Summary
The Health Dangers of Urban Use of Pesticides Advisory Committee to the
Health Department of the City of Ottawa (HDUUP) commends the Minister of
Health for bringing forward a revised Pest
Control Products Act, but significant deficiencies remain. The Health
Committee is urged to improve the proposed Bill C-53.
HDUUP calls for termination of cosmetic uses of pesticides.
Bill C-53 is the legislative framework for regulation of toxic materials used to control "pests" (organisms that are injurious, noxious, or troublesome). Evaluation of health and environmental risks are to be made using a scientifically based approach and government policy. HDUUP submits that today's scientific methods, tools and state of knowledge may contribute to assessment of risks, but are inadequate to conclude with the degree of certainty Canadians expect and deserve, that toxic chemicals will not pose undue risks. In fact, extreme caution is the only scientifically defensible approach to pesticide regulation.
In assessing risks, the Ministry must consider interactions of all ingredients of pest control products and combinations of products; not just additive effects of similarly acting chemicals.
In order to use our albeit limited scientific methods both now and in the future, and to achieve our aspirations with respect to human rights, all ingredient information, explicit detailed safety instructions and cautions regarding sensitive individuals must be on product labels. As well, comprehensive public registries of product sales and applications must be established.
Unlike scientific risk assessment, government policy establishes the benefit of pest control products. HDUUP is convinced that present pest control products contribute to environmental degradation and compromise human health, and their use is not always justified by sufficient potential benefit to health. Thus, government policy must be re-evaluated and restated in Bill C-53 to reflect Canadians' current values regarding what are pests in need of pest control products, and the Ministry must not sanction frivolous uses of controlled products, for example for cosmetic purposes. Furthermore, the bill should distinguish between conventional toxic pesticides and lower risk alternatives (for instance, food grade materials used under some circumstances to control pests). Canadians need access to alternative pest control strategies.
The Minister of Health must be in full control of pest control product approvals. Section 24 must be amended to this effect. There should also be automatic re-evaluation of pest control products and the Pest Control Products Act, by legislating sunset clauses û product registrations should lapse periodically, necessitating re-registration. Mechanisms for both civil and criminal prosecutions for misuse of pest control products should be available, to facilitate humane, responsible pest control product use.
What is HDUUP?
The Health Dangers of Urban Use Pesticides Advisory Committee (HDUUP), is a
mandated working group of the City of Ottawa, founded in 1997 by
then-Regional Councillor, Diane Holmes. It involves about eighty volunteer
members. HDUUP assists the Health Department through public education and
actions aimed at reduction of public health risks from pesticides.
Science and Chemical Risk Assessment
Section 7 states that a "scientifically-based approach" will be used to
evaluate risks of a pest control product. This approach is not defined.
One must wonder what other approach might be used to assess risk.
With members trained in science and engineering, HDUUP has a profound respect for the scientific process, but also a keen awareness of what physicist Richard Feynman describes as a "bending over backwards" to point out all possible problems, limitations and flaws in experimental approach. Science allows us to develop working models of how our world operates, but is no more than that. It is only as good as the questions asked and the experiments carried out. Using science, asking questions under carefully controlled circumstances that increase knowledge in baby-steps, we have managed great technological feats. However, science has its limitations, and cannot possibly assure us of pest control product safety. To understand this, consider the outcomes one must assess, and the types of experiments that might be conducted to this end.
What sorts of toxicity must one assess?
Acute toxicity is easy -- you have quick results, with identifiable outcomes. However, potential toxic effects are not limited to immediate toxicity such as irritation, or even to carcinogenesis in the organism exposed.
Long term toxicities are more problematic. One must never forget the lesson of DES, and recognise the possibility of the most important effects appearing in the next generation! (The drug DES, taken for morning sickness, led to daughters' illnesses and cancer after puberty). Delayed reproductive, neurologic and immunological changes are all possible. Ills include allergy, intellectual impairment, cancer, autoimmune diseases and frequent infections.
Single agents may be tolerated while multiple chemical effects are potentially devastating, and the logistics of mixture testing are intractable. Even if we had simple, reliable tissue culture models of all effects (we don't), the number of compounds to which people are exposed in this polluted, high-tech, convenience-oriented world means it would be impossible for an army of scientists with the best equipment to carry out the experiments necessary to address all effects of combinations. Science simply cannot examine all eventualities when introducing thousands of never-seen-before chemicals to our environment. Indeed the long term consequences of additive, cumulative and synergistic effects of pesticides on the health and environment of Canadians are very important. Many recent scientific studies are providing indisputable proof that pesticides do pose cumulative risks (eg. deformed frog endocrine disruption studies). Bill C-53 must to be amended so that synergistic and cumulative effects are considered.
What sort of scientific examinations are possible with regard to pesticides?
Epidemiological Studies: It is not ethical to expose pregnant women to toxic chemicals to see the effects on the children, nor can we intentionally expose people to mixtures of pesticides to test for cumulative, additive or synergistic effects. (Human studies have been done, and in other jurisdictions prisoners are still encouraged to test chemicals. Such information must not be considered to support product registration.)
Information on pesticide effects on people is based on epidemiological studies during the last couple of decades. These are rife with problems, because these studies are reports of unintentional "experiments" carried out in real life, usually with the subjects self-reporting, little independent or reliable information on actual exposures, and of course no control of a multitude of other variables. Thus any study suggesting pesticide toxicities for farmers, for example, will be put aside because exposure to diesel exhaust from tractors and sunshine were not "controlled". Advances in testing, diagnosis and medical care mean that today's diagnostic data not only for cancer but for other ills as well cannot be compared to historical controls. We don't really know how many "bad boys", in a different society and educational system fifty years ago, really had ADHD, or how intelligent or physically co-ordinated the population really was. You cannot compare illness rates between time periods with and without antibiotics, with different standards of hygiene, nutrition and health care.
However, one remarkable epidemiological study by Dr. Elizabeth Guillette is unfolding. She tells a compelling story about intellectual and physical compromise of "normal" Mexican children exposed to agricultural pesticides, in comparison to an otherwise very similar population not exposed. Her work highlights the chilling possibility that significant community-wide deficits go largely unnoticed, but are real and immediate threats to our future.
Animal studies are problematic, because of difficulties extrapolating results to humans, and for the logistical reasons discussed above.
Laboratory studies of tissues in culture are also difficult to extrapolate to people. This is the sort of study also used to test new drugs, and if we had reliable models, we would have found cures for cancer before now. Effects on cells simulating many body systems (liver, kidney, intestinal, neurological, immunological, à) would have to be compiled and related to organism susceptibilities. We don't even know how to model some relevant effects, such as endocrine disruption, in the lab, much less project combinations' impacts. Once again, the shear numbers of necessary experiments renders this approach impossible, even if reliable methods were in place.
While the PMRA claims to base its decisions on "sound science", any honest scientist would claim that thorough scientific examination of relevant questions is impossible. Therefore, in the Bill and/or subsequent regulations or legislation, references to "sound science" should refer to "peer-reviewed scientific analysis conducted in an open public forum". Secrecy has no place in science. Decisions must be tempered with caution, and the precautionary principle must be a cornerstone of the Pest Control Products Act.
Human Rights and Pest Control Product Use
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights states Canadians have a fundamental
"right to life, liberty and security of person", and this must be reflected
in Bill C-53, especially as it relates to the cosmetic use of pesticides for
lawn and garden care.
Keith Norton, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission has stated that individuals disabled by environmental sensitivities must be accommodated under the Ontario Human Rights Code, regardless of any medical or social debate that may surround these issues. The former Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has made similar public statements. Furthermore, disabled individuals, including the 15 to 30% of the population (according to recent research at Dalhousie University) that suffer from environmental sensitivities, have a right under the Charter and under the Ontario Human Rights Code to be free from discrimination.
Disabled individuals must be accommodated by government in its provision of services and accommodation, to the point of undue hardship. Undue hardship is a very high standard to meet. Any policy that has an adverse effect on disabled individuals is a discriminatory one. For instance, discrimination would occur if application of pesticides to parks, playing fields and other private or public property induced or increased disability in persons who suffer from environmental sensitivities. Therefore, pesticide applicators and manufacturers must honour the human rights of these individuals by actively ensuring that harmful pesticides will not be applied in such areas or instances. Failure to do so should be subject to heavy fines and/or further legal action by the Ministry.
Since 1988, Health Canada has had a Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), to protect people who must work with chemicals that might endanger their health. However, at the time of the introduction of WHMIS, pesticides were controlled by Agriculture Canada. Amazingly, Cabinet decided to exempt all pesticides from the Health Canada program. Pesticides are now under Health. The Standing Committee on the Environment's Sustainable Development report: "Pesticides: Making the Right Choice" (page 135-) recommended that "àthe current exemption of pesticides from the Workplace Hazardous Material Information System (WHMIS) be removed and that pesticides be required to meet all WHMIS requirements, subject to such modifications as are needed to account for the differences between pesticides and other types of hazardous substances."
A major concern is that without WHMIS-like mechanisms, it is possible that the Government of Canada (and ultimately taxpayers) could face liability when part of the working population (i.e. pesticide applicators) become aware of pesticide hazards while other workers (possibly those who are new to the workforce) are unaware of concerns.
Bill C-53 needs to adopt effective and complete disclosure of formulations along the lines of the WHMIS.
Specific Comments & Recommendations
Section 4 [1] Mandate:
The mandate of Bill C-53 states that "in the administration of this Act,
the Minister's primary objective is to prevent unacceptable risks to people
and the environment from the use of pest control products".
What are unacceptable risks? Bill C-53 must be amended so that "unacceptable risks" are assessed according to precautionary principles.
Section 7 (b), and S.19 (2) Health Risks [Page 11 and 19]:
The bill must require that Canadians who have compromised immune systems,
allergies or other hyper-sensitivities, asthma, etc., be considered when
approving pesticides. This 15% of the Canadian populace has been ignored by
the pesticide regulatory process until very recently. Legislation and
product labels must both stipulate that pesticide use is authorised only if
such use provides a net health advantage. The implications of these
individual differences for setting safety factors were examined by E.J.
Calabrosein, Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology 5: 190-196 (1985).
Section 7 (9). Comparative risk and value assessment: [Page 11]:
As discussed above, risk assessment must be predicated on precautionary
principles, and government policy must reflect current Canadian values
regarding pests and control thereof. As well, consideration of alternatives
must include the null alternative, and assessment should be as a minimum
consistent with Environmental Assessment practices.
Section 7. (6) (a), and S.19. "The applicant's burden of proof" [Pages 10
and 19]:
The long-awaited Pest Control Products Act espouses important ideals
regarding protection of especially sensitive groups such as children, the
elderly and unborn. However, the Act as written will not bring these ideals
to fruition, ironically because it is undermined by "science". An
impossibly high standard of "proof" is demanded by regulating agencies
before curtailing use of toxic chemicals, and the classic scientific process
is not amenable to examining the roles and effects of a myriad of new
chemicals in a system as complicated as our world.
The Bill must adopt a precautionary approach throughout, in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the Supreme Court's Hudson Quebec Decision, the recent Quebec Cousineau Report on pesticides and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development report: "Pesticides: Making the Right Choice". Thus, the cosmetic use of a pesticide must be disallowed in Bill C-53.
Section 7 (7) (a) "scientifically-based approach" [Page 11]:
As discussed above, realistic science must be complemented with caution.
Sections 7 (7) and 9 (2) 10 times safety margin:
Bill C-53 pays lip service to precautionary principles by stating that when
a threshold effect limit of toxicity (itself a hotly-debated concept) is
identified, a 10X safety margin will be added to account for
susceptibilities of identifiable populations (children etc.). Allergists
have published many measurements of human sensitivities that are 10,000X the
'average'. A ten-times "safety margin" is not sufficient.
This safety margin may be increased based on reliable scientific data, which are impossible to collect ethically, as discussed above. The aim, to protect vulnerable populations, is laudable, but the framework of Bill C-53 makes the goal untenable.
Section 10 (2) Relevant Factors:
Bill C-53 appears to answer long-standing calls for consideration of
toxicity of chemical mixtures, but the combinations to be considered are
severely restricted. Only active ingredients are to be considered in
toxicity testing, but impurities (remember Agent Orange, it can happen
again!), solvents and other additives, some of which are known to have
significant toxicities, must be also be included. As well, additive or
cumulative exposures are to be considered only for a single chemical, or for
chemicals with the same mechanism of toxicity. This is but a tiny subset of
possible effects of combinations, and excludes the most potent
manifestations of toxicities, whereby different organ systems are
compromised, with devastating effects.
A few examples: Examination of toxicities of a combination of herbicide, insecticide and fungicide, not an unusual combination for turf or agricultural uses, is specifically precluded by Bill C-53. The much-studied Gulf War Syndrome -- neurological damage from a combination of toxicities of insect repellent DEET and organophosphate insecticides (all substances regulated under Bill C-53) -- would not and could not be considered when registering pest control products under the Act as drafted.
Section 20: "Precautionary Principle", [Page 20]:
The "precautionary principle" is in a sense a recognition of the limitations
of scientific methodology. One must be very cautious when using any
chemicals toxic to some living beings, because it very possibly will have
some effect on others. Perturbing biological systems may have unintended
effects, and indeed possibly the opposite of the desired effect. (For
example, spraying mosquitoes, the vector for West Nile Virus could
potentially result in greater human disease rather than less. This is
because of impacts on predator populations, toxicities to birds and humans,
and sublethal effects on mosquitoes leading to higher proportions of
mosquitoes becoming infectious after biting an infected animal).
Pesticide use should be allowed only when there is clear evidence of overwhelming public health benefit, but not for simply economic or cosmetic reasons. We must push to learn and appreciate the intricacies of Mother Nature, and to implement alternative means to achieve human health ends. Bill C-53 must be amended to reflect this important matter. The term "precautionary principal" is entrenched in international law, as defined by the United Nations. Former Health Minister Alan Rock stated to the Commons environment committee in February 2000 that new legislation would: "Invoke the precautionary principle either in the preamble or the legislation itself; the principle suggests action should be taken against a substance believed to be harmful before conclusive evidence is available." (Source: Ottawa Citizen, Feb. 18, 2000. Page A6)
HDUUP agrees that the precautionary principle must be adopted, both in the preamble and the initial risk/benefit assessments. Estimation of "cost-effectiveness" must include costs of potential harm to health and the environment.
Section 24: Amendment with consent, [Page 22]:
"The Minister may, with the WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE REGISTRANT, amend the
registration of a pest control product for the purpose of reducing its
health or environmental risks or increasing its value."
Bill C-53 must be amended so that the Minister, not the registrant, will always have primary control over such matters.
Section 29, S.33, S.40, S.41, S.46, S.47, S.49, S.54, S.57, S.58, S.68,
S.70, S.71 to S.78. Offences: [Pages 24 - 58]:
The apparatus for convictions in Bill C-53 should permit the Ministry to
undertake either Criminal law or Civil law approaches to offences. Therefore
the burden of proof can be either "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "on a
balance of probabilities" ù the latter often being easier to establish. This
civil/criminal law allowance is adopted, for example, in the "Competition
Act." Bill C-53 needs to be amended to allow for both Civil and Criminal
law approaches.
Section 42. Public access to information in the Register: [Page 30]:
Presently, the bill continues to allow non-pesticide formulants to be deemed
confidential information. Secrecy has no part in sound science. Many
solvents cause more health problems to those with allergies and similar
hyper-sensitivities than do the substances that are officially pesticides.
The concept of proprietary information that the industry relies upon is flawed because equipment and expertise exist to analyse the ingredients in pesticide formulations. Thus any manufacturer can determine what is contained in a competing product. In fact, in 1996 the District of Columbia Federal District Court (USA) ruled that pesticide formulants couldn't be deemed to be trade secrets. The historic decision significantly expands the public's right-to-know about secret chemicals in pesticide products in the United States. With limited exceptions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must now provide information about the identity of so-called "inert" ingredients in pesticide products. The court ruled that the EPA improperly relied on unsubstantiated claims by manufacturers that the identity of the ingredients was "trade secret" or "confidential business information." Bill C-53 should similarly dictate pesticide ingredient(s) disclosure. Bill C-53 therefore must be amended to disallow pesticide ingredients as being deemed as "trade secrets" or "confidential business information".
Section 44. Permitted Disclosure: [Page 34]:
The Bill should include language that forces the Ministry of Health (and the
PMRA), as well as pesticide manufacturers, to disclose fully in an
expeditious manner to the public any and all records (confidential or
otherwise) that indicate, or can be construed to indicate, that a controlled
product(s) may or has potential to cause adverse health and/or environmental
effects. These records should not be limited to the active ingredient(s),
but should include formulants such as solvents, surfactants, emulsifiers,
toxicity enhancers, by-products etc.
Sunset Clause:
Bill C-53 needs to be amended so that an effective 'sunset' clause is
included. Such a clause must require that a pesticide be deregistered after
5-7 years unless the re-approval process is complete. The current
provision, that it is optional for the Minister to deregister after 15
years, is unworkable because options invite lawsuits and other expensive
legal delays. A 5 year time frame is in line with similar restrictions
established in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (1999, c. 33)
and the Regulatory Advisory Committee (RAC). Additionally, mandatory 5 to 7
year government review periods exist with other matters, which do not even
relate to the health of Canadians, i.e. radio and television licence
periods. (Broadcasting Act (S.C. 1991, c. 11).
Additionally, Bill C-53 needs to be amended so that the Ministry must review the Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) regularly. It is totally unacceptable that it has taken 33 years for this latest review to occur. A mandated review process, every 5-7 years, is necessary to protect the health and environment of Canadians.
Endocrine and Immune Disruption and other Definitions:
Bill C-53 must be amended to include a definition of endocrine disruption
and to decree that such disruption is considered an unacceptable risk. Bill
C-53 needs to be consistent with existing legislation, for example the
"Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999" (1999, c. 33), which includes
an endocrine disruption definition. Tyrone B. Hayes of the University of
California at Berkeley determined that the commonly used pesticide Atrazine
disrupted the endocrine system of frogs û his study is published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. (April
16, 2002).
Recent studies have unequivocally demonstrated that certain pesticides are linked with immune dysfunction. Brian Dixon, an immunologist at the University of Waterloo stated that he was: "shocked that negligible amounts of pesticides were so biologically active and could mimic one of the most powerful drugs in the arsenal of modern medicine. That was the whole take-home message, he said. The pesticides act exactly the same way as a medical drug they will give to suppress your immune system." (source: Globe and Mail, April 24, 2002. "Study finds DDT may spur disease"). Immune compromise should be addressed within Bill C-53. Many other definitions are also lacking (synergist, residue, derivatives, to name a few).