|
More hazardous-ingredient oversight the ultimate goal
Do you think that Canadians have the right to know what is in the products they buy? The beds that we sleep on, the cleaners that we scrub with, the toys our children play with?
In the past, people believed that the dosage was the poison, but more recent research indicates that timing -- at what point during development someone is exposed -- and the cumulative effects of repeated exposure, are critical.
Sean Griffin, research coordinator for Toxic Free Canada, says that "people assume products have been vetted, but in fact, there hasn't been that oversight."
IMAGINARY IMMUNITY
In 2006, MLA Gregor Robertson and his family took part in a nationwide study to test for level of toxins in their bodies. A well-known advocate for organic farming and long-time resident of B.C.'s coast, Robertson thought his family would, at most, be representative of baseline levels of toxins. However, much to Robertson's surprise, over 30 toxic substances, including carcinogens, hormone disruptors, and neurotoxins, were found in his children alone.
"We are poisoning a whole generation," says Robertson. "We have no idea of how we are impacting this upcoming generation."
 Len Laycock of Upholstery Arts, in describing the widespread use of chemicals in everything from furniture to personal care products, says "we have normalized what should be unthinkable."
"We have only known pesticides, colorants, and heavy metals dyes, and are unable to see what is actually going on."
THE LOW DOWN OVER THE LONG RUN
"Our whole system is based on the notion that there are safe exposure levels to carcinogens," says Burrows.
"That is why we allow low dosages of known toxins, such as formaldehyde and methylene chloride, which is found in paint strippers, in cleaning and personal care products."
In the past, people believed that the dosage was the poison, but more recent research indicates that timing -- at what point during development someone is exposed -- and the cumulative effects of repeated exposure, are critical.
A study published in PloS Genetics in 2007, found that even remarkably low levels of exposure in the womb to bisphenol-A, a substance used in many plastics, including -- until recently -- baby bottles, could potentially "cause chromosomal changes in the third generation."
"A lot of women are asking on our website 'how can I know what products contain bisphenol-A?'," says Griffin. "But there is no way for women to know what and how much exposure they are getting."
LEGISLATING LABELLING
A recent poll commissioned by Toxic Free Canada on the topic of right-to-know labelling, found that over 95 per cent of the 3,200 B.C. residents surveyed strongly supported the idea of hazard labelling for toxic ingredients in consumer products. Another four per cent somewhat supported the initiative.
"We want to see ingredients on product labels at the point of sale, as well as warning labels on those products that contain hazardous chemicals," says Burrows. "For example, putting a 'C' for carcinogen, or an 'ED' for endocrine disruptor."
"For example, putting a 'C' for carcinogen, or an 'ED' for endocrine disruptor."
Thus far, industry has been very resistant to implementing hazard-based labelling. Unlike the more commonly practised risk-based labelling -- it only requires labelling if the risk is determined to be above a certain amount -- a hazard-based system requires any toxins to be clearly identified.
According to Burrows, industry has argued that such labelling would be too confusing or may alarm consumers, and has insisted that if products are used properly, there is no problem. However, as Griffin points out, there are no exposure control systems and policies to safeguard consumers, as there are in workplace.
"There is simply no way to know how products are being used in the home," he says.
POLITICAL (DIS)CONNECTION
Last year, Robertson tabled a right-to-know labelling act, as well as a toxics reduction act, in the provincial legislature.
"We took the best of what's been implemented abroad -- Europe and the States -- and created legislation that would put B.C. at the head of the pack." Both bills were allowed to expire without discussion.
Last week, he tabled revised versions of the bills, but unfortunately, they were soon ruled out of order in the B.C. legislature and terminated.
In upcoming weeks, federal MP Peter Julian is expected to table a right-to-know bill that would require clear labelling on any product containing substances known by such bodies as the World Health Organization, the European Union, or Health Canada to be potentially toxic.
Says Robertson: "We can't handle these issues without legislation. Government has to take responsibility for regulating dangerous stuff."
Burrows says that "this is what the public wants. We are going to win this. It is their right to know."
NON-TOXIC RESOURCES
While eco-certification and labelling, such as that in the Canada's Environmental Choice program, can help consumers identify safer and better products, Griffin notes they are no replacement for hazard labelling.
Until consumers are given the information they need and should have easy access to, a good resource to consult is the hugely successful CancerSmart Consumer Guide, available at www.leas.ca.
Others include:
Household Products Database, www.householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov
|
