We're in chemical overload: Toxic chemicals: Consumers are the lab rats

[Guest guest]

We're in chemical overload

Toxic chemicals: Consumers are the lab rats

Marsden

The Gazette

Friday, June 20, 2008

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=e4c6d71f-2a6f-4952-98c7-2486\

6f28aa67

Viviane Maraghi and son Aladin, 12, were tested for chemical

contaminants as part of a 2005 Environmental Defence study. The results

surprised them.

CREDIT: Phil Carpenter, The Gazette

Viviane Maraghi and son Aladin, 12, were tested for chemical

contaminants as part of a 2005 Environmental Defence study. The results

surprised them.

Viviane Maraghi expected the blood tests to show she would have some

chemical pollution in her body, but nothing like this.

After all, she viewed herself as " very environmentalist, " carefully

monitoring what she ate and and the household products and items she

purchased.

Nevertheless, lead, arsenic, mercury, PCBs, PBDEs (a flame retardant

banned in Europe and eight U.S. states but still in use in Canada), plus

an array of other chemicals that have been linked to cancer, birth

defects and neurological diseases were all well represented in her

bloodstream.

Her blood tested positive for 36 of 68 potentially toxic chemicals, many

of which never actually leave the body, but continue to accumulate over

time in tissues such as fat or bone.

They get there because they are in the air we breathe, the water we

drink, the food we eat and the products we use.

Over the last 50 years, from 70,000 to 100,000 different chemicals have

been introduced into the world's markets with about 1,500 new ones added

each year. They are found mostly in industrial processes and consumer

products such as cosmetics, cleaners, food, plastics and more recently

the circuit boards that run our computer electronics. Even a seemingly

innocuous polyvinyl chloride (PVC ) shower curtain contains up to 108

toxic chemicals - some of which have already been banned by some

countries, but not in Canada.

Manufacturers often argue that these chemicals have been used for

decades with no reported incidents of harm. But who has ever been able

to say: " I'm dying of cancer and it's the shower curtain's fault? "

Fact is, only sporadic toxicity studies have been done on the enormous

array of industrial chemicals used in Canada.

Only now are governments beginning to examine the dangers posed to human

health and ecosystems. Many western governments are initiating new

chemical controls as part of an international Strategic Approach to

International Chemical Management agreement signed in Dubai in 2006. The

agreement was sparked by the realization that nearly every square inch

of the planet is now contaminated to one degree or another with a

chemical pollutant. What's more, over the next 15 years, chemical

production is expected to climb 80 per cent. The main goal is to assure

that by 2020 everybody uses chemicals safely.

Leading the way is the European Union with a new program called REACH

(Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction

of Chemicals) that requires industry to prove the safety of their

chemicals and consumer products before they reach the market.

The next 10 years will see a vast number of chemical assessments, all of

which will be made public, that will shed light on the murky world of

chemical toxicity. It's a world that until now has remained hushed up or

simply ignored.

The ultimate result could be a sea change in how we develop products for

the consumer market. It could lead to widespread bans on some

substances, which might see many consumer products disappear from the

shelves or be replaced with safer equivalents.

It is an issue that is becoming increasingly important worldwide as

species disappear, health costs sore, and concern grows that many

diseases, particularly cancers and autoimmune diseases, might be the

result of chemical pollution.

Few tests have been performed on Canadians to pinpoint and quantify the

chemical pollutants accumulating in our bodies. But that is beginning to

change.

Health Canada is testing 5,000 Canadians for chemical contamination and

preliminary results should be available in November.

The tests done on Maraghi, 35, and her son Aladin, 12, in 2005 were part

of a research project called Toxic Nation undertaken by the

Toronto-based activist group Environmental Defence.

An attempt to wake up Canadians to the growing danger of chemical toxins

entering our bodies, the study tested 11 individual volunteers plus five

families.

Maraghi and her son took part, she said, because she was eager to help

raise Canadian's awareness of the dangers posed by the millions of

kilograms of chemicals emitted into the environment each year.

Each volunteer had high levels of many different chemical pollutants in

their bloodstreams.

Even Maraghi's son Aladin, who was only 10 when the tests were

performed, tested positive for 25 chemicals and had higher lead levels

than his mother.

Both had high levels of organophosphate insecticides, probably because

they spent three years living in the country, Maraghi said.

" It was surprising to us because we are very aware and a big part of

what we eat is organic, and we try to be careful with the types of

products we use in the house, " she said. " So my first reaction was,

'what happens with people that don't take care of that and are not aware?' "

To date, consumers have been unsuspecting lab rats for chemical

companies who have been allowed to market their products without

ensuring they won't damage human health or the environment. Bans have

been imposed only after the damage is done.

So far, preliminary studies in Europe and the United States strongly

indicate we all are contaminated.

A recent U.S. study found most of its subjects had rocket fuel chemicals

in their bodies as well as a host of other toxins like bisphenol A,

which gives the clear, pliable strength to plastic water bottles as well

as baby formula bottles. Health Canada tests reveal that it disrupts the

body's hormones and could be toxic even at low levels. Because the

government here is worried that bisphenol A migrates into baby formula,

Health Canada is considering a ban on its use in baby bottles.

Canada, however, is still far behind the EU in assessing chemicals.

The EU's REACH program officially began on June 1, when it required that

every company register chemicals sold in the EU, in bulk or in consumer

products. Companies must reveal the chemical composition and toxicity of

their consumer products and must finance their own toxicity studies. All

of this information will be entered into a public registry. Essentially,

until a company proves the safety of its product, it cannot be sold in

the EU.

The EU hopes the REACH program will motivate companies throughout the

world to produce safer products. Given the enormity of the EU market (it

has surpassed the U.S.), the motivation to conform will be considerable.

Canadian exports to the EU, for example, have increased 600 per cent

since 1998, totalling $4.7 billion last year. Only a small percentage of

our total chemical exports go to the EU (most go to the U.S.), but it is

not a market Canadians would want to lose.

While public health and a safe environment for all species are the

priorities of the REACH program, EU officials also note that the high

costs of cleaning up contaminated sites as well as fighting diseases

caused by chemical contamination are significant reasons to implement

the program.

The EU says the program will cost industry up to $8.2 billion over the

first 11 to 15 years. However, it estimates a reduction of .01 per cent

in the overall burden of disease would save about $80 billion over 30 years.

A wide array of studies indicate a significant proportion of disease is

directly related to environmental and occupational factors like chemical

contamination. The World Health Organization estimates that the poor,

particularly children and women, suffer disproportionately from diseases

that are related to environmental contamination. In developing

countries, up to 35 per cent of diseases are caused by contaminated

environments.

The figures could, however, be much higher for all societies. But

because few studies have examined this issue, nobody really knows. The

studies that have been done indicate serious problems.

For example, scientists at Université Laval have revealed that Inuit

children and their mothers in northern Quebec have high levels of

organochlorines such as PCBs and the extremely toxic chemical dioxin.

These chemicals can damage the immune system, especially as it develops

in the womb and during infancy. This might explain why Inuit children

have been found to have a much higher incidence of acute infections such

as ear and lung infections compared with people living in southern

Quebec. Most of the chemical pollution in the North has been brought

from the South by ocean currents that circle the Arctic. The

contaminants concentrate at the top of the food chain in predatory fish

and mammals, which are the main food source for the Inuit.

In some cases, studies show that Inuit children's immune systems have

been so badly damaged that doctors are hesitant to prescribe antibiotics

for fear they will worsen the infection.

Canada has started its own chemical assessment program. Unlike the EU

program, which demands that industry foot the bill for toxicity

assessments, the Canadian program is completely financed by the taxpayer.

" On the level of depth and breadth of coverage, the REACH program wins

on both accounts, " Margeson, Industry Canada's chemical specialist,

said.

Canada's umbrella law for the regulation of chemicals is the Canadian

Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

Under this law, which was passed in 1999, all new chemicals produced in

or imported into Canada since 1994 have to be assessed for health and

environmental effects by Health Canada.

However, companies can market a chemical before tests are completed.

Essentially, it is up to the government to prove the chemical is a risk

before it is taken off the market.

There is also no obligation for the government to keep a dangerous

chemical off the shelves. The law gives the government up to two years

after assessing a chemical to take action, but does not oblige it to ban

a dangerous chemical.

" These chemicals are in all kinds of different products and it's going

to be very interesting to see how much political will there is and

whether they have the guts to do things that are going to be disruptive

to the market, " Dr. Kapil Khatter, pollution policy advisor for

Environmental Defence, said. " It's hard not to bow to the social and

economic pressures. "

What's more, when the new CEPA was made law in 1999, it did not require

that companies supply toxicity reports for the 23,000 chemicals already

widely used Canada.

It did, however, obligate the government to sort the chemicals into

those that are inherently toxic to humans or to the environment.

The sorting process was finally completed in September 2006. The

government identified more than 4,000 chemicals, which it decided

required further study. Of these, it labelled 200 " high priority. " Of

these 200, 66 are potentially dangerous to human health and the rest

pose ecological dangers. All of them have remained on the market as the

government completes its assessment. The final test results for the

first 15 chemicals will be published July 5. But that is nowhere near

the end of the assessments.

Norman, acting director of the risk and impact assessment

branch of the program, said it will take two more years to complete the

testing on the 200 high-priority chemicals. Then there are another 2,600

chemicals from the petroleum sector that will have to be assessed;

another 1,400 are considered of medium priority. How long that will take

is not clear.

So far, Health Canada has identified 16 substances that pose a high risk

to humans and another 17 that are toxic to other species.

One of those substances is thiourea, which is used in metal finishing

solutions as well as silver polish, tarnish removers, metal cleaners and

in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and in the pulp and paper industry.

The federal government claims that in 2006, industry imported between

10,000 and 100,000 kilograms of thiourea. Norman said the government

knows the exact number but won't make it public because industry insists

it is a business secret.

Importation was permitted despite the fact that dozens of studies dating

back as early as 1947 showed that even at low doses rats and mice fed

thiourea developed a variety of cancerous tumours. It can enter the

human body orally, through inhalation or through skin contact.

The Chemical Substances Program published an assessment of thiourea on

May 8 stating that it could cause cancer " at any level of exposure. "

The report said thiourea should be considered a " substance that may be

entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under

conditions that constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human

life or health. "

But despite its potential danger to humans, the chemical is still widely

used in Canada.

Norman said the final assessment is still months away. She said two

years after the final assessment, Health Canada will publish a

risk-management assessment that will outline steps the government should

take to deal with the dangers. These could include an outright or

limited ban on its use, or simply a warning on packages.

The chemical bisphenol A is another example of the slow pace of

government action. Global production, now more than three billion

kilograms per year, is increasing. Bisphenol A has been found in high

concentrations in municipal and industrial wastewaters, sludge and

biosolids, which are often spread as fertilizer. As well as a danger to

humans, " bisphenol A is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and is

considered highly hazardous to the aquatic environment, " Health Canada

states in its assessment. Yet the government is only considering a ban

on its use in baby bottles, without considering its danger to wildlife

or the broader Canadian population.

Khatter said the government just wants to give the appearance of taking

action. " There is an intellectual gap between the people who wrote the

risk assessment and the minister's office, " he said. " The risk

assessment says this stuff is really toxic to aquatic wildlife at very

low levels and we have to do something about releases to the

environment, period, but all the government seems to do is ban it from

baby bottles. "

In March 2007, Health Canada began testing 5,000 Canadians for the

chemical pollution in their bodies. Tests are being done on blood,

urine, hair, saliva and breast milk.

The idea is to track chemical contamination levels in a broad spectrum

of the population and measure trends in exposure over time and by

geographical region.

Eventually, Health Canada hopes to be able to compare the medical

records with the level of chemical exposure to find a possible

relationship between the two.

Statistics Canada is compiling the data. Jeanine Bustros, director of

the project, said they have already completed about two thirds of the

testing including subjects in Montreal and the south shore communities.

Preliminary results for heavy metals like cadmium, lead and mercury are

scheduled to be made public in November. Final results for all 5,000

participants across Canada will be released January 2010, she said.

Each participant fills out a lengthy and detailed health and lifestyle

survey detailing such data as illnesses, daily routines, exercise

regiments, food consumption, job environment, beauty products, hobbies,

stress levels and products used in the home.

" This is the first time we will have normative data on the level of

chemicals in the Canadian population, " she said. " This means that we

will have a point of reference to compare, say, the levels of lead in a

person with the norm. "

Advances in the technology of detection are making it easier for

scientists to detect the present of even the smallest quantities of

chemical pollutants. We can now detect chemical levels in parts per

trillion.

" One part per trillion is one second in 32,000 years, " Dr. Joe Schwartz,

a chemist at McGill University's science and society department, noted.

" That you can detect things in that concentration is far better than

finding a needle in a haystack. It's like finding a needle in a world

full of haystacks. "

Our ability to measure data, however, has outstripped our ability to

interpret the data, he said. The ultimate goal has to be to find out

what, if any, detrimental health or environmental effects exist. With

many chemicals, this is still a black hole.

Most studies that detect potentially dangerous toxins are the result of

giving large doses to rats, but what kills a rat may not have any effect

on humans.

" The value of bio-monitoring is going to be long term, " Schwartz said.

" If we have a good baseline now, we get good data and then we check 10,

20 years down the road to see if there is any alteration in disease

patterns for those people and then you look back to see if there is any

link. "

So while Maraghi and her son Aladin may know the chemicals that are

polluting their bodies, finding out the impact is a wait-and-see game.

She said her son never gets sick. She on the other hand is plagued with

migraines.

" I have had them since I was young. But it's hard to relate it to anything. "

But just knowing about the chemical cocktail in her body is a good

thing. It's made her even more careful of what she buys.

" I lately brought a mattress for my son and since we were aware of the

products they can put in, like the products against fire, we asked for a

mattress without (fire retardants). Whereas before when I bought any of

this furniture, I would never ask this question because I was not aware. "

wmarsden@...

Visit Canada's Chemical Substance Program website at

www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca

<http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/>

© The Gazette 2008

*