Health committee  With respect to that last exchange, cumulative effects are different from chronic toxicity. Cumulative effects are the combined impact of many exposures, which we don't have the methods to determine. Chronic toxicity is the long-term health effect of one substance or a group of s

Health committee  Can I respond?

Health committee  On cumulative effects, as I said in my remarks to begin with, we barely have the techniques to evaluate the cumulative effects of similar groups of chemicals. We're starting to do that with some pesticides. We've done it to a certain extent with smog-forming air pollutants. We do

Health committee  I want to agree with what Lisa just said. I think we're asking a lot to say that this one law makes Californians healthier. Making that kind of linkage, a cause-and-effect kind of analysis like that, would be pretty tricky to do. I think we know that it's enormously popular in

Health committee  Could I respond to that?

Health committee  There is a danger of companies being in charge of the information supporting what they'd like to see happen. By the same token, there is a principle called “the polluter pays”. That's for emissions of pollution, but it's the same idea. When we regulate pesticides in Canada, the c

Health committee  I don't feel qualified to answer that question. I can talk about whether or not inspectors should notify companies in advance that they're coming--I think that's ridiculous. That came up in the testimony before. But I don't feel qualified to answer the question, because I am not

Health committee  Fair enough, except it's too simplified. For fire safety, lead is in electrical wires, and it's also a carcinogen and a reproductive toxin. That's why we're saying let us know, so we can wash our hands after we handle them. People are very surprised when I show them this label, b

Health committee  I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it related to notice of inspections in advance, or are you talking about seeking information for testing of products?

Health committee  I did not mean all flame retardants. I meant specifically the polybrominated diphenyl ethers, the PBDEs. We've declared all of them to be toxic. There's no way I would say get rid of fire safety for children's clothing. In fact the way fire safety for children's clothing is accom

Health committee  Lead is a good example. Lead is everywhere, and we can measure it down to very low levels. There are a lot of things you can't label as lead-free, but you can label when there has been an intentional addition of lead. First of all, there should be no intentional addition of lead,

Health committee  Sure.

Health committee  Yes. If a manufacturer has chosen to use lead, to stay with that example, and added it to make the colour happen or the fire resistance in the cords, or whatever, then yes, it should be labelled. Otherwise, if they haven't intentionally added it, then no, I don't think it needs t

Health committee  I think it would, yes. If you go back 20 years, when we still had leaded and unleaded gasoline, there was a regulatory level for the allowable level of lead in leaded gas. There was a regulatory level, a very low one, for the allowable level of lead in unleaded gas. It was a rec

Health committee  Are you talking about Bill C-52 last year?