Environment committee  I think both approaches have applications in the right context. A lot of the decision criteria that I would point to will depend on the risk context. Are we talking about an environmental contaminant? Are we talking about a life-saving drug? Are we talking about an emerging patho

Environment committee  Yes. We can test many more different contexts with the new technologies and get more information on different population subgroups.

Environment committee  I don't have the test results of the LD50 for CO2, but I think we're a long way from toxicity of CO2 at ambient concentrations. If it were hydrogen sulfide, that would be another story: if you go from 1 ppm to 5 ppm, you've gone from safe to dead in a short space of time.

Environment committee  If you drop one oxygen from that molecule and make it carbon monoxide, we have epidemiologic data that show that with ambient concentrations there are some demonstrable adverse health effects in the general population.

Environment committee  I'm not concerned about the toxicity of carbon dioxide, at this point, in ambient concentrations.

Environment committee  Are you thinking that if an OECD country takes action, then we should immediately take some action, at least on an interim basis?

Environment committee  I'm not sure I would slavishly follow a decision taken by another regulatory jurisdiction in another country, because they may have different principles by which they develop and enforce environmental regulation. I think we're pretty sophisticated about the way we do it in Canada

Environment committee  It's my hope that as we move forward we'll gravitate towards a common set of principles of risk assessment and risk decision-making. This is in the interest of globalization. It's in the interest of avoiding non-tariff trade barriers. I think we're still some distance from that y

Environment committee  My simple comment would be that they're different. I'm quite familiar with the European system, because we spend a lot of time in Europe. We've actually done REACH submissions for European proponents. We spend a lot of time in the United States working with EPA on their more risk

Environment committee  We've been consulted on science and how to use it, but not about CEPA.

Environment committee  I think the Canadian government is very aware of the new science. They're looking at it and starting to use certain parts of the complete tool box that we've offered the world. In fact, I think Health Canada in particular has been very proactive because they're currently involved

Environment committee  I like the question. I want to make a couple of quick points. One is what the scope of CEPA is whether we're talking about environmental tobacco smoke or active smoking. Certainly, active smoking is the predominant cause of lung cancer, responsible for some 90% of all lung cance

Environment committee  It's available now. We had some discussions with colleagues at Health Canada about the possibility of applying on a large scale some of these new technologies to the domestic substances list. The technology is there now. It would cost something to run a large number of environm

Environment committee  The report on Tox21?

Environment committee  I can send you lots of material, some shorter, some longer. I'd be pleased to send in several things on that, but I do have one point—