Health Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Madame Maniet.

[Françoise Maniet]

I do not want to monopolize the discussion, but I can give you a few opinions on the matter. I would also like to add a few details regarding the previous question, namely the success of nanotechnologies.

To date, we have promised a lot of benefits to consumers. True, when it comes to environmental protection, the fight against climate change, medical care and health care, nanotechnologies are very promising. They are presented to consumers as an asset providing a multitude of benefits, but for the time being, they have not revolutionized very much. An umbrella that does not get wet or nanotechnology underwear or socks that do not smell do not a revolution make. We must ask ourselves the following question: do the risks make them worthwhile, given the tiny benefit they represent, for the time being? I would simply like to share this thought with you.

As for the member's questions, if we consider the number of products currently on the market, we can observe that cosmetics are truly the products containing the most significant number of nanoparticles. Out of all of the consumer products on the market, cosmetics contain the highest percentage of nanoparticles. The United States is preparing an inventory on the number of particles contained in consumer products. Clearly, as far as this issue is concerned, cosmetics exceed all of the other products. If there is one sector where we need to start regulating, it is definitely cosmetics. Moreover, that is why the European Union recently adopted regulations.

As for requirements in the future, we first of all have to know which nanoparticles are contained in given products. We cannot adopt or enforce regulations if we do not know which products contain them. However, at present, we have absolutely no idea, and at times, the companies themselves do not know which nanoparticles are contained in certain consumer products.

In my opinion, the first thing that we need to do is to establish a mandatory notification system whereby producers would be compelled to inform governments that they were using nanotechnologies. The European Union will have such a system for cosmetics. An attempt was made to implement such a system in Great Britain, but this was a voluntary system. It did not work. It was eliminated after two years because few producers complied and informed the administration. In Canada, an announcement was made that such a system was going to be established. I hope that this continues.

The workers are the first to be exposed. Mr. Ostiguy is perhaps in a better position to answer this question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

We have one last questioner, Dr. Bennett.

Dr. Ostiguy, is that an answer to the question around regulation?

[Claude Ostiguy]

No. I could have discussed issues pertaining to the work place.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

I think we'll go to our final question and then we will adjourn the meeting, and if there are some conversations to answer some of the other questions on the list, then of course that will be appropriate.

Dr. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Yes.

Firstly, I wanted to apologize for being late. I think some of you know it was the tenth anniversary of CIHR this morning, the breakfast, and some of us who were there at the birth were supposed to be there at the birthday party. So my apologies.

What happened on the way in to the breakfast was that I ran into Liz Dowdeswell, from the Council of Canadian Academies, and it seems that they have just done a review of nanotechnology in terms of pros and cons. So I would first ask the clerk and the analyst to circulate that report to the committee, because I think it might be very helpful to us, and then I think it would be interesting to know if the witnesses had seen it and whether they had further comments on whether you felt it was taking Canada in the right direction.

Then just following up on my colleague's question, in terms of the role of government or regulation, are there countries that seem to have gotten this right? Dr. Maniet commented on the U.K., but I was just wondering what you see the role of government to be as we go forward, in view of regulation and what we should be doing.

[Dr. Mihail Roco]

To make a comment about the international situation, for nano-particles there is a consensus that there is no need for new regulations, it's only new science. This is agreed on in Europe, in the U.S., in Japan, in China.

The main concern, however, is that the new generation of nano-products will be less safe--for instance, the cell generation of artificial organs or nano-robotics on surfaces. They have aspects that are not yet well defined and have a high level of uncertainty, and therefore will require probably some regulations, but at this moment the focus is unfortunately only on the past. Most of the regulations around the world deal with nano-particles, which are the first generation of nanotechnology products, and they are less dangerous as compared to others.

So I think we have to prepare for the future.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thank you.

Dr. Petersen.

[Dr. Nils Petersen]

The report you refer to, Dr. Bennett, is indeed a thoughtful piece, and I think it is one that is good for people to reflect on. One of the workers at our institute was involved in creating it, and I believe it has some good elements to it that are specific for Canada as well.

I'm not aware of a government yet that has fully regulated these areas, so I don't know that there are best examples. I do know of some examples that seem not to work. They seem to create a lot of unintended consequences because they're very specifically referring to a scale regulation rather than a product regulation, and I think that's difficult.

Unfortunately, I think the European Union is moving towards that aspect of it as well, but that's still under discussion. I think one of the frameworks that are necessary is being managed by what's called Technical Committee 229 of the ISO, in which they are trying to start with a definition framework and a terminology framework and nomenclature, so people know what they're talking about, and that's almost a prerequisite for being able to do things well.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thank you.

Dr. Ostiguy.

[Claude Ostiguy]

I would like to make some comments about regulations, but more from the perspective of occupational health and safety. Several people here have mentioned the significant uncertainty surrounding the issue of toxicity. Indeed, as regards worker exposure in the work place, Mr. Petersen clearly stated that it is the Canadian workers who are potentially the most exposed to nanoparticles.

As for our knowledge on the exposure of these people, the degree of uncertainty is even greater in terms of toxicity. So I think that we really do need to adopt a precautionary approach in Canada. We have the scientific knowledge to design safe places of work. As regards occupational health and safety, if we wanted to change the regulations, it would probably be most important to require the labeling of all products containing nanoparticles. In this matter, companies that purchase such products and integrate them into their production line will know which nanoparticles they are dealing with, the dimensions of these nanoparticles, and will subsequently be able to implement occupational safety measures that will prevent, in the long term, Canadians from developing occupational diseases due to a lack of knowledge about the risks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thank you to all of our guests.

Oh, Monsieur Emond--a final comment from the guest panel.

[Claude Emond]

In my opinion, the development of nanoparticles is inevitable. Indeed, nanoparticles may do a great deal to improve certain technologies, maybe even enable us to come up with new technologies. Nevertheless, we must not forget that we developed flame retardants that were integrated into components that the public is exposed to on an everyday basis. We thought that these flame retardants were stable and they have been used inside residential buildings. Today, we are all being exposed to them and we are just starting to see certain toxic effects in people.

We must also remember that, in the case of many environmental components we are still working on—for instance, PCBs or organochlorine pesticides that were once used and have been banned for many years, 30 or 40 years—we are still able to measure them in the human organism. So these products are still creating disorders, disrupting the endocrine system, etc.

If we want to legislate for health reasons, I think that we need to market—that would be good—but also focus on health and invest in the right places. So a Canada-wide coordinating committee would be the solution.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

On behalf of the health committee, thank you very much for coming and for providing us with your experience and your thoughts. We appreciate that.

This meeting is adjourned. We'll recommence at nine o'clock with our next committee meeting.

Thanks.