News

As public concern mounts over the safety of common household products, the war against toxic chemicals has never been higher on the political agenda.

At the same time as the federal government announced earlier this month it intends to ban the controversial chemical bisphenol A from plastic baby bottles, Parliament passed a separate private member's bill restricting the use of perfluorooctane sulfonate, a substance commonly found in stain repellants, food packaging and upholstery. And a private member's bill to restrict the use of phthalates, a group of chemicals commonly found in toys and cosmetics, is making its way through Parliament.

Although these recent political efforts represent a small step toward limiting toxic exposure, they also highlight problems plaguing the regulation and restriction of toxic substances, according to environmental organizations and health experts.

Some experts are even worried that well-meaning politicians could actually undermine the goal of reducing public exposure to toxic chemicals.

"A lot of those intentions are really good but this is really unfocused," said Ray Copes, director of environmental health for the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control. "We run the risk of behaving in a very ad hoc manner ... I think that's not good public policy and probably not good public health either."

The government created a chemical management system in 2006 designed to prioritize reviews for potentially harmful chemicals and help speed up decisions on whether to ban or restrict them.

Focusing on a small number of chemicals, such as bisphenol A or those mentioned in private member's bills, could skew the government's focus away from assessing which substances pose the greatest risk, Dr. Copes said.

As a result, regulators run the risk of delaying action on other chemicals that may cause bigger problems, he said.

Although Dr. Copes said it's still too early to measure how well the new system works, he argues it's the best way to determine which chemicals represent the most pressing need for action. Its success will depend heavily on whether the government continues to invest funding and resources into it, he said.

But other environmental advocates argue the current system is too weak and slow at producing real results to effectively limit public exposure to known or suspected toxic chemicals. Which is why some politicians have taken action to target substances they or their constituents believe pose the greatest risk, said Aaron Freeman, policy director at Environmental Defence.

"We're stuck with having to deal with chemicals on a one-on-one basis," he said. "There are many other products, many other chemicals that we're still very worried about."

Industry resistance, lengthy consultations and extensive reviews of scientific evidence mean it can take years for a known or suspected toxic substance to be eliminated or restricted in Canada, said Mae Burrows, executive director of Toxic Free Canada, a Vancouver-based non-profit advocacy group.

Ms. Burrows believes the government should apply a better-safe-than-sorry approach to all potentially toxic substances.

"We have enough evidence to err on the side of caution, to ban a lot of chemicals that are on the chemical management list right now," Ms. Burrows said. "We should be practising reverse onus and restricting the use of those chemicals until the manufacturers can prove that they're safe."

Nathan Cullen, NDP environment critic, has tabled a private member's bill about to be introduced in the Senate to restrict the use of phthalates, which are used in toys to help make them soft and flexible, and in cosmetics to prolong the scent of perfume. Phthalates have been linked to liver and fertility problems in lab rats, according to the Canadian Cancer Society.

Mr. Cullen acknowledged that cherry-picking chemicals for government restrictions or bans is not the best approach. But he said the current system is too sluggish and will take years to eliminate some harsh chemicals from use here.

"You can't keep going after one or another [chemical]. More new ones are invented than the government can possibly look at," he said. "The government needs a better tool to assess across the board. The decisions to this point have been unbelievably slow."

That's why his bill includes a provision for the government to adopt the "precautionary principle" approach when assessing chemicals. Mr. Cullen said that would allow the government to quickly ban or restrict substances that are suspected of being dangerous, even if scientific evidence is not conclusive.

"This would enable [the government] to be a lot more shrewd and decisive about their analysis," he said.