Thu 03 Aug 2006

Hamilton Spectator

We're all facing chemical dangers; Many harmful products untested

by Lesley Simpson

When it comes to household products, we know the skull-
and-crossbones icon could be our own horror movie. We lock cleaning
supplies away from toddlers who might mistake Windex for Kool-Aid.

But how about hazards such as nail hardener, mothballs and laundry
detergent with carcinogens? Or grease remover with ethoxylated nonyl
phenols, known to create female characteristics in male fish? Or
lotions, perfumes, deodorants and hair products with phthalates, a
compound linked to reproductive defects in the uterus?

When it comes to products from detergent to lipstick, "Canadian
citizens have less protection than any other industrialized country
in the world," said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental
Defence. "Most people assume, justifiably, that government is
protecting them from harmful products, and that is not the case,"
Smith said.

Environmental Defence is a Toronto-based environmental advocacy organization.

Canada allows products -- such as phthalates -- that are outlawed
elsewhere. What makes it worse is that companies are not required to
disclose ingredients by law. Some do. Some don't. Disclosure will
become mandatory for personal care products in November.

A political battle is emerging about risk. Environmental
organizations are asking whether ingredients in some common products
-- from cellphones to plastic water bottles -- might be turning
healthy cells sick.

What's underpinning much of this is fear of cancer. It's expected
that two of five Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer during their
lifetime, according to 2006 statistics from the Canadian Cancer
Society.

What's clear is that much is not known. Risk is often misunderstood,
research incomplete.

But for the first time, Canadians will soon start to get a picture of
what household products and other chemicals are doing to our bodies,
thanks to a new study that will measure what's in our blood and urine.

The Canadian Health Measures Survey tracks what you might expect:
blood pressure, height, weight, fitness, oral health, smoking habits,
alcohol use, medical history, nutrition, infectious diseases, sexual
behaviour and demographics.

But for the first time, starting in 2007 until 2009, the survey will
measure compounds including lead, mercury and pesticides in the
bodies of 5,000 randomly selected Canadians aged 6 to 79.

Their blood will be tested for arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead,
nickel, uranium, zinc, pesticides and perfluorinated compounds.
(Perfluorinated compounds are found in many products including fast
food wrappers, water- repellent clothing, non-stick cookware, shaving
cream and microwave popcorn bags, as well as products with Scotchgard
and Teflon.)

Their urine will be tested for substances including mercury,
pesticides and phthalates. (Phthalates are common in nail polish,
perfume, deodorant, lotion and hair products but are often not
listed.)
   It's hard to imagine anyone emerging toxic-free.

House of Horrors: Go 6

This testing is called biomonitoring. Health Canada says information
could be used to look at links between exposure and illness. In the
United States, a survey in the 1960s showed Americans had too much
lead in their blood. Lead contamination is linked to learning
disabilities. That finding pushed the American government to mandate
removal of lead from gasoline.

Health Canada considered various factors to determine which chemicals
to track, including the likelihood of exposure, the available science
and international research. That means Canadians will be able to
compare ourselves with other countries. Health Canada says the
information will give a national picture for a broad range of
environmental chemicals, and provide a baseline for emerging patterns.

That baseline is important so that Health Canada can measure whether
levels of chemicals are rising or falling, said Paul Glover,
director-general of Health Canada's safe environments program. Some
chemicals are linked to cancer, others to reproductive or
developmental illness. If levels rise, the government can ask
industry to ban products. If the levels decrease, it may mean
regulation has worked.

"Will it happen next year? No," said Glover, who said this study
represents the beginning of a long-term investigation.

  For some people, the numbers may be no surprise. Environmental
Defence recently revealed blood test results for painter and
naturalist Robert Bateman. Thirty two carcinogens, 19 hormone
disruptors, 16 respiratory toxicants and 42
reproductive/developmental toxicants listed on toxicnation.ca.

This is what the site means when it says, "Pollution. It's in you!"

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a World
Health organization, estimates that 80 per cent of cancers are linked
to environmental factors including chemical exposure as well as
lifestyle factors such as obesity, smoking and inactivity.

In contrast, the Canadian Cancer Society estimates the risk of
cancers linked to environmental causes as somewhere above 2 per cent
but below 20 per cent.

The two agencies assess risk differently.

The Canadian Cancer Society is developing a logo that will show
products free of known or probable carcinogens, said Heather Logan,
the society's director of cancer control policy.

If you ask the Canadian Cancer Society's telephone-based Cancer
Information Service about products, an information officer might
suggest the CancerSmart Consumer Guide, a booklet published by the
Labour Environmental Alliance Society (LEAS) in B.C. While the
booklet is helpful, LEAS is a tiny grassroots organization with a
staff of four (including a few part-timers) who have done a heroic
job making information available across Canada.

What's surprising is that neither the Canadian Cancer Society nor
Health Canada has published a comprehensive product guide. (The
Americans do it better. Check out the National Institute of Health's
http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/products.htm)

The Canadian Cancer Society says it is Health Canada's job to keep
unsafe products off the shelf.

Health Canada says "known hazards" are labelled, including
carcinogens such as formaldehyde, (found in wood pulp, plastics,
paints and nail hardeners.) While household chemicals are "inherently
dangerous," Health Canada says products are safe as long as
directions and precautions are followed. It's the position of the
government that products are safe, even those with identified
carcinogens inside such as nail hardener or laundry detergent,
because real risk depends on duration and dosage.

You can't reduce exposure to zero. Think of the fumes we breathe near
a gas station, said Kapil Khatter, president of the Canadian
Association of Physicians for the Environment. But allowing
carcinogens and suspect chemicals into products is a different
matter, he said.

It's up to the federal government to keep Canadians safe. "I don't
want to put that responsibility onto consumers. It's a lot of work to
figure out," he said, referring to indecipherable labels with
chemical names nobody understands.

Janet Jacks, owner of Goodness Me! Natural Food Market, uses
research from the IARC to help determine what she's going to stock.
If a product has a compound that has been shown to cause cancer in an
animal, "that's good enough for me" not to buy it, said Jacks.

The IARC classifies carcinogens as known carcinogens, potential
carcinogens (with a lesser degree of evidence in human, but evidence
in animals) and possible carcinogens (with evidence in animal studies
but insufficient evidence in people) as well as those for which there
is not enough evidence either way.

What's troubling is how much we don't know. Consider that only 2,000
of 100,000 chemicals in commercial production have been tested for
cancer in animals, said the IARC's Vince Cogliano. He heads the
program that evaluates toxicity. Testing is expensive and time
consuming. Scientists are trying to develop ways of testing rather
than injecting mice with chemicals and waiting years for results,
but, "we're not there yet," said Cogliano.

The American National Toxicology Program is the largest testing
program in the world and it's still incomplete.
   "It's a sorry state for chemical testing."

lsimpson@thespec.com
   905- 526- 3207
   
   ======================