consider the leading scientific expert on the effects of microwaves on human health—was taking questions about the effects on children. As usual, he said that more research was needed. We needed to probe further. He could not make a determination based on the current studies.

He then mentioned the MOBI-KIDS study, which was undertaken by the same people who were behind the Interphone study. The study began in 2008, I believe. According to him, once the results of that study are in, it will be possible to determine whether microwaves are dangerous or not. The MOBI-KIDS study was funded the same way as the Interphone study. It was wholly funded by the people at the CWTA and the GSMA. In our view, that is a way of keeping the debate at the scientific level.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien.

We will now go to Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would also like to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

As Ms. Murray said, there are indeed a number of studies with seemingly conflicting results. My question is for Ms. Pieterson.

When a new study comes out, what kind of analysis does Health Canada do? You said that no conclusive scientific evidence exists right now to show that current levels are not appropriate. Could you clearly describe how Health Canada goes about analyzing the various studies that have been done?

[Beth Pieterson]

I think there are many scientific publications. For Health Canada, it has to be peer-reviewed, first of all. That means it has undergone the scrutiny of scientists who are experts in that field, so it has to be in a peer-reviewed journal.

One study doesn't make conclusive evidence. We use an expression in Health Canada, “the weight of evidence”, which is looking at all of the studies out there. Is something reproduceable? Has it been reproduced in another lab? If one group of scientists does it, it's usually not considered conclusive until others can repeat it in different laboratories. Is the quality of the science there? There are different factors like that. It goes through scientific scrutiny.

Does that help?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

The various stages are not yet clear, but we can focus on one study, in particular. You said in your testimony that the BioInitiative report contained inconsistencies. Could you tell us what they are?

[Beth Pieterson]

We did. We studied the BioInitiative Report, and there were inconsistencies. When I said that, I meant that it contradicted itself within the report. In one chapter it said something, and in another chapter it contradicted what it said—I can't tell you those things—or it made references to different studies at different times.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Could you be more specific?

[Beth Pieterson]

I cannot give you the precise details at this point.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Could the committee get a copy of that?

[Beth Pieterson]

Yes, I can.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you.

At the beginning of your presentation, Ms. Pieterson, you said that the Department of Health was doing studies internally.

Has it done any on this topic, specifically?

[Beth Pieterson]

I understand.

I just didn't hear the last part of the question; I'm sorry.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

At the beginning of your presentation, you said that the Department of Health was doing studies internally.

Has it done any on this topic, specifically?

[Beth Pieterson]

I didn't specifically refer to the internal studies by Health Canada, but they're ones that looked at.... We'd look at thermal effects on tissue, and we're doing some genomic study to look at possible genetic effects of electromagnetic radiation.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

So Health Canada has never done any studies specifically on the health effects discussed in the BioInitiative report? Is that correct?

[Beth Pieterson]

I'm sorry, I don't have the translation on, and I don't understand exactly the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

We'll pause for a moment.

Could someone assist Ms. Pieterson?

The translation should be functioning now.

Monsieur Malo, would you please continue?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I am talking about the health effects mentioned in the BioInitiative report: leukemia, brain tumours, immune system disorders and breast cancer. That is what worries people the most, I would say.

Has Health Canada done any studies on those?

[Beth Pieterson]

No, we have not conducted those exact studies ourselves, but there's lots of available scientific literature that has been reviewed.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

I read that Health Canada had spent $500,000 on electromagnetic field research, assessment, investigation and monitoring since 2003. Could you tell us exactly where this money went?

[Beth Pieterson]

I can submit that to you. I don't know that off the top of my head. I'd be happy to submit in writing what our funds were spent on.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Parfait.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you. If you could submit that to the clerk, Ms. Pieterson, that would be very good.

You have another minute, Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

There seem to be differing interpretations on the precautionary principle, as well.

How do you explain the fact that people on both sides disagree on how to apply the precautionary principle?

[Beth Pieterson]

I think everyone applies it in a different way based on the need for it. It does apply, and there are many examples where we apply it. It's used where there's some evidence and the evidence is not conclusive, but based on the possibility of risk we will take the action.

If you want an example, I suppose you could use the example of the bisphenol A in baby bottles. It was banned recently by Health Canada using the precautionary principle. The evidence is not conclusive that it's harmful, actually, but because children could be potentially harmed the precautionary principle was taken. Other countries haven't used that evidence available and taken action; Health Canada did. That's one example. But in the case of electromagnetic energy and potential harms, we believe there's enough evidence and therefore we don't take the precautionary principle.

The examples in Europe, where neighbourhoods or communities have banned cell towers in schoolyards and things, that's the precautionary principle. Communities can do that based on the local politics and decisions they make there, but it's not based on scientific evidence.