Environment committee  Yes, and—

Environment committee  So for certain health hazards that are presented by certain classes of compounds, I would suggest they need to be defined by what the precautionary principle means. It means that for those classes of compounds, we shall take the following actions: A, B, C, D. The debate is about

Environment committee  I'll be really quick here. We talked about carcinogens and genotoxics and reproductive toxins, and we would like to see those addressed in a similar fashion to how PBITs are being addressed.

Environment committee  When you read it, I think that is the intent. That would certainly be a layperson's understanding if he pulled out the act and read it on the Internet or something.

Environment committee  I'm sorry, I don't have a suggestion for wording right here to give to you. But one thing that I've certainly talked about this afternoon is that one could write that when one applies a precautionary principle to the following compounds or classes of compounds with the following

Environment committee  It's not a question of whether one treats it or not; it's how you treat it. What can you treat it with? Chlorine is one option. It has its problems, as you've just said. There are other filtration methods, advanced technologies, in use in the world today that are as effective and

Environment committee  That's one example, yes.

Environment committee  I'll just jump in really fast here. I would say, in response to the statement that CEPA is fine and that it doesn't need rewording but that we just need to use it, I wouldn't agree with that entirely. As a framework law, there is a lot you can do with it, but there are certain

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  Absolutely not. We'd be allowing smoking in all sorts of places--for example, in this room. I shouldn't say “sound science”; it's unsound science. It's like Alice in Wonderland, right?

Environment committee  Because those who argue that sound science means that we have to have absolute unequivocal evidence, with no contrary evidence, aren't scientists; they're politicians or lobbyists. I work with scientists every day. The people on our committee include, for example, Dr. Paul Demer

Environment committee  How critical is it? I think, as I said before, it's the basis of public policy in public and environmental health. If you don't address it and don't commit to it with respect to very significantly harmful toxins, I don't think you have a foundation at all. I'd say that you can't

Environment committee  May I answer? Thanks for the question. Yes, we should. As we said before, the precautionary principle is a form of risk management; it doesn't mean it only has one form--that you ban something. There are various responses you make within the context of precaution that can range

Environment committee  There are. In New York State, I believe they do that. I know that Americans have drinking water legislation where they are required every year. Many of these are private providers. My sister used to live in New York, so I would see her report. Every year you would get a report on

Environment committee  I think what's glaringly obvious in Canada, compared to other jurisdictions—the U.S. and Europe in particular, but also Asia, where Japan might be another example—is a complete lack of focus, in that there has not been a policy decision and a political decision taken to say that