Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 6 - Evidence - April 8, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, to which was referred Bill C- 298, An Act to add Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, met this day at 5:39 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Senator Banks. I am from Alberta and I chair the committee. I would like to introduce the members of the committee. Here today are: Senator Nolin, the Deputy Chair; Senator Milne from Ontario; Senator Trenholme Counsell from New Brunswick; Senator Adams from Nunavut; Senator Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories; Senator Spivak from Manitoba; and Senator McCoy from Alberta.
We are here today to examine Bill C-298, which is An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. This bill was sponsored by the Honourable Maria Minna, P.C., M.P., Beaches-East York. It was initially introduced into the First Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament as Bill C-298. It was considered by committee and reported back to the House. In the current parliamentary session, it was again introduced as Bill C-298. It passed through all stages in the House and first reading of the Senate on December 4, 2007. The second reading was on March 11, 2008 and the bill has been referred to our committee.
Today we have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Daniel Blasioli, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada; and Mr. John Moffet, Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environment Canada. Madam, would you please identify yourself.
Lyne Monastesse, Manager, Chemical Management, Environment Canada: I am Lyne Monastesse, Manager of Chemical Management, Environment Canada.
John Moffet, Director General, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, Environment Canada: Thank you. We did not come with prepared opening remarks because this is a private member's bill and not a government bill. This is a piece of legislation which the government fully supports. We do not have any changes to recommend.
We are here to answer any questions you might have about what is and what is not in the bill, its implications, et cetera.
That is my short opening statement. We support the bill and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Would you elaborate, please, on the amendments made in the House of Commons? A couple of those amendments are significant in respect of a change in, if I understand correctly, the processes by which this substance would be added to the Virtual Eliminations List. Is that correct?
Mr. Moffet: That is correct. There were a number of changes made to the bill, which followed the introduction of the bill. I believe that most of the changes were made on a consensus basis in the House committee. The changes relate to the virtual elimination regime that is set out in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. We testified before both the House committee and this committee concerning some of the problems with the current provisions in CEPA.
CEPA requires that a substance that is persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic must be added to the Virtual Elimination List and become subject to the virtual elimination regime in the act. That regime requires that when a substance is added to the Virtual Elimination List, the government also articulate what is known as a level of quantification, LOQ, that is, the lowest level of that substance that can be measured using routine methods.
The act then requires that the government require virtual elimination plans; plans from users or producers of the substance to virtually eliminate the substance. The act then requires the Minister of the Environment to promulgate what is known as a release limit regulation. This is distinct from the regulation or instrument that must be developed for any substance that is added to the List of Toxic Substances. Those regulations are developed under section 93, under Governor-in-Council regulations.
It all sounds good: We have identified a category of persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently-toxic substances, PBiTs about which we are particularly concerned and therefore we will give the government less discretion than we give the government regarding ordinary toxic substances. For ordinary toxic substances, the act specifies that the ministers must propose an instrument or a regulation to manage the substance. For PBiTs, the act specifies certain actions that must be taken. As I said, it sounds good on paper.
In practice, we have encountered a number of problems with this regime. For example, if a substance is primarily entering the environment as an industrial emission, from a smokestack, for example, we can probably quite easily identify the level of quantification that would be associated with that substance. We can use that level of quantification in regulating the substance; in other words, we can specify a regulation that nothing can come out of your smokestack that we can measure.
We are now learning that a number of substances that meet the PBiT criteria do not come out of smokestacks and, in fact, are used in and are intentionally added to commercial products. The way they enter the environment is either through the degradation of the product, for example, something has been added to my tie to make it shiny and that may wear off over time as I tie and untie my tie. It is more likely to enter the environment when I throw the tie away and it is put into a landfill, or when I wash the tie and it wears off and enters the wastewater effluent stream. We are not actually able to measure what comes off my tie because in some cases we are talking about very small amounts in total, Canada-wide. However, what we can measure is how much gets into the wastewater effluent. That is not an LOQ the way we have defined it in the act.
For some substances, like PFOS, we do not know how to develop an LOQ. Moreover, developing an LOQ would be a waste of time because it would not help us regulate. We are not going to regulate emissions from the tie. What we will do is ban the use of the substance and the tie altogether.
The act requires a release regulation. This is perhaps unintentionally. However, the way the act is drafted, that regulation is a different regulation than the section 93 regulation. Again, in the context of PFOS: The government has recognized that PFOS is problematic and has decided that, because PFOS is a commercial product and is intentionally introduced into products, the best way to deal with PFOS is to ban its use. The government is in the process of doing that by means of a regulation that the Governor-in-Council has proposed and will finalize within a matter of weeks — or a month or two — at the most. We anticipate having a final regulation in place this spring.
I apologize for being a little technical, but those regulations are prohibition regulations that we have issued under section 93 of the act. If we follow the letter of the law in terms of virtual elimination, we would also have to promulgate a ministerial release regulation. However, that regulation would not add any value whatsoever given that we would already have in place a regulation that prohibits the use, the importation and the sale of this substance. We would have to go through the process of developing a release regulation without being able to identify any added environmental or health benefit.
The bill from Ms. Minna, who first introduced the bill, said the government must add the substance to the Virtual Elimination List must identify a level of quantification and must articulate or promulgate a release limit regulation.
I gave her essentially the precise explanation I have just given to you. We agree that PFOS is a problem. We agree it should be regulated. After Ms. Minna introduced her bill — full credit to her — the government introduced a prohibition regulation. We explained that we believe that will resolve the problem and that forcing us to spend our limited time and resources identifying an LOQ and developing a release regulation would not add any health or environmental value.
After explaining that, and I cannot speak for her, but I believe on her understanding of that rationale, she and the other members of the committee agreed to amend the bill to remove those obligations that, in our view, would not have added any environmental or health value. That is essentially why the bill looks the way it does now and why it was changed from the original bill introduced by Ms. Minna.
Senator Milne: I think that is great, but will what the government come up with a redefinition of ``bioaccumulative''? As I understand the problem, anything that is bioaccumulative has been defined in the past as accumulating in fatty tissues. The problem with PFOS is that it is not bioaccumulative because it accumulates in protein tissues, in muscle, sinew and things like livers of polar bears.
Mr. Moffet: Senator, let me answer the question in a couple of ways, if I may.
This bill will not change the definition of ``bioaccumulation.'' This bill will just address PFOS. We are addressing the virtual elimination regime in two ways. First, the virtual elimination regime has the statutory requirements and then the regulations under those requirements. Those regulations define what we mean by ``persistence'' and what we mean by ``bioaccumulation.''
As both I and my former colleague, Mr. Arseneau, the former Director General of Science and Risk Assessment Directorate in Environment Canada testified, both to this committee and to the House committee, that the government is in the process of revising those bioaccumulation regulations, precisely to address the problem that you identified.
We fully acknowledge that the regulations were developed with one notion of bioaccumulation in mind and are not broad enough to capture all of the ways that we now know some substances bioaccumulate, so we are in the process of revising those regulations.
As the government's interim response to the House committee's report on the CEPA review also indicated, the government has announced its intention to revise the statutory provisions regarding virtual elimination to prevent the kind of problems that I just described in terms of obliging the government to take unnecessary steps that would not add value. It is not taking away from the objective of virtual elimination but allowing the government to get to virtual elimination in the most direct and efficient manner possible.
Senator Milne: I understand that Belgium, Sweden, the U.S., and the U.K. have already taken steps to eliminate the use of PFOS. Will this bill fall in line with what is happening in those particular countries, or does it go farther? Does it go far enough?
Mr. Moffet: I would like to give you two answers again. First, we need to be very careful about understanding what other countries have done. For example, the United States has not completely banned PFOS. A number of years ago, the United States developed a Significant New Use Rule that bans new uses but not all existing uses of PFOS.
There are some actions that have been taken by some jurisdictions to ban most uses of PFOS. Indeed, there is international work under way to add PFOS to an international agreement that would then, in turn, oblige more countries to take action. That is the first point. I would not want the committee to think that Canada lags far behind numerous other jurisdictions. Second, the main action that you are looking for will be taken by the proposed prohibition regulation. As you know, there are two stages by which a regulation is developed. First, the first draft is proposed in the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the final version is published after a comment period. The government proposed to add PFOS to the prohibition regulations in December 2006, and the government will finalize those regulations this spring.
We have received modest comments, and we do not anticipate that the regulation will be significantly changed from the version that was proposed, and we anticipate seeing the final version finalized in the Canada Gazette later this spring.
Senator Milne: Mr. Chair, it seems to me that the aim of this bill falls right in with measures that were introduced in the other place today about the safety of food and consumer and health products in Canada. I wonder if Mr. Moffet or any of you have any comments on that.
Mr. Moffet: If you look at the entire suite of actions, including the prohibition regulations and the action that would flow from this bill, which would be to add PFOS to the Virtual Elimination List, then you could conclude that this is more or less consistent with the thrust of what the government is doing under this other proposed legislation. The story that is being told around that legislation is that we need to do two broad things. First, we need to enable stronger domestic action and second, we need to continue and to strengthen our international efforts. The reason for the latter, of course, is that many of these substances are produced and put into products that are manufactured elsewhere and then imported into Canada. You can understand the challenge that faces regulators when you have someone at the border saying: Does this product contain PFOS? You are a customs guard and you do not know.
We want international action to ensure no one is putting PFOS or any other problematic substance into products, and that is the importance of international action. I emphasize that because this bill would add PFOS to the Virtual Elimination List, which, apart from anything else, has strong symbolic impact on the international community.
We know that manufacturers and producers look at lists like Canada's Virtual Elimination List as a guide in terms of both what is regulated and what will be regulated in the future. We should not underestimate these international symbolic implications of adding PFOS to the Virtual Elimination List. That would be consistent with and supportive of our overall direction of trying to combine strong domestic action with coordinated international efforts.
Senator Milne: It seems to me you are saying that you are sending a signal to other countries, but if a border guard sees a shipload of carpets coming in from China, or wherever, as you pointed out, he will not know if they have been coated with, for example, long-chain carbon molecules to prevent staining.
Do you think this bill will help with what you will be coming up with in a few weeks? Will it help put some teeth into what border guards or customs inspectors can do when things are coming into the country?
Mr. Moffet: This bill, on its own, will not give teeth to what border guards can do. The prohibition regulations will make it illegal to import carpets or any other product, other than those subject to the time-limited exemptions that contain PFOS. Once those regulations are finalized, it will be illegal to import such products.
The implications of this bill are primarily symbolic. They do not give us additional regulatory authorities. This bill would clearly commit the government towards the ultimate objective of virtual elimination of the substance, and it would strengthen our efforts in international fora to argue for action by other countries to similarly prohibit the future use of this substance in any product.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: I would like to address my questions, if possible, to the representative of the Department of Justice Canada, Mr. Blasioli. What are, in legal terms, the challenges of a private member's bill like this one?
[English]
Daniel C. Blasioli, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice Canada: We are happy to say that the Department of Justice does not have any concerns with this bill. It is fully within the Parliament's legislative authorities. One of the challenges we do see with private member's bills — and this is an example — is the requirement that ministers make legislation, make regulations. It runs afoul of your general drafting conventions, but the climate we are living in right now with a minority government is something we have to deal with.
Senator Nolin: Do you agree with the wording of the bill?
Mr. Blasioli: The government has no concerns with the current bill.
Senator Nolin: Are our international obligations respected?
Mr. Moffet: The actions we are taking respect our international obligations and, indeed, as I explained to Senator Milne, will help Canada's advocacy for strengthened international positions on PFOS.
Some other jurisdictions have taken limited action and we are coming up to that level and, indeed, surpassing that level by means of a very broad prohibition. In addition, this bill in particular will enable us to have a stronger position in international fora such as the POPs — persistent organic pollutants — agreement in which we are advocating adding PFOS to the list of substances to be addressed by that protocol.
Senator Spivak: My question involves the international scene. What is your view of the elimination of the 12 substances that were seen as the most horrendous under persistent organic pollutants? Am I asking the wrong people?
Mr. Moffet: I am not sure I understood the question. Are you asking me how fast have we eliminated them?
Senator Spivak: Yes. I am asking you to tell me what is happening not only about this substance but the other substances that were targeted under the persistent organic pollutants.
Mr. Moffet: I apologize, but I am not sure that the three of us are the best equipped to give you a complete answer on exactly what actions Canada has taken with respect to each of those 12 substances.
Senator Spivak: I will ask the next witness.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am a physician, as well as a senator. I am interested to know, with your study of this group of chemicals, the perfluorooctane sulfonate, whether we have data on suspected human impacts of the storage of these chemicals in human muscle, liver or other organs.
Mr. Moffet: I can give a general comment and then perhaps my colleague can elaborate. Both Environment Canada and Health Canada, have groups that focus on and specialize in risk assessment. These groups essentially hand off their findings to risk managers. Ms. Monastesse, for example, manages one of the main groups at Environment Canada that develops risk management strategies, including regulations. Neither of us are technically versed in the risk assessments other than understanding what has been passed to us.
My understanding of the basic science is that we are taking action now because we have fairly strong science that has emerged over the past few years regarding the bioaccumulation and the potentially adverse effects on animals. This includes animals at the very top of the food chain, higher up on the food chain than we are, such as polar bears that eat many other animals. We have some evidence, but only a very limited amount, regarding the impacts on humans.
The primary basis for our taking action now has to do with concerns about the likely impact on humans that we are drawing based on the studies and the data we have regarding impacts on animals, on wildlife.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Has there been any pathological evidence, any specific study on this internationally?
Mr. Moffet: The risk assessments have told us that this product is persistent so it sticks around a long time and it bioaccumulates. We are seeing more and more of it, even though production has essentially ceased. We know there is a risk that we are seeing in wildlife. Our colleagues at Health Canada, when they conducted the risk assessment, concluded that they are not seeing enough exposure to draw a firm conclusion that current levels are posing a risk to human health. Nonetheless, the government is saying better safe than sorry; let us not get to the point where we see high enough levels that would pose risk to human health. We know there is a risk to wildlife; we can infer there is likely a risk to human health. I am sure that since that assessment was done, various studies have been done that would indicate that, indeed, there may be concerns about human health. Again, essentially the only thing that can be done at this point is to prohibit further use of the substance and that is precisely what the government's proposed regulation would do.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I have one more question. I would not necessarily expect you to know this, but I thought perhaps there was research on this regarding the bill. Have there been any laboratory studies done with other animals to ascertain the effect of this group of chemicals on metabolic enzyme systems and other tissue activity in general?
Mr. Moffet: We have enough evidence to suspect that there are serious impacts from these substances, particularly at fairly high concentrations. I am not sure and again, I am not speaking as a scientist, but I do not believe we have enough evidence to conclude definitively that these effects are there or precisely what they are, but we have enough evidence that we are worried and that we believe that action is warranted immediately.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: When you say you are worried and you have enough evidence to suspect serious impacts, are you extrapolating that to mean already in human biology?
Mr. Moffet: I do not think I know the answer to that question. I know the Health Canada conclusions from the formal risk assessment conducted a few years ago. I have no doubt that the science has continued to evolve with continued international focus on the substance. I apologize, but I am not able to give you a definitive answer.
Senator Milne: I understand PFOS is accumulating in polar bear livers that people in the North collect. I also understand there have been some studies on humans and that Environmental Defence Canada has done two studies.
They tested Canadians across the country to see if they had PFOS and other chemicals in their bodies. It is called body load testing. The first study, which tested 11 adults from across the country, came out in November 2005. The findings indicated that all of the participants had PFOS in their bodies. The second study of five families from different regions of the country came out a couple of weeks ago. The findings were the same as the first study; each member of each family had PFOS in his or her body.
Mr. Moffet: I would like to make two points. First, Mr. Khatter is present today from Environmental Defence and will speak following us. He will be able to speak to the results of that study.
Second, the point I was trying to make is that we know we are seeing it in human tissue. I am trying to be a little careful since we do not have definitive science about the precise impacts it is having on our tissue. However, we know there are studies that indicate there are possibly serious adverse effects of its presence in humans, in the environment and in wildlife.
Senator Milne: Is there any research that would explain why it is accumulating more rapidly in the Arctic than it is in Southern Ontario, for example?
Mr. Moffet: We can answer that in a very general way. That has to do with the way the food chain works and the nature of prevailing winds, et cetera. Chemicals go into the Great Lakes; they are ingested; they end up in the bottom of sediment in a lake; bottom feeders eat it; they, in turn, are eaten; and a bird picks them up.
Senator Milne: It seems you may be suggesting it may be airborne.
Mr. Moffet: However, the birds fly north and polar bears eat them. We are also seeing it here and it is accumulating. It accumulates in animals like polar bears because those bears are entirely carnivorous and because they store what they eat for long periods of time.
We are seeing many problematic substances, not just PFOS appearing in significant concentrations in the North. This serves as a warning signal for the rest of the world in addition to posing significant risks to people that rely on country food and that eat what they kill as opposed to those of us that shop for what we eat.
The Chair: To finish that question, is it known that PFOS is in some circumstances airborne as opposed to only moving up the food chain?
Mr. Moffet: I apologize. I am getting onto thin ice in terms of my technical knowledge. However, our colleagues from Health Canada are nodding their heads.
I am not the person to answer these questions in terms of various sources and pathways. If the committee wants more extensive input, we could arrange that. We apologize that our Acting Director of the Existing Substances Division, Robert Chenier, who is the lead expert on the ecological impacts of the substance, was not available this evening. However, I can arrange for him to provide some answers.
The Chair: I want to clarify that airborne was not excluded as a means of the movement of PFOS. We have heard that PFOS moves around in the environment, lasts a long time and is persistent.
Mr. Moffet, you mentioned earlier the distinction between PFOS and normal toxic substances. Does that mean those normal toxic substances are not persistent and bioaccumulative?
Mr. Moffet: I will probably live to regret that term. There should not be anything known as a ``normal toxic substance.'' I wanted to distinguish persistent bio-accumulative toxic substances from other toxic substances.
The way CEPA works is that we will look at the toxicity of a substance. Does a substance pose an inherent hazard based on its chemical composition, for example? Then we ask if it poses a risk because it has hazardous properties and whether there is a chance that there will be exposure either to the environment or directly to humans. That is the basis of the risk assessment we conduct under CEPA.
Based on that risk assessment, we may conclude that a substance is toxic either to humans or the environment or both. In addition, a substance may be toxic and persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative or have all three characteristics. Some toxic substances have all three characteristics, but many do not. It is only those that have all three characteristics that are, by law, subjected to virtual elimination.
We may prohibit and have prohibited many substances that do not meet all three criteria. If they cause cancer in minute quantities, we will take significant action regardless of whether they are persistent or bioaccumulative. The significance is that if they are persistent and bioaccumulative, in addition to being toxic, we must take significant action.
Senator Spivak: To go back to my original question and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the ``dirty dozen'' as they called them were supposed to be eliminated, not virtually eliminated. Are they the ones you are talking about that are toxic, bioaccumulative and persistent?
This bill draws to my attention something that was supposed to be done quickly and likely has not been done: The total elimination, not virtual elimination, of the dirty dozen. If you cannot answer that question, I will forgive you.
Mr. Moffet: You asked whether all of the substances are on Stockholm Convention list. I do not know the answer to that question. However, some time ago, both Canada and the international community identified those 12 substances as being highly problematic. Regardless of the fact that they are PBiTs, they are substances of extreme concern and were targeted for action by the international community.
The concept of virtual elimination was introduced by the International Joint Commission when it started looking at pollutants entering the Great Lakes ecosystem. ``Virtual elimination'' was a concept developed to recognize that essentially, we want to get rid of certain substances. However, technically, we may not know whether we have entirely eliminated those substances. All we can do is say we have eliminated them to the extent that we can measure them. That is the notion of virtual elimination.
Senator Spivak: It is a different notion than banning or prohibition. If you prohibit the manufacture of a substance then you do not have to worry whether there is a little bit left. The whole notion of virtual elimination is suspect because very low levels of some substances are known have gender impact. However, that is not my question. Maybe another witness can answer the question about the dirty dozen because I would like to know what has happened.
Mr. Moffet: We will provide you with a written submission on the status of the dirty dozen. I apologize for not being equipped to do that today. Let me just remind you again, respectfully, that the government's proposed approach to PFOS is, indeed, to ban it.
Senator Spivak: Yes, I understand that; however, it is not banning all uses. It says ``certain uses.'' There is no alternative yet. That is what is written in our notes.
Mr. Moffet: Correct, hence the inclusion in the government's regulation of certain, very specific time-limited exemptions. These are not open-ended exemptions; these have time limits. They are designed to send a clear signal to those users and producers that they have five years to either get out of this business or come up with an alternative that will allow them to stay in business without using PFOS.
Senator Spivak: I just want to comment that the Montreal Protocol, which took chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, out of the environment because they are deemed to be such a terrible hazard. However, some of these substances are just as bad in terms of their impact on human health. They are not quite as bad but they are pretty bad. Time is important.
My point is that the time that was given to companies was seen as terrible but, in the meantime, when they had to, they all met it. I think the same thing is true in this instance.
Mr. Moffet: The reason CFCs were introduced is because they are benign in terms of their impact on human health; they have an impact on the environment. The Montreal Protocol was so successful because the main producer of CFCs had already developed a commercially-viable alternative.
The government's proposed prohibition regulation is premised on recognition that some uses are just so significant that regardless of whether a commercial alternative is available, we should ban those uses. However, other uses actually have important social functions, like fire suppressants. In such cases, we need to trade off the socially-valuable function that this substance plays against the undeniable benefit of taking the substance out of use. Therefore, the compromise has been to allow for a time-limited exemption.
Senator Spivak: Of course, the CFCs are a totally different issue; I am quite aware that they are not toxic. However, the point is it was deemed so important that, regardless of what was available, the time limit had to be very quick. I am saying there is always a possibility of alternatives; it is just a matter of the will to do so.
The Chair: An eminent chemist told us that if you go to the chemists and ask them to solve the problem they would solve it immediately, without any difficulty.
We have to be concerned about unintended consequences of bills. Mr. Blasioli is there a danger in setting a precedent here by adding this substance to the Virtual Elimination List by means other than what is prescribed for other substances under the other regulations and other statutes. Is there a danger of setting a dangerous precedent by eliminating certain safeguards? Is that a concern for you?
Mr. Blasioli: That is an excellent question and goes more to operations. I will defer to Mr. Moffet.
Mr. Moffet: I do not think the government is concerned about the implications of this bill in the sense that the government is very comfortable with explicitly recognizing that this substance should be added to the Virtual Elimination List.
The Chair: Will it be easier to add other substances to the Virtual Elimination List in the future by using this means rather than those prescribed in CEPA, 1999?
Mr. Moffet: Yes.
The Chair: That would be a good thing.
Mr. Moffet: Could other private member's bills identify other substances and require that they be added to the Virtual Elimination List?
The Chair: Or government bills. By using this means, will we be getting around the provisions of CEPA,1999?
Mr. Moffet: That is conceivable, although I would not want to speculate.
The Chair: Is it an effective short cut?
Mr. Moffet: It has allowed us to add a substance we are particularly concerned about to the Virtual Elimination List without requiring us to do things that we believe would be redundant.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I want to clarify whether our proposal is significantly less than the regulations in the United States.
Mr. Moffet: I believe that the prohibition regulations are more comprehensive than what is in place at the federal level in the United States.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I question that statement. I accept your explanation, but it says, ``Since 2000, the U.S. EPA has imposed a ban of PFOS, with exemptions for special uses in the aviation, photography and microelectronics industries.'' We need to know that for sure. As I read it here, it says that in the studies on the blood from the umbilical cords of infants, 99 per cent of those sampled showed these chemicals. That is pretty striking information. We are not dealing with something that is only in the Arctic in polar bears or minks. This data from the study of Ms. Goldman from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health says that PFOS is present in 99 per cent of umbilical cords tested.
That answers my earlier question about this being a universal problem. This committee needs to know whether we are going for something much less than what happens in the United States. We often think we do things better. I would like to have an answer to that question, although not necessarily at this moment.
Mr. Moffet: Again, just to be clear: This bill does not put any restrictions on the use of PFOS. This bill adds the substance to the Virtual Elimination List. The regulations that I have alluded to would prohibit the use of PFOS, subject to certain time-limited and, in some cases, volume-limited exemptions. Those exemptions are similar to exemptions that are in place or have been proposed by other jurisdictions, including the European Union.
To my knowledge, there is no such equivalent prohibition in place in the United States at the federal level. There is a significant new use restriction at the federal level, but that is not the same as a prohibition on imports, production and sale of products containing this substance, and that is what the Canadian regulations would do.
Senator Milne: Have those regulations been published in the Canada Gazette?
Mr. Moffet: The initial version of the regulations was published in December 2006, and we anticipate that the regulations will be made final and come into effect this spring.
Senator McCoy: As I understand what you are saying, you do not need the bill; the bill does nothing, but you are not against it. The regulations will do everything, which you have proposed but which are not in force. Is that a good summary of the testimony we heard?
Mr. Moffet: It is an elegant summary, with one exception. I do believe there is symbolic value to this bill. The bill sends a signal to producers and users worldwide. We know that supply chain management is becoming increasingly important and is being driven by things like lists, not just by regulations. Second, at the international level, the addition of the substance to the Virtual Elimination List should, in my opinion, enhance the likelihood that international action will be taken to address this substance.
The Chair: Thank you, panel. You have been most helpful to us in understanding the purpose, intent and effect of this bill.
We will now meet with our second panel, whose attendance we appreciate very much, dealing again with Bill C-298, which is an act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under CEPA, 1999.
Our second panel is comprised of Dr. Lynn Goldman, who is with us by means of video conference and Mr. Hugh Benevides, counsel at the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Dr. Goldman is a professor at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Khatter, who is the Pollution Policy Advisor with Environmental Defence, will join us.
Dr. Lynn Goldman, Professor, Johns Hopkins University: Good evening. It is my honour to testify about Bill C-298, An Act to add PFOS and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999.
As you said, I am a professor in environmental health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. My training was in pediatrics and public health. I have served in the U.S. government as well between 1993 and 1998. I was assistant administrator for toxic substances at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where I was responsible for the administration of the U.S. chemicals and pesticide laws. Currently, I am involved in research on PFOS and other polyfluorinated chemicals. This will be the subject of my testimony.
As you know, polyfluoroalkyl compounds, such as perfluorooctane sulfonate and others are ubiquitous. They are made by people and they have been widely dispersed in the environment.
In 2004 we began a study in Baltimore, Maryland to assess the distribution and determinants of fetal exposure to these compounds in newborn babies. Our study was what we would call a ``convenience sample'' of 299 ``singleton'' — meaning not twins or triplets — newborn babies delivered between 2004 and 2005 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. They were not necessarily selected to be representative of all the babies in the Baltimore area, but at the same time, as far as we know, there are no major sources of exposure to these compounds in the Baltimore area, as there are no facilities that manufacture and process these compounds.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratory in Atlanta, Georgia, analyzed the blood samples. They searched for 10 of these polyfluorinated chemicals by using state-of-the-art technology. PFOS and PFOA were detected in 99 per cent and 100 per cent of the umbilical cord sera respectively. In other words, PFOS itself was in 99 per cent of samples.
We reported in the U.S. Environmental Science & Technology the levels that we found of those compounds. I have provided for the committee the references from our studies. We found that the PFOS and PFOA concentrations were highly correlated and that the eight other polyfluorinated compounds that we looked for were detected much less frequently and at much lower concentrations.
Another interesting thing that we found in our population is that the levels were very equally distributed. They were somewhat higher for the Black and the Asian babies than for the White babies, but other demographic and socio- economic characteristics, such as age of the mother, her education level and other socio-economic status variables, whether or not they lived in Baltimore, were not significantly associated with the concentrations of these contaminants in cord blood. This is interesting to us as scientists because for most environmental substances one does see some relationship with social class and place of residence that we did not observe with these compounds.
Because animal studies had indicated these might have developmental toxicity associated with them, we looked at data on birth outcomes, such as gestational age and growth of the babies. We had available to us a number of clinical parameters that are often associated with these outcomes, along with smoking and other potential, what we would call ``confounding variables.'' Both PFOS and PFOA were negatively associated with birth weight. Also, both of these were negatively associated with head circumference of the babies. This relationship with head circumference was significant in that babies with higher exposures to PFOS and PFOA had somewhat smaller heads at birth, even after correcting for other factors such as gestational age of the babies. We did not see a relationship with the height of the babies.
Then we looked at another measure of growth called the ``ponderal index,'' which is actually a measure of body mass of infants. We did see that babies had a smaller ponderal index when they had higher exposures to PFOS and PFOA.
I want to get to what we think these findings might mean. We searched through the toxicology literature and found that there is a lot of evidence for developmental toxicity among animals, those with PFOS and PFOA, although these animal studies were done at much higher dosage levels than the levels we observed in our population. Also, more recently, an investigator reported that newborn mice who are exposed to either PFOS or PFOA exhibited later developmental neurotoxicity and we know that sometimes compounds that cause toxicity to the brain also cause smaller growth to the brain, so that is an interesting finding.
There are not very many other epidemiological studies on health effects of these compounds on human babies. There was a question about that from one of the senators. There is one study that we do not think is relevant because it was a study of workers that was based completely on the recall of the baby's birth weight and did not have key information such as the gestational age. It is very important, obviously, when you are looking at birth weight, to be able to control for gestational age. The farther along the pregnancy, we know the bigger the baby, that only makes sense.
However, there is a second study from Denmark that looked at 1,400 women and their infants using somewhat different methods than we did. They were able to reproduce the findings that we had for birth weight and PFOA, but not for birth weight and PFOS. They did not have any reported findings about head circumference or ponderal index, which were the strongest findings we had.
We are not yet at a point where we can say that our study has been replicated by other studies, although certainly the Danish study would be a hint that, at least for the PFOA, others might be reporting the same birth weight findings.
What would be the significance of this? There are two issues that are very important to bring forward to the committee. The first is the issue of finding these compounds in such a high percentage of babies in the population. The problem with our study is that we are not able to evaluate from the kind of data we have what the sources and pathways of these compounds were to the babies. In other words, we do not really know how the exposures to their mothers occurred. We certainly know that babies would have got the compounds from their mothers because they are present in the cord blood at birth, but we do not know how the mothers were exposed.
Recent information published in the U. S. journal Science tells us that investigators described a new mechanism for bioaccumulation that is relevant to food webs containing air-breathing mammals. We happen to be air-breathing mammals, so that makes it relevant to us. They have described a new class of persistent organic pollutants with a high octanol-air partition coefficient, KOA, which means that these compounds can be actually absorbed through the respiratory tract and with poor respiratory elimination, these compounds are biomagnified in mammals. That seems to be the case for PFOS and PFOA, and probably why it is that these were not predicted to be bioaccumulators, because they do not have high Kows, or artesian octanol and water artesian coefficients as our classical POPs do.
This was only published last year, but I think it will have a profound impact on how we look at the issue of biomagnification and that we may need to have new policies to ensure we are addressing these as persistent organic pollutants, just as we do with the ones that accumulate in aquatic systems, the ones with high octanol-water coefficients.
What is the health impact later in life for these findings? The answer at this point is that we really do not know the significance of these findings will be to these babies later in life. Our study is not designed to follow them over time. We do know that, in general, altered weight and altered ponderal index have been indicative of more serious metabolic alterations, and that there is a potential concern. However, some have suggested that perhaps we are seeing a relationship that is the other way around; that because the babies are small, for some reason, being small is making them accumulate these compounds.
The other thing that we do know is that altered head circumference as I mentioned before has been in the past associated with neurotoxicity, but we certainly do not know in this case that it will be.
In closing, we do have uncertainties about the actual significance of our findings. However, these compounds are persistent in the environment and in humans. That is why I would say that I would support proposals such as the ones that you have put forward to phase out uses of PFOS. I am also concerned about the PFOA and chemicals that are precursors of PFOS and PFOA that may be transformed to them in the environment. I realize these are not subject to your current legislation. However, I think that in the future, they certainly will be of concern, as well.
I want to thank you for inviting my testimony. I will be available to take your questions and discuss these issues with all of you.
Hugh Benevides, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association: For the benefit of those committee members who do not know me and my organization, I am with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. We are a legal aid clinic established under Legal Aid Ontario and as such, we represent clients, both environmental groups and those individuals who meet the legal aid criteria, with their environmental problems. We have existed since 1970.
Consistent with that client representation, during all those years, we have also participated in law reform and policy reform work, as well. In that context, my colleagues have made several submissions over the last few years on the perfluorinated chemicals, PFCs, in particular.
My comments are fairly broad. I should start in congratulating the committee for its report on the CEPA review. I do that not simply to congratulate you but to note some of the recommendations related to this bill. Most importantly, and I will stick to this one, is your recommendation 5 in that report which recommends:
. . . that the definition and implementation of the concept of ``virtual elimination'' under CEPA 1999 and the Toxic Substances Management Policy be brought into alignment with that of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
However, more importantly, you note above that recommendation that ``your committee did not examine the issue of virtual elimination in depth,'' but that you do
``. . . believe that the concept of virtual elimination under CEPA, 1999, needs to be revisited to make it more effective.''
I raise that because, perhaps through our own oversight, we did not give this committee the two-page submission that we gave to the committee in the other house in January 2007. Our submission remarked on the shortcomings of virtual elimination as conceived in CEPA. Some senators will remember that, despite environmental advocates wanting a definition or articulation of ``virtual elimination'' that was more consistent with the initial idea of virtual elimination — and I refer back to Senator Spivak's comments earlier — that the spirit of virtual elimination, VE, was akin to the spirit of pollution prevention. What resulted from Bill C-32, the bill that resulted in CEPA 1999, was that articulation of ``virtual elimination'' that deals wholly with releases of substances and not at all with the need to prevent pollution at source. In other words, not to use substances at the outset or to eliminate whether you want to call that ``virtual'' or not — or to ban them.
It is in that context that I make some observations about the bill that is before you. I cannot in good conscience say that I think what the bill does now is beneficial, even for the great symbolic value that Mr. Moffet mentioned earlier. I would be pleased to be corrected on that. For example, if I knew that the international community was looking to Canada to list PFOS on its Virtual Elimination List as a way to really push that process forward of including PFOS in the global regulation that was referred to earlier.
I do not want to be taken as saying that I think that a level of quantification which is required for VE under the act now is what I would want either. I agree that it seems that would be a significant expenditure to figure out how and in what quantities VE is released from landfills and in other mechanisms of breakdown.
I raise this because I want to express my doubt, as an honest statement, that Canada placing this substance on the Virtual Elimination List will have that symbolic effect. Anyone involved in these mechanisms or instruments, internationally looking at Canada, I think would say: What does that mean? What happens now with this substance? Mr. Moffet was candid with you. He said: In the context of this bill, adding it to the VE list, nothing happens. I appreciated his being candid in that respect.
On the question of the prohibition regulation that Mr. Moffet says is coming imminently, I would like to link back to this committee's recommendations regarding timelines for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I believe those are your recommendations 16 and 17. We appeared, along with Mr. Khatter, in February of last year, talking about perfluorinated substances.
Part of our submission included proposed timelines. This is not for the purpose of saying we told you so or anything of that nature. However, the timeline that we proposed between publishing a proposed instrument — so that is the proposed prohibition regulation that Mr. Moffet spoke to, which was gazetted in December 2006, not yet 18 months, and that is the current timeline — under our proposal would have been required to be published in its final form by now. We proposed a six-month timeline. I am pleased to hear that it will be published. However, I am underlining that this committee was correct in accepting that only those mandatory timelines will compel action.
Finally, I want to draw to the committee's attention a letter that my colleagues, Kathleen Cooper and Fe De Leon wrote to the Director of the Chemical Sector Division in February 2007. I apologize for not having brought copies of these items but I am pleased to leave them with the clerk. The letter recommended that management of the PFOS chemicals, as a group, demands that a specific, comprehensive and explicit list of the chemicals should be included in the regulation. My understanding is that the proposed regulation did not do that. That says that the prohibition regulation would not cover the broadest possible group of substances that it could. That goes to the regulation, not to this bill. I appreciate this committee is dealing with the broader issues.
Dr. Kapil Khatter, Pollution Policy Advisor, Environmental Defence: Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I am a family physician practising in Ottawa and I am the Pollution Advisory Officer for Environmental Defence, a national environmental group that works on a broad range of environmental issues including toxic substances, wildlife species and zoning.
The committee understands by now that PFOS is a serious problem. We have heard from Dr. Goldman that it is more persistent and bioaccumulative than some of the dirty dozen substances we were concerned about before. New evidence shows that the levels of PFOS in polar bears have now surpassed the levels of PCBs that were concerning us in the past. The EPA has written that PFOS is ``an unacceptable technology that should be eliminated to protect human health and the environment from potentially severe long-term consequences.''
Environmental Defence is in support of this bill. We are happy you are in the process of taking this action. As Mr. Moffet said, the bill has already been partially successful. Since its launch, it has pushed the government to establish proposed regulations and the listing of PFOS as a toxic substance in Canada. Unfortunately, we are still awaiting the finalization of those regulations.
The bill remains important. As Senator Milne and Mr. Moffet discussed, the bioaccumulation regulations are out of date. There is a problem in the way they are framed in that they do not capture a substance like PFOS despite the fact we all know PFOS is terribly bioaccumulative. Officials like Mr. Moffet are in the position of saying we know PFOS is bioaccumulative, but we cannot say that because our regulations do not allow it. That is why department officials are supportive of a bill that allows them to put PFOS on the Virtual Elimination List where they believe it should be.
Mr. Moffet indicated this creates a statement and symbolism both domestically and internationally. Domestically, the bill sets a Canadian goal and standard for what we think of PFOS and where we want to go with it, that is, the virtual elimination of PFOS in our environment.
It also makes a statement on Canada's behalf in terms of the Stockholm Convention and the listing of PFOS as a persistent organic pollutant. We have had discussions with the government and the government is interested in supporting the proposal to list PFOS in the Stockholm Convention. The government sees the bill as making a statement internationally for the listing of PFOS. It has been recommended by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee that PFOS should be listed on the convention as perhaps the thirteenth item in terms of the dirty dozen.
There are a couple of reasons why that is important and Mr. Moffet alluded to one of them. First, as much as companies in the U.S. and Canada may be working to phase out PFOS and we may have regulations to try to control consumer products that come into the country, recent news stories have shown how difficult it is to enforce regulations around the influx of products into the country. Despite our knowing lead is a problem and having clear regulations on lead, we continue to see lead-contaminated products coming into Canada because it is difficult to enforce.
One reason we need to make this statement internationally is that we need countries other than developed countries that have strong environmental regulations to stop using, producing and incorporating PFOS in products that may come into the country.
Second, PFOS is a persistent substance that is part of what we call long-range transport. There was a discussion in the last panel on this. When it was gazetted as part of the proposed regulations, it met the criteria for long-range transport, meaning it ends up airborne and moving around the planet. As the Polar Regions are cooler, it ends up precipitating in places like Canada. When southern countries like China or India produce PFOS it can still contaminate the polar bears and people in Canada.
Another aspect that has already come up in terms of why this bill is important is the way it reinforces the problems of bioaccumulation regulations in CEPA. This committee's report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act has commented and recommended that those bioaccumulation regulations be changed. This bill is an additional statement to say that the regulations are out of date, PFOS should be on the list and we need to put it on the list. It is a statement that Parliament can make regarding virtual elimination. In addition it is a statement that Parliament can make about the importance of controlling PFOS, its toxicity and the urgency with which we need to deal with this problem.
Environmental Defence hopes you will pass this bill and contribute to the protection of humans and the environment from the potential impacts of PFOS. We also hope you will contribute to the other project we are working on which is the reform of chemicals legislation in Canada. We are particularly concerned about chemicals like PFOS, the worst of the worst. They are the chemicals that build up in our body and the environment until they cause problems.
Senator Milne: Doctor Goldman, I think the findings in your study are very frightening and of great concern. Are you following these babies through to do assessments of them at different stages of their lives to see if smaller head circumference or smaller body mass will affect them later on in development?
Dr. Goldman: No, Senator Milne because by design, we are not able to follow these babies forward because the way the study was conducted, they were completely anonymous to us.
We are now doing other work on this study. We have a repository of serum and we are evaluating the relationships between levels of thyroid hormones and the PFOS and PFOA. We are planning to look at other endocrine end points as well to try to understand better what is happening.
At Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, I am the Principal Investigator for our National Children's Study Centre. This is work we are hoping to bring forward into that context, but there are other groups that are doing studies where they will be able to do more longitudinal work.
We were quite surprised at the levels we found, that we would see any evidence or effects because in the animal studies, the doses are much higher. Going into this, we did not expect that we would have positive findings to report.
Senator Milne: You were surprised that at low levels of exposure you were finding these. You are now saying that you are carrying on with the serum you have stored to test for other problems, for example, thyroid problems.
Dr. Goldman: Yes, we think that if there is an impact on growth, we may also see changes in hormone levels. Therefore, we are looking at those levels. We will also look at the insulin-like growth factor, which is the equivalent to human growth hormone for the fetus. We are looking at those levels to see if they are modified or not by the exposures to PFOS.
Senator Milne: This is becoming more terrifying by the minute. Maybe even at this stage, if we are doing something, we are too late in doing it.
Mr. Benevides, it seems to me that what you are saying is not in opposition to this bill, although that is where you said you stand, but it is concern with either the definition, or the lack thereof, of ``virtual elimination.'' Do you not think we should start somewhere?
Mr. Benevides: It is true that I am not exactly opposed, but I cannot see that the symbolic value will be so great. I was not that articulate in my opening submissions; however, the point I began to make was that someone who is looking to see what Canada has done, would see that Canada has listed PFOS, and has not taken action. I am just talking about listing the substance on the Virtual Elimination List.
The prospect of a precedent was raised in an earlier question, and I am concerned about a precedent in a different way from the way you suggested, Mr. Chair. We are already concerned that virtual elimination does not mean what it was intended to mean historically. Furthermore, the listing of this substance does not mean there is a great likelihood that we will list all kinds of substances willy-nilly in order to enhance Canada's reputation in some perverse way, but that is the point. I do not think this sends a great message about Canada, if we are listing something that requires great actions such as a VE substance, and then we do nothing about it.
Senator Milne: Dr. Khatter, have you read the proposed regulations? Do they go far enough? Will they answer Mr. Benevides' problems?
Dr. Khatter: I have two answers to that question. The first is that virtual elimination, as it is set up in the act, requires the minister, as opposed to the government in general, to take some sort of action. Since the bill was originally tabled, the proponents of this bill have basically negotiated with the government that it is fine with them if the government chooses to use the prohibition regulations as the way of achieving virtual elimination or elimination. The House committee has taken a step back in terms of an amendment to the bill in terms of the provision that it would normally require the government to use because there are other provisions that the government could use as well. It has always been our position that we do not care whether you use the virtual elimination provision that comes under it, or whether, when something needs to be virtually eliminated, you use a prohibition to do the task. As Mr. Moffet said, sometimes with things that are consumer products, the prohibition regulations are an important way of doing it. It is important for us that PFOS become only the second substance to be on the Virtual Elimination List. The only one that was put on the Virtual Elimination List so far was already phased out, and it is important for us that we start to make the statement that these substances are a serious problem and need to be moved.
In terms of whether the prohibition regulations go far enough, we understand some of the issues around needing to phase things out because of their use in society. We would like to see the government push things a little further. We know there is a consultant's report in the U.K., for instance, where they did analysis of the sector and found that things could move quicker than they are moving now. We have seen other documents that suggested, with respect to decorative plating, that if there was a switch from chromium 5 to chromium 3, it would not be necessary to use PFOS, and that could done earlier than the five years. Of those doing other metal plating, 50 per cent of the sector are already using mechanical ventilation that does not involve PFOS, and we just need to shift the other users over to it. There are costs involved, of course.
On the other hand, there are uses with semi-conductors where I am less aware of alternatives. As Senator Spivak mentioned, we need to push harder for the creation of alternatives by having tight timelines on these kinds of changes.
Senator Milne: I understand that Sweden has proposed that PFOS be banned globally under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and Sweden, along with Britain, has applied to the EU for a national European ban on PFOS. Perhaps what Mr. Benevides says is just a symbolic gesture here would help spur this sort of action on.
Dr. Khatter: I would agree, and the discussions around what to do with PFOS with department officials have included the importance of Canada taking a stance at the Stockholm Convention. I refer to the dirty dozen, which is exactly what I was talking about in terms of why we need to make sure, not only for worldwide benefit but also for Canadians' health and Canadian wildlife that we encourage and make a statement about the elimination of the use of PFOS throughout the globe.
Mr. Benevides: Let us not confuse Canada taking a stand at the Stockholm Convention with Canada listing a substance on the Virtual Elimination List. I want to clarify that we are in complete agreement of the need to eliminate this and other substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative and/or toxic.
My understanding from reading the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the proposed regulation respecting PFOS is that there are some exceptions. Dr. Khatter has identified, through documents he has seen, that action could be taken more quickly through that regulation.
What stuns me is that we can have government representatives here, and they do not tell you the reasons for the delay, the reasons for the gaps, and why those gaps are not being addressed. I am simply directing attention to that issue.
The Chair: Do you think they are commercial considerations, Mr. Benevides?
Mr. Benevides: Yes, senator, without a doubt there are commercial considerations.
The Chair: Would some of them be reasonable? Would some be unreasonable?
Mr. Benevides: I suspect that is true, from the relatively little reading I have been able to do on the proposed regulation. I suppose that some of them sound reasonable, but I would put myself into no different situation than that of the committee. One would have to investigate those considerations.
The Chair: Are you talking about what was referred to as ``time-limited exemptions''?
Mr. Benevides: That is right. Unfortunately, we are all also in the same position that we will see whether, as is often the case, those exceptions are extended, which is always in the realm of possibility.
The Chair: To your knowledge, are any of them longer than five years?
Mr. Benevides: I do not know.
Dr. Khatter: Nothing in the regulations calls for an exemption that is longer than five years.
Senator Milne: Mr. Benevides, it was published in Canada Gazette the first time around for comment. Have you provided them with some comments that might encourage them to stiffen up the legislation?
Mr. Benevides: In the letter of February 14, 2007, I referred to one of the recommendations, which was about including a comprehensive and precise list of what substances would be included. That is on page 2 of the letter. We also talked about our wish to make the prohibitions true prohibitions and as complete as possible and as soon as possible with no exemptions.
That is our position with the use of the prohibition regulations generally because I have found, in looking at those regulations, which are an omnibus set of regulations to which substances are added periodically, there are often prohibitions with exceptions, so the title itself, much like one would argue with the term ``virtual elimination,'' is misleading.
When we talk about the impression we are giving, I think of regulations issued in Ontario a few years ago with titles like ``toughest environmental penalties regulations ever,'' these suggestive types of titles. We all know not to judge a book by its cover.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Again, to our three presenters, I do not think there is any disagreement that this is exceedingly interesting and I believe exceedingly important.
I ask Dr. Goldman to comment on the mention in the presentation of the bill in the House of Commons to the effect that PFOS have been found to cause breast, liver and thyroid cancer and is known to harm the pancreas, the brain and the immune system in animals. No reference is given for that information. I know that this is outside the realm of work you are doing with infants, but I suspect also that you are very well informed on this kind of information.
Dr. Goldman: I believe that statement is accurate in addition to some of what I cited before about also causing developmental toxicity. The cancers seem to be related to some biochemical alterations that can be monitored in animals in the toxicology studies that seem to go along in those kinds of studies with increased cancer rates. Fundamental changes in cell biology can be measured by looking at altered protein expression in the animals. There is a nice biological consistency between the protein changes, the gene expression changes that are observed and the cancers that are created.
The issues always of course are relevant for people. I think it is reasonable to consider PFOS to be at least a suspect human carcinogen. However, it has not yet been reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and we are still waiting for definitive expert reviews. My reading of the data indicates that there is something going on that is of quite a bit of concern metabolically.
Some of the other issues, such as the liver toxicity you mentioned, one might see with very high dosing. One of the issues with the animal studies is that they on purpose dose up to the maximum tolerated dose.
When I sift through it all the things that concern me the most are the cancers, the potential toxicity to the immune system, and the developmental and reproductive toxicity. Those three issues concern me the most.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I am involved with another Senate committee that is studying early childhood development. One of the leading experts on this subject has talked to us about epigenetics and how environmental factors in utero and afterwards can affect genetic expression. He has gone so far as to say that this may or may not, of course, be a factor in autism. Do you have any more information on the possible impact of PFOS on brain development?
Dr. Goldman: In terms of the published literature, there is just the one study that has been reported, and actually just this year. Johansson et al. reported this in a journal called NeuroToxicology. They dosed neonatal mice with PFOS. The level of development of the brain of neonatal mice is at a similar stage to where a human brain might be during the third trimester of pregnancy for a human. Those mice did show neuro-behavourial defects. As adults, they had some test results that looked like poor attention and others that looked like hyperactivity, which is quite a bit of concern, obviously, because one of our largest public health problems now in terms of child development is with attention deficit and hyperactivity. This is only one study. They found these results consistently with both PFOS and PFOA. This group has produced reliable findings in the past with other compounds that have proven to be neurotoxic so I have no reason to doubt their findings. In science we like to see consistent reproducible findings and this is such a new field of investigation that we do not have much published yet.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I would like to leave here tonight a little more confident in my understanding of the pervasiveness of this group of chemicals in our environment, not just in the Arctic, which was mentioned by the previous group of presenters.
The use of non-stick products really woke me up again. We have read media articles about non-stick frying pans, non-stick baking items, and some of the sprays that are being used so one does not have to grease the pan, et cetera. Can we leave here with a little better understanding of the pervasiveness of these products? When it says ``non-stick,'' does that apply to the examples I have just given?
Dr. Goldman: One thing that we are not very certain of, and there are a few studies, is the extent to which these materials migrate off of coatings such as the coatings on non-stick pans. Some of these coatings are made with these compounds and some with other compounds. However, one study seems to show that it may depend on the brand of the pan and it may depend on how new it is. In other words, there may be some off-migration but not for all of them. There are studies mostly by industry that do not show any off-migration at all.
When the PFOS is used as a stain repellent and sprayed on, it is in a monymer form, but when the materials are made into non-stick coatings, they are like a polymer; it is a different substance.
One idea is that perhaps it is in the manufacture of those coatings that these substances are being released into the environment. Another thought has been about the disposal of the items.
One other little fact is that these compounds, I think it is particularly the PFOA, have been used as a coating for microwave popcorn bags. They use these as coatings and you can find the substance on the popcorn. Another potential source of exposure is through those non-stick uses, not just on pans but perhaps bags, food containers and a number of other things.
Dr. Khatter: I recently found some information from European surveys of where PFOS is used. This is to illustrate the difficulty of tackling these kinds of problems and dealing with them from the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
The European surveys found that PFOS is used in floor cleaners, polishes and waxes; in dishwashing liquids; in car polishes and waxes; in denture cleaners and shampoos. We are learning more and more about where PFOS is being used.
Senator McCoy: Dr. Khatter as I hear it, there may be strategic reasons for passing the bill and there may be strategic reasons for not passing it. I am assuming this committee will discuss that when we come to making our decision.
There is some suggestion that having introduced the bill, this acted as a catalyst for the December 2006, prohibition regulations, which are the one thing that will do something about these products in Canada; it has stalled.
Dr. Khatter, how confident are you that the proposed regulations will be promulgated.
Dr. Khatter: We are fairly confident. We cannot be 100 per cent confident. You heard from Mr. Moffet, who has quite a bit of authority on that issue. Mr. Benevides spoke of the timelines within the act, at which point they need to finalize the regulations, which is 18 months. From our point of view, it would have been good notice for people who needed to phase this out. We do not have guarantees that the regulations will look exactly like they did when they were proposed, but Mr. Moffet suggested there would not be many changes when he testified.
Senator McCoy: Therefore passing or not passing the bill will not be a factor when the regulations are put into effect?
Dr. Khatter: Passing or not passing the bill will not necessarily affect the regulations at this point. However, keep in mind that the reason the House committee agreed to take the mechanism under virtual elimination out of this bill was with the guarantee from the government that the prohibition regulations would be the way of implementing virtual elimination. As Mr. Moffet said, the government is completely on side with the idea that PFOS should be on the Virtual Elimination List. Their hands have been tied by out of date regulations and they are happy to see a bill that would put virtual elimination in the bill, as it should be.
Senator Spivak: I want to continue on the topic of regulations to prohibit. Since they will not prohibit all uses, what about the rest of it? Under this bill, would that mean there would not be the same process? They have taken out the normal process for virtual elimination.
Mr. Benevides: Senator Spivak, are you asking that without the promulgation of the prohibition regulations, if this bill is passed, still nothing will happen in respect of PFOS because it is on the Virtual Elimination List?
Senator Spivak: No, I am saying the regulations will prohibit PFOS but not all uses. What about those residual uses? Sure, there is a timeline, but what could happen in the future? What is the risk? It is exactly the same question Senator McCoy asked.
Mr. Benevides: I have already talked about the fact that virtual elimination is tied inseparably to the level of quantification. Mr. Moffet spoke of this, too. He says the releases that we have that will happen for PFOS are not appropriate.
There is no perfect world the way the bill would have worked before and it is not perfect now. The way I read it now, not only will nothing be done in respect of PFOS but the bill divorces action on any possible action on PFOS from the steps required by CEPA to be taken in relation of a substance that is on the VE list.
I did not realize this, though I am pretty sure I am right. Section 79 of CEPA, 1999 requires that virtual elimination plans, similar to the pollution prevention plans, which I think this committee looked at in more detail in the CEPA review, are required with the same shortcomings. They do not need to be made public. They are just submitted to the government and the government can review them.
However, even under subsection 79(2), which identifies a person's obligations, a person who has to make a virtual elimination plan. However, say hypothetically in respect of PFOS, those obligations relate to the implementation of virtual elimination under subsection 65(3), which is the one that talks about level of quantification.
I do not think there is an obligation. Perhaps there is somewhere where something can be done. I think it would require an amendment to CEPA, 1999. Subsection 79(4) also says that there is no obligation to make VE plans until the substance has been added to Schedule 1, the List of Toxic Substances.
That, I understand, has been done for PFOS; it has been added. I spoke to Mr. Moffet before the meeting and he told me it is listed. One could be required, with the above qualifications, to prepare and implement virtual elimination plans; however, my reading of it is that it is only in relation to a level of quantification.
If you could require proponents of the substances to say how they will deal with these things within the time limits, and that those plans were public, then we would be much further ahead. I would not have to ask the question: What is happening with the regulation? Mr. Moffet says that it is working its arduous and slow way up the line. However, perhaps honourable senators and the public would know what proponents and users, importers, manufacturers are doing to put on the oven hoods, on the gizmos and to find safe substitutes and to find new ways of etching semi- conductors and to clean dentures.
Senator Spivak: I am worried because I can see a scenario where the companies would say: ``This chemical is an important thing. It is pervasive through industry. We cannot find an alternative.'' The government could just extend it. Then we are looking at 10 years down the line.
Have they been published?
Mr. Benevides: The finals are not published. The proposals are published.
Senator Spivak: I suppose there is a chance to comment on them, but not to do anything. At one point, there was a movement to be able to amend regulations, which I think would be a great idea. So much is now done in regulation and the original reason for regulations not to be amended has disappeared.
Mr. Benevides: Amended by the legislative branch, you mean? Are you saying there would be an opportunity for the legislators to amend legislation?
Senator Spivak: Yes, I understand your caution.
Dr. Khatter: I think that Mr. Benevides and I both agree that virtual elimination is far from perfect as a tool within CEPA. We understand the reason the House agreed to use prohibition regulations instead of the virtual elimination tool to deal with PFOS, in this case, is because they were convinced of Mr. Moffet's argument: It is difficult to figure out how to virtually eliminate things once they are in products. How do you figure out how much is leaching out of a product? It goes back to the fact that virtual elimination should have been about use and not just release. In this case, it is just about release.
We feel that there is a way to fix that and that is to make the definition of ``release'' when you put something in a product that will go out on the market. Virtual elimination of PFOS can be not ever being allowed to put something in a product where it will then leech in both use and disposal.
I think we are in a place where we support listing PFOS under virtual elimination despite the fact that virtual elimination is not perfect in CEPA. If we had a better virtual elimination or elimination tool within CEPA then, obviously, we would want to use that. However, this is the tool we have right now and we would prefer to use it than to not use it at all. We recognize that the prohibition regulations are the way the government has decided to deal with something that is persistent and bioaccumulative and needs to be virtually eliminated.
Senator Brown: Dr. Khatter, if we get a global ban on future manufacture of PFOS, which everyone seems to believe is very advisable — because Dr. Goldman has found that 99 per cent of newborn babies have PFOS in their umbilical cords.
I would like to know if we manage to succeed in doing that globally, does it combine with what is in the environment now. Does it combine with any other compounds and become non-toxic or degenerate into something else, or are we stuck with what is already out there?
Dr. Khatter: PFOS is not indefinitely persistent, so it will not stick around forever. There is a lot of debate, and Dr. Goldman is perhaps updated on this in terms of how long it stays in the human body. However, the last I heard it will take you and I eight years to get half of our PFOS out of our body once PFOS is eliminated. It will break down and be eliminated slowly, but we are at a point now where that level is building and we need to reverse that by eliminating the PFOS use.
Senator Brown: Do I understand that we were concluding that it is part of Teflon non-stick surfaces?
Dr. Goldman: PFOS is not a part of non-stick coatings. Some non-stick coatings are made with a closely-related compound called PFOA — perfluorooctane acid. It is made with that substance or PFOA, so it is the starter for either making a PFOS or making the non-stick coatings.
In our study, we found PFOA in as many babies as we found the PFOS as well as the same kind of evidence and we see the same kind of toxicology evidence. I think it is more complicated, and I do not know very much about CEPA, but from what I am hearing, I think PFOA might be harder to get your hands around because it is not intentionally used in the way that PFOS is. PFOS is used directly as a spray, to be a stain repellent and for many other purposes whereas PFOA is used to make other things. However, it is also ending up in the environment.
In the long run, it is not just the PFOS but also the PFOA and also some of the other compounds that are called telomeric acids used to manufacture PFOA. There is good evidence that they are being released and turning into PFOA and PFOS in the environment.
This has gotten way out of hand. As you note, we have this persistent substances in the environment. We can stop the manufacture and use of them and the levels will go down over time, but it was not predicted that they would be as big of a problem as they are today. Therefore, here we are with these persistent substances. You are tipping off the PFOS first, which has been the approach in the United States, albeit very differently.
Senator Milne: Dr. Khatter, your Environmental Defence group has done a second study on PFOS with a group of five families from across the country. Would it be possible for us to have a copy of that study? It might even be something that Dr. Goldman might be interested in. The peer review rigour that she would require might not be in your study, but it might be of value to her.
How many people were involved in the study and in what areas of the country do they live?
Dr. Khatter: The study is a small sample. It is done by an environmental group, as opposed to researchers, on a very small budget. It is a sample of only 13 people and they are fairly randomly distributed. Part of the focus has been in Sarnia and in the First Nations reserve near Sarnia because of the heavy pollution in that area. Part of this study was to look at any differences that people living in those areas might have compared to Canadians randomly distributed around the country.
We can definitely get you that report. I believe there is a French summary of it so we might be able to give you the summary and the translated summary.
Senator McCoy: Dr. Goldman, we have talked about using Scotchguard and various other products. You have been good enough to outline the difference between PFOA and PFOS. Where do the products that are known as flame retardants, which are used to treat things like crib sheets for babies, fall? Are they in this group of chemicals?
Dr. Goldman: They are not. The flame retardants are in another group completely. As far as I know, these have no use as flame retardants at all. These are more like soap; they are surfactants: One side of the molecule really likes water and the other side really hates water. That is why they are so great in protecting against stains, because you have that side that repels water on the outside. That is why some of these compounds are used to make GOR-TEX, the coatings on raincoats. It is very slippery stuff.
Senator McCoy: The next group we will be pursuing is the one that includes the flame-retardants. I think they also have been accused of having some correlation with developmental problems in children.
The Chair: There seem to be no further questions. I want to thank our panellists. Dr. Goldman, thank you very much in particular for making your time available to us in this country. We are grateful for that. Dr. Khatter, it has been nice to see you again. Thank you very much.
We will probably have more questions about this and maybe other subjects and I hope you will all agree if we send them to you will respond to us in writing. We are grateful for your time. Do you have anything to say before we leave?
Dr. Khatter: Thank you, senator. It has been great being back.
Mr. Benevides: I would point to the committee's recommendation 23 in its CEPA report that says, ``. . . substances with similar modes of action, sites of toxicity, unique modes of bioaccumulation and modes of environmental transport be assessed as a class. . . .''
We are here talking about one among 100,000 or more substances in our environment. Anything we can do to accelerate the process by both assessing and managing and — I like to say — regulating rather than managing those substances would be an improvement. I commend the committee for recognizing the need for that and I look to the government's response.
The Chair: We will be watching for it closely, as well, Mr. Benevides. Thank you very much.
We will discuss future business now. We will go in camera to proceed.
The committee continued in camera.