Most people assume a chemical in their clothes, cosmetics or couch has been thoroughly tested for safety. Unfortunately, such testing is often nowhere near as rigorous as needed.
I learned that unfortunate truth in 1976, as a biochemistry researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. I published a lead article in Science showing the flame retardant Tris, then used in most children’s pyjamas in Canada and the U.S., changed DNA and was likely to cause cancer. We recommended a halt to Tris use.
Fortunately, lawmakers were listening, and three months later, Tris was banned from children's sleepwear.
We thought the problem was solved. However, we didn’t know that another form of Tris and other harmful replacement flame retardants continued to be added to household furniture, children's mattresses and other products.
Now, more than four decades later, Canada's health and environment departments are considering regulatory decisions for these harmful replacements. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently took the first step toward a full ban on an entire class of toxic flame retardants in a variety of consumer products. Canada should do likewise.
In Canada and the U.S., laws governing pollution and toxic substances have largely failed to protect human health and the environment from chemical hazards in everyday products. Something has to change. It's time for a green chemistry revolution.
Green chemistry approaches chemical products and processes to minimize toxic substances. It takes the full life cycle of chemical products into account, including design, manufacture, use and disposal.
Proposals to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act would pave the way for Canada to become a green chemistry leader by moving from the chemical-by-chemical approach to assessing and regulating similar toxics together.
The act allows use of hazardous chemicals until excessive levels are detected in the environment or damage to human health is proven. Even then, dangerous chemicals are often swapped for substitutes that are just as damaging, as has happened with harmful flame retardants since the 1970s.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has recommended amending CEPA to reverse the burden of proof for substances of high concern so carcinogens and chemicals that affect reproductive development are presumed toxic and banned unless industry demonstrates they’re safe.
A modern CEPA should also classify endocrine-disrupting chemicals as toxic and regulate them accordingly. The science on endocrine disruption — how chemical pollutants interfere with the body's hormonal system, even at low exposure levels — has evolved rapidly over the past two decades. Toxics laws haven’t kept pace.
Ultimately, tackling toxics is about protecting healthy environments. The Standing Committee's recommendation to recognize the right to a healthy environment in CEPA would help re-orient the legislative framework for managing toxic substances and trigger the needed shift to adequately protect people and environment from them.
Over the past decade, I have shared scientific research with government decision-makers and large purchasers to reduce toxics in everyday products. During the next decade, I hope I can point to Canada as a leader in tackling toxics.
Arlene Blum, PhD, is research associate in the Department of Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, and founding executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute.