Christine Kupka and Avis Antel

In cooperation with Option Consommateurs and the McGill Centre for Research and teaching on Women (MCRTW), Breast Cancer Action Montreal recently acted as co-host of a day-long symposium on the safety of consumer products (November 10th at McGill University). The symposium was the culmination of the two-year Health and Environmental Awareness Project jointly sponsored by BCAM and the MCRTW and funded by the Minister of Education. Designed to give consumers the opportunity to voice their concerns about the potential health risks in the repeated use of untested household cleaners and personal care products, the bilingual workshop was ably moderated by Cindy Sherwin of CTV and covered topics ranging from labeling to industry best practices, all highlighting the need for policies to protect individuals and the environment.

Paul Chowhan, of the Consumer Product Safety Bureau, Health Canada, explained that his department’s mandate derived from the Hazardous Products Act (HPA) for consumer products and workplace chemicals, the Food & Drugs Act for cosmetics, with some reference to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999). He spoke at some length about the Chemicals Management Plan and the intent to strengthen coordination amongst all these players, including how and when the precautionary principle and risk management approach are invoked. The question period that followed included some lively interchange.

CBC journalist, Wendy Mesley, shared her personal views as a cancer survivor and her education as a skeptical consumer. She told us what had led her, as journalist and consumer, to research breast cancer issues, especially that of prevention. She had been amazed to discover some facts not generally known. For example, using the birth control pill for more than eight years results in a significantly increased risk (45%) of breast cancer. After the Marketplace program, “Chasing the Cancer Answer”, was aired, she received tens of thousands of emails and she continues to be involved in the issues of cancer prevention and healthy consumer choices. Her down-to-earth message and her candour were warmly appreciated by the audience.

Louise Vandelac (Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la biologie, la santé et l’environnement, UQAM) spoke about Research and Public Policies. She referred to a number of environmental studies that could and should be used to influence public policy. Supporting the goals of the symposium, she urged individuals to inform themselves about the issues so that they can exert pressure on government, demanding increased research into the issue of environmental pollutants and the development of policies to combat them.

The workshop brought together a diverse crowd of supporters from the three co-hosting organizations and the lunch break provided time for sharing reactions to the morning agenda. A healthy and delicious lunch was provided and there was lots of space in which to move and mingle.

The afternoon session began with Yan Grand-Maison of Bio-Vert, a local manufacturer of eco-friendly cleaning products, representing Industry Best Practices. His power point presentation covered the criteria for global eco certifications and how this may differ from what is deemed ‘environmentally friendly.’ He commented that, if only one percent of Montrealers would buy and use eco products, this would be enough to send a message to manufacturers. He added that, if a small company such as his own Bio-Vert can be successful, then there is a definite need.

Ken Ogilvie, Executive Director of Pollution Probe, spoke about the existing regulatory framework, how this impacts children and health, and the importance of improving regulations governing toxic substances in consumer products. He made it clear that no evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of no harm. The regulatory model used in the U.S.A. is based on a cost/benefit analysis where regulators weigh the effects of new regulations on economic growth. In contrast, the European Union model leans toward the precautionary principle requiring industry to demonstrate that substances are harmless.

Mr. Ogilvie reviewed the regulations covered by the first speaker (see above) and also spoke about the Pest Control Products Act, pointing to a number of products containing toxic substances potentially harmful (among them leaded crystal and lead-glazed pottery, toys with a high lead content, food or drinks heated in plastic containers, various cosmetics, and pesticides). Parents were advised to closely follow the safety guides on labels and to demand that stores carry only non-toxic products. His recommendation is that Canada should adopt the most progressive measures from other jurisdictions and that voters should push for a Cabinet Directive on Children’s Environmental Health, on the model of the U.S. Executive Order on the Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (1997).

Sean Griffin, of the Labour Environmental Alliance Society and author of the CancerSmart Consumer Guide, spoke about the consumer’s right to know. The unions have succeeded in establishing the worker’s right to know by virtue of a Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) but this does not extend to “consumerland”. In fact, the Cancer Smart Guide was developed specifically in response to this lack. The consumers’ fundamental right to know about exposure to potentially toxic chemicals is incomplete without disclosure of ingredients and inherent hazards. The goal is to have federal legislation enforce ingredient labeling, using the most common chemical name, hazard labeling to indicate carcinogens, reproductive toxins, endocrine disruptors, and sensitizers (chemicals which may lead to the development of allergic reactions after repeated exposure), as well as symbols to denote the various categories of risk (e.g., C, E, R, S), and information based on inherent hazards of ingredients rather than on estimated risks of use or exposure.

The last speaker was Rohini Peris, founder and director of the Allergy and Environmental Health Association of Quebec. To add to the arguments presented by the previous speakers, she told us about the problems of those suffering with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity disorder, and underlined the importance of having safe products.

Following this presentation, discussion groups were formed to address the themes of how to allocate priorities in regulating consumer products, how to change consumers’ buying habits, and how to achieve clear labeling leading to informed choice. When the groups reconvened, it was soon evident that there was agreement about the main points. The public needs to be protected; the priorities should be the enforcement of stricter regulations and accessible information to enable informed decision-making. All agreed that consumers would be willing to change their buying habits, and even pay more, if this resulted in enhanced health and safety. Colour coding with uniform labeling by all manufacturers was the preferred choice for warning labels on packaging.

Concluding remarks and thanks to the organizing committee (Nalini Vaddapalli, Madeleine Bird and Christine Kupka) and to the funder (Population Health Fund of the Public Health Agency of Canada) were offered by Shree Mulay, former director of the MCRTW, and Deena Dlusy-Apel, a BCAM board member. A cocktail reception followed.

In sum, the main message of a most successful and instructive symposium was the need for citizen/consumer action to bring about change — more confirmation of what the members of BCAM know only too well.