CA versus US: MPs recommend monitoring Canadians for toxic contamination

[Guest guest]

Let us fondly remember how our government actively protects the right to

put patented toxins into the placenta, amniotic tissue, and breast milk of

humans - as well as into fetuses, infants and toddlers. For instance,

decree that the EPA shall close many of its libraries, allow more toxins

to be released without reporting (TRI evisceration), and purge senior

EPA-staff. Why is it Canada would act so differently? Doesn't the

Committee realize that intra-body toxins help " the economy " by inducing

the need for medications? Then again, injuring a child's neuronal networks

is far easier than fixing them.

- - - -

May 2nd, 2007

*MPs recommend monitoring Canadians for toxic contamination*

Canadian Press

http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=52420

OTTAWA (CP) - The Commons environment committee is calling for major

changes to the environmental protection act, and biomonitoring programs to

measure toxic chemicals in the bodies of Canadians.

In a rare unanimous report Wednesday, the all-party committee slammed the

lack of information about the toxicity of chemicals used in Canada and

Canadians' exposure to them.

" Nowhere is the information gap more evident than with respect to the

quantities and trends in body-burden of synthetic chemicals, " says the

report.

The committee also recommends a return to regular state-of-the-environment

reports which were introduced by former prime minister Mulroney but

subsequently abandoned.

Witnesses told the committee that Canada is unusual among developed

countries in lacking systematic biomonitoring programs to track

contaminant trends through the study of blood and urine samples.

Environmental Defence and Pollution Watch, non-government groups, recently

conducted small biomonitoring studies, one of which found that a number of

prominent politicians were carrying chemical cocktails in their veins.

Health Canada recently announced a one-time biomonitoring study of 5,000

people but the committee says that's not good enough.

" Studies such as this must be ongoing to establish trends in the

body-burden of Canadians. "

The committee's report, based on months of hearings involving 70

witnesses, makes 31 recommendations to strengthen the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act, a complex federal bill which is intended to

regulate toxic chemicals.

When the act was introduced in the late 1980s it was hailed as

world-leading legislation, but critics say it has proven largely

ineffective.

For example, the bill requires the virtual elimination of proven toxic

chemicals. But in its history, only one chemical has been designated for

elimination, and that product was no longer being used anyway.

Similarly, the bill provides heavy maximum penalties for polluters,

including jail terms, but those have never been applied.

Critics say the act has been hobbled by the scientific difficulty of

screening tens of thousands of chemicals and proving toxicity beyond

doubt.

The committee proposes that the onus be shifted to manufacturers to prove

the products are safe.

The law should state " that industry has the responsibility of

demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the minister, that the risks of new

and existing substances of concern are acceptable. "

Freeman, policy director at Environmental Defence, welcomed the

proposed revisions, saying he hopes they will be implemented by the

government.

" It's encouraging to see such multipartisan support for strengthening

Canada's national pollution law, " he said.

In a development that would have been startling a year ago, Conservatives

on the committee supported inclusion of greenhouse gases as " toxic

substances " listed under the act. When they were in opposition they

fiercely opposed that move.

Other recommended changes would make it easier for citizens to legally

challenge the marketing and use of toxic chemicals, even before there is

evidence of damage to health or the environment. Those who make a

complaint that is upheld by the courts would be entitled a share of the

fine imposed on the polluter.

At a news conference, Chairman Bob Mills and members of all parties

praised the collegiality of the committee, which overcame partisan

differences to produce a unanimous report.

*

The material in this post is distributed without

profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving the included information for research

and educational purposes.For more information go to:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

http://oregon.uoregon.edu/~csundt/documents.htm

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this

email for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you

must obtain permission from the copyright owner.