Thu 06 Jul 2006

Alaska Highway News

New Act could ban dangerous pesticides

David Suzuki
Science Matters

I have good news and I have bad news. So let's start with the good.

Last week, a long-awaited (since 2002!) piece of federal legislation
came into force - the Pest Control Products Act. It's a boring name
for a vitally important tool to help protect farm workers, gardeners
and other Canadians across the country from hazardous pesticides.
Unlike some legislation that sounds good on paper, but is rendered
ineffective due to political loopholes (the Species At Risk Act comes
to mind), this legislation looks like it should do exactly as it was
intended - help keep some of the worst poisons out of our food chain,
our water supplies and our bodies.

According to the new Act, the federal Minister of Health is now
obliged to initiate a special review of pesticides that contain
active ingredients which have been banned by other member nations of
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) due
to health or environmental concerns. Once the Minister initiates a
review, the onus is on pesticide manufacturers to provide evidence
that their products are not harmful.

This makes perfect sense. If other countries have found these
substances to be harmful enough to ban them, then it should be up to
their manufacturers to provide strong evidence to the contrary if
they are to be allowed in Canada. Anything less would be to treat
Canadians like second-class citizens.

So far, so good. But here's the bad news: according to a recent
review of the chemicals found in pesticides sold in Canada, a
whopping 61 of them are already banned in other industrialized
countries. Thus, while other jurisdictions have seen fit to guard
their citizens from these chemicals, Canadians have been given no
such protection.

Many of these chemicals are still sold widely in our country. For
example, two of the top-five pesticides used in Ontario in 2003
contain atrazine and 1,3-dichloropropene - chemicals banned in OECD
countries like Germany and Sweden. Atrazine is a hormone-mimic,
meaning it can disrupt hormone levels, impair reproduction and cause
developmental defects, while 1,3-dichloropropene is highly toxic to
the liver and kidneys and is classified as a possible human
carcinogen.

Pesticide manufacturers have often fought regulation on the grounds
that there is often no "conclusive" proof that their products harm
human or environmental health. But when it comes to human health,
surely extensive evidence should be enough. And the evidence is
indeed extensive. According  to a recent paper published in the
Annals of Neurology, for example, exposure to pesticides - even at
low levels - can increase a person's risk of developing Parkinson's
disease by 70 per cent.

Another point to remember is that pesticide manufacturers are already
getting away with a loophole. Instead of testing pesticides in the
form they are sprayed on fields and gardens, only their "active
ingredients" are required to be tested. Yet studies have found that
pesticides often contain other agents to enhance the effectiveness of
the active ingredient, making the actual end product much more
dangerous.

For too long Canada has let its environmental and health regulations slide.
Frankly, it's embarrassing and unbecoming of a country that prides
itself on being a leader in these fields. With the new Act coming
into force, we have an opportunity to catch up - at least in this
area.

It's now up to Health Minister Tony Clement to decide what to do.
According to the new Act, he's obliged to call for a special review
of all 61 pesticides, but politicians are notoriously skilled at
finding ways to shirk their duties. Let's hope Mr. Clement lives up
to his and makes a decision to protect the health and well being of
all Canadians.
Take the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

© 2006 Hollinger Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership

  ======================