Prevent Cancer Now

Can citizens stop a project to revive Canada’s deadly asbestos trade?

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:01:44 +0000

By Kathleen Ruff

Fifteen months ago, in October 2010, Indo-Canadian businessman, Baljit Chadha, made an offer to purchase the Jeffrey asbestos mine in the town of Asbestos, Québec. The mine, now closed down, had been in operation for 130 years and for most of the 20th century was owned and operated by the U.S.-based Johns Manville Corporation. In 1982, however, faced with thousands of claims on behalf of workers who were dying (or had already died) from asbestosis and mesothelioma, Johns Manville filed for bankruptcy and sold the mine to Québec owners.

Current mine owner claims “Asbestos is used safely around the world”

Jeffrey Coulombe, president, CEO and current owner of Jeffrey Mine Inc., put out an upbeat press release on November 1, 2010, stating: “A Canadian-led consortium of international investors has made a successful offer to buy 100% of Québec’s privately held Jeffrey Mine Inc. The parties hope to close the transaction by the end of the year (2010) and to resume work on the underground mining project.”

Denying evidence filmed just a few months earlier for a CBC documentary showing workers in India handling Québec asbestos with their bare hands, Coulombe assured that the project to revive the mine Guarantees Safety, Responsible Use and Jobs.

“Chrysotile fibre, previously known as asbestos, is classified as a hazardous product. However, like hundreds of other hazardous materials, it is used safely under controlled conditions around the world,” said Coulombe. Chadha and his fellow investors “will enable the company to produce approximately 225,000 tons of chrysotile fibre annually, while certifying safe and responsible practices from cradle to grave.”

In addition to being an unfortunate choice of words, Coulombe’s assurance of certified “safe and responsible practices from cradle to grave” is total falsehood.

Chadha himself admits that the investors’ guarantee of “safe use” extends only to 0.1% of the life cycle of the exported asbestos – only to the factory that receives the asbestos. Chadha washes his hands of what happens once the asbestos-containing products leave the factory and are placed in schools and homes in Asia, where there are no safety requirements and little awareness that asbestos kills.

Most people who die from asbestos-related diseases do so because they were exposed to asbestos in the community and outside the factory.

“We can’t be held responsible for what happens after the asbestos-containing products leave the factory,” Chadha’s PR agent, Guy Versailles, told the CBC.

This is a cynical, deadly scam.

It is a scam likewise practiced by Prime Minister Harper and Premier Charest. These political leaders tell Canadians that Québec’s asbestos is safely used under rigorous, controlled conditions overseas. They do not mention that Harper and Charest are referring to only 0.1% of the life cycle of the asbestos.

Even for the 0.1% of the life cycle, Harper, Charest and the asbestos dealers are, of course, practicing gross dishonesty. A two-year study carried out by Québec health authorities reported that asbestos is virtually no longer used in Québec factories, but that in the handful of factories where it was being used, there was a 0% success rate in following required safety measures. ON the other hand, a Chrysotile Institute publication, financed by and bearing the official emblems of the Government of Canada and the Government of Québec, states that the asbestos industry studies show that in developing countries like India, Indonesia and Zimbabwe, the success rate for “safe, controlled use” of asbestos is 99.8%.

This stunning success reported by the asbestos industry is reminiscent of voting results in North Korea. It challenges credibility.

When questioned about this disparity, Québec minister Clément Gignac could give no answer. Furthermore, the Québec government’s own health authorities have repeatedly told the Québec government that it is impossible to practice “safe controlled use” of asbestos, even in Québec itself.

Sadly, the Government of Québec and the Government of Canada spurn health authorities and have instead put the asbestos industry in charge of Canada’s asbestos policy. Every Canadian should be seriously disturbed at this example of blatant corruption of public policy.

As Canadians, we are responsible for the duplicitous scam that our government is practicing. Both Prime Minister Harper and Premier Charest support Chadha’s project to re-open the Jeffrey asbestos mine. The Québec government has already approved a $58 million loan guarantee to finance the project. As of this date, however, in spite of political support, Chadha and his foreign investors have not succeeded in coming up with the $25 million that Chadha said he already had in October 2010.

Opposition by courageous health authorities in Québec, by asbestos victims and by ordinary fair-minded Canadians has for more than a year succeeded in discouraging investors and stopping the project from going ahead.

The Québec Medical Association has said that Chadha’s Jeffrey mine project is against the public interest and will lead to increased deaths from asbestos.

Around the world, health experts and asbestos victims are appalled at Canada’s complicity with the asbestos lobby and its deadly propaganda. They are placing their hope in the determination of Canadian citizens to stop the re-opening of the Jeffrey mine.

We must do everything we can to deliver on that hope.

Kathleen Ruff is founder of RightOnCanada.ca and the author of Exporting Harm: How Canada markets asbestos to the developing world

More from Kathleen Ruff:

Canada at heart of global asbestos lobby
An Ounce, Fall 2011 Issue

Canada plays destructive role on world stage
An Ounce, Summer 2011 Issue

Watch Kathleen in this two-minute trailer for “Canary in the Mine”, a new documentary that will soon be released at film festivals. Canary in the Mine explores the personal and political ramifications of one of Canada’s most controversial industries: the mining and exportation of asbestos.

For more information on asbestos and how you can take action, be sure to visit our website.

Fatal Deception
Shocking documentary on CBC’s The National: “Fatal Deception”. Is the federal government relying on junk science to justify its support for re-opening asbestos mines in Quebec? (February 2, 2012)

Rick Mercer on Asbestos
Be sure to watch Rick Mercer’s rant on Canada’s outrageous behavior on asbestos. Rick’s rant aired on September 20, 2011.

Must-Watch Asbestos Documentary: “TOXIC TRADE”
Watch this powerful documentary (click “Play Video”) from Australian Broadcast Corporation foreign correspondent Matt Peacock examines Canada’s immoral exports of asbestos to the developing world. The piece originally aired on November 9, 2011. Duration is 30 minutes. If you have problems with the video player you can read the transcript here.

Great Blog on Asbestos
Read this great blog from Lyn Cockburn: Let’s say goodbye to asbestos. Lyn is known for her satire, irreverence and biting commentary, and most of all for being unrepentant!

New Book on Asbestos
The Asbestos Lie is a book by Maria Roselli (originally published in German in 2007) about the practices of the Swiss Eternit asbestos-cement company. The book documents how SE used slave labour during the 2nd World War and how financial, political and bureaucratic interests colluded to cover up the scientific evidence allowing the asbestos industry to reap huge profitswhile so many died. Merlin Press will be publishing The Asbestos Lie in English in the coming months. Follow the link for more information.

Staggering Duplicity
Prevent Cancer Now Co-Chair, Diana Daghofer, responds to asbestos exporter (December 2011).

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

Misreading Research: What the news said vs. what the science said

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:00:01 +0000

By Maggie MacDonald

In medieval times, kings employed tasters to try their food and drink and test it for poisons, before the kings would consume it themselves. In these democratic times, the public entrusts the testing to scientists and regulators. While far more people are protected from harm than in the days of medieval tasters, when it comes to science reporting on environmental causes of cancer, calls for precaution regarding potentially harmful substances are being lost in media reports that misinterpret or minimize important findings.

One example of this problem lies in articles that interpret gaps in the scientific literature and accompanying calls for further research as evidence that a given substance is safe. Even if the reporting pays heed to calls for further study into the effects of a given chemical, readers can be misled by titles that present an absence of information as reassurance. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

In December 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released the report Breast Cancer and the Environment: A Life Course Approach. Consisting of a review of previous studies, the report was sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Fund for the Cure.

The report offers familiar recommendations that emphasize the individual’s personal responsibility in making lifestyle choices, such as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, excess medical radiation, and menopausal hormone therapy (unless necessary).

As the Silent Spring Institute notes in their response to the IOM report, the study departs from general medical establishment skepticism and emphasis on individual choice in two significant ways: The report recommends that we “limit or eliminate workplace, consumer, and environmental exposures to chemicals that are plausible contributors to breast cancer risk while considering risks of substitutes.” This recommendation, combined with the IOM’s conclusion that human and animal studies indicate benzene, ethylene oxide and 1,3-butadiene as breast cancer risks, was not clearly reflected in mainstream news reporting on the IOM study.

For example, the New York Times article on the report emphasizes the lack of evidence, and the challenges researchers face in studying chemicals of concern. While it mentions the three chemicals cited as risks, this is buried in a story that is overwhelmingly about a lack of strong evidence for a link between chemical exposures and cancer. The Los Angeles Times article on the report was even more conclusive, stating: “Its findings are likely to perturb some environmental advocates, who have warned that the burgeoning industrial use of “endocrine-disrupting chemicals” has set the stage for a plague of breast and other hormone-related cancers in humans.”

Articles that emphasize a lack of conclusive evidence foster a false perception of the underlying cause of the lack of scientific and regulatory consensus. According to the Breast Cancer Fund’s 2010 report State of the Evidence: The Connection Between Breast Cancer and the Environment the lack of action in classifying endocrine disrupting chemicals as carcinogens, “reflects controversies in the scientific literature, considerable pressure from industry, and failure of the scientific communities and regulatory agencies to agree on methodologies and criteria for classification of these chemicals.” (see page 41) This is not due to a lack of evidence, but instead reflects ongoing debate.

Causing unnecessary panic about chemicals we encounter in daily life is not helpful, but it is arguably worse to conflate the issue to the point where members of the public lack the tools to make informed choices about what substances to avoid.

In some cases of skewed reporting, as with tobacco and climate risk-deniers, it’s obvious that the science has been misrepresented due to bias or vested interest. But sometimes it’s just a case of inadequate attention to detail. In both instances, when facts are misrepresented ignorance rules the day, and the public shoulders the consequences.

Maggie MacDonald is the Manager of Environmental Defence’s Toxic Program

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

Why iPads and iPhones are Not Kids’ Toys

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:59:28 +0000

By PCN Staff

According to SodaHead.com, a discussion community with more than 10 million visitors a month, cellphones and iPads rank as the most-wanted items among youngsters, with 65% placing these devices at the top of their wish lists. Parents’ planning to succumb to the lobbying and get their kids’ the latest electronic gadgets would do well to ponder experts’ warnings before buying them. Would you give your child the keys to the car or a shot of whiskey just because she really wanted it?

Should you buy your baby her own cell phone with a handy drool-proof rattle casing that won’t break when it gets tossed to the ground or used as a pacifier? After all, cell phone prices have dropped, making them very accessible. “What harm could it do to youngsters to have such a cool, hot gadget—especially one with which they can learn to read, call the police, see movies, or just play Angry Birds? The answer is: plenty,” advises Environmental Health Trust founder Dr. Devra Davis.

Few people appreciate that all of these wireless devices come with manufacturers’ fine print warnings not to hold them next to an adult body, or that controlled studies show that microwave radiation from cell phones weaken the brain’s protective barrier and produce fewer and more damaged offspring and sperm. The kicker is this: All safety warnings for cell phones (e.g., “keep 0.98 inches from the body”) were designed to protect a less-than-typical user: namely, a large fellow with a big head who talks on his phone for less than half an hour a day.

According to a recently published scientific report from EHT, children’s brains absorb twice as much microwave radiation from cell phones as adults. Radiation from cell phones carried in shirts or pants pockets of adults is 4 to 7 times higher than the guidelines set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. For the smaller bodies of children, of course, levels would be even much greater.

The reason for the discrepancy, EHT says, is that the process to determine radiation from cell phones is modeled on a 6-foot 2-inch tall, 220-pound man, with an eleven-pound head. Because this large skull represents only about three percent of the population, the test cannot accurately predict the radiation exposure of the other 97 percent, including children, nor does it even try to estimate exposures from pocket use.

“The standard for cell phones has been developed based on old science, old models and old assumptions about how we use cell phones, and that’s why they need to change and protect our children and grandchildren,” said Dr. Davis.

Read the Fine Print

A New Zealand study led by researcher Mary Redmayne of the School of Geography, Environment and Earth Science at Victoria University in Wellington documented the looming dangers for young teens. Redmayne found that a majority of New Zealand adolescents broke school rules and carried a switched-on cell phone in their pants pocket for more than six hours daily. Even where schools ban phones, more than two in five middle schoolers regularly sent texts from within a side pocket; a fifth carried one for more than 10 hours a day, and used it in-pocket. This impressive ability to text without looking could well impair future fertility and/or reproductive integrity.

Parents may not be surprised to learn that a group of high risk-takers was identified. For these rule-breaking middle schoolers, bans on school use of cell phones prompted high texting rates, carrying the phone switched-on for more than 10 hours per day, and using them in-pocket.

Dr. Davis also calls parents’ attention to another iPad fine print warning that states, “a small percentage of people may be susceptible to blackouts or seizures (even if they have never had one before) when exposed to flashing lights or light patterns such as when playing games or watching videos…Discontinue use of iPad and consult a physician if you experience headaches, blackouts, seizures, convulsion, eye or muscle twitching, loss of awareness, involuntary movement, or disorientation. To reduce risk of headaches, blackouts, seizures and eyestrain, avoid prolonged use, hold iPad some distance from your eyes, use iPad in a well-lit room, and take frequent breaks.”

“Whoever wrote this probably had adults in mind,” advises Dr. Davis. “Yet nowadays, even babies and toddlers are learning to read from wired devices and falling asleep to white noise played from phones placed under their pillows. A child’s brain, healthy or otherwise, is cased in a thinner skull; that’s why they absorb more microwave radiation. The brains of children with learning problems, autism or other neurological disorders may be more vulnerable to damage than those of their healthy friends and family members. People need to know that the only safe way for a child to use such a device is when it is disconnected from the wireless.”

The iPad safety advice doesn’t consider these issues, but does include information about exposure to radiofrequency energy. The pamphlet notes, “If you are…concerned about exposure to RF energy, you can further limit your exposure by limiting the amount of time using iPad Wi-Fi +3G in wireless mode…and by placing more distance between your body and iPad Wi-Fi +3G.”Children cannot keep “more distance” between themselves and these devices for one simple reason; their arms are too short.

“There’s no denying these gadgets are fun; my kids love them too,” says Rachel Lincoln Sarnoff, Executive Director and CEO of Healthy Child Healthy World. “But these technologies are developing faster than our ability to understand potential health impacts. We’re not asking parents to not buy or use them, we’re simply asking them to take precautions. It’s better to be safe rather than sorry when it comes to our children’s health.”

“The best gift a parent can give their child is the gift of safety,” says Dr. Davis. “That’s why I’m urging each and every parent on our list to access and share the potentially life-saving tips we offer on cell phone safety.” On its website, EHT provides tools for parents to print and distribute to their local schools, day care centers and Parent-Teacher Association meetings. A brochure and other resources can be downloaded here.

This article was submitted to us by Devra Davis and is an edited version of an article that originally appeared in the November 2011 e-Newsletter of the Environmental Health Trust

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

Did you know . . . six facts about cancer

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:52:45 +0000

By Magda Havas

Did you know that in the 1920s in the U.K. and a few years later in the U.S. there was a never- before-seen spike in the incidence of childhood leukemia for children between the ages of 2 and 4? According to Dr. Sam Milham (1), this spike was associated with the introduction of electricity into the home. For every 10% increase in the number of homes served by electricity, the leukemia mortality rate for ages 2-4 increased by 24%!

Starting in 1979, scientists noted that children who live near power lines or transformers have a greater risk of developing leukemia and that this leukemia is associated with the strength of the magnetic field. Fields at or above 2–4 mG (2) were associated with a doubling of the childhood leukemia risk: the higher the exposure the greater the risk [Figure 1](3).

Figure 1: Epidemiological studies of childhood leukemia and residential magnetic field exposure
indicate a dose-response relationship (from Havas 2007).

More recent research (4) has identified an interaction between DNA repair genes and low frequency electromagnetic fields in childhood acute leukemia. The interaction was statistically significant in homes within 100 m from electric transformers and power lines and at magnetic fields above 1.7 mG. Inadequate repair of DNA damage can lead to initiation or progression of disease. This may be one of the mechanisms contributing to childhood leukemia.

Did you know that as communities started to use electricity the rate of cancers, heart disease, diabetes, and suicides began to increase? This was particularly evident in the 1930s and 40swhen there was still a difference between the number of power lines bringing electricity to rural and urban areas in some states in the US. The cancer rates were much higher with higher electrification both between states and between urban and rural communities within states (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Total cancer death rates by urban rural status and electrification
in the US for white residents in 1940 (from Milham 2009).

Did you know that men also develop breast cancer? The rate in Canada for female breast cancer is 1 in every 9 women. For men the rate is 1 in 100,000. So can you imagine the shock when Dr. Sam Milham found 3 men in one office with breast cancer (5). It turned out that these men were exposed to very high magnetic fields generated by an electrical room adjacent to the office. More than 15 epidemiological studies have associated male breast cancer with exposure to electromagnetic fields.

Growth of estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer cells is stimulated by 60 Hz magnetic fields. When the cells were exposed to magnetic fields of 12 mG or higher, female breast cancer cells grew more quickly. Also, the drug, tamoxifen, was much less effective at reducing the cancerous growth when the cells were exposed to magnetic fields of 12 mG or higher (6).

Did you know that those occupationally exposed to high magnetic fields also have a greater risk of developing brain tumors and leukemia? The association is for magnetic fields at or above 10–12 mG.

Did you know that one of the highest exposures to magnetic fields is in the textile business? Industrial sewing machines generate high magnetic fields and dirty electricity. Exposure in this industry is much higher than it is for linesmen and electricians.

Did you know that dirty electricity might contribute to cancers? In one California school the cancer rate among teachers was much higher than the national average. Exposure to chemical or biological agents in the school could not account for this high rate. Dr. Sam Milham encouraged the California Department of Health to measure the dirty electricity and what they found was shocking. Levels of dirty electricity in some rooms were very high and the teachers who taught in those rooms had a 410% increased risk of developing cancer (7)! The highest risk ratios were for thyroid, malignant melanoma, and cancer of the uterus. This is the first study of its kind making this link and needs to be tested with other populations.

One name keeps recurring – Dr. Sam Milham, a medical doctor with a Masters in Public Health. For decades Dr. Milham has been investigating different public health issues, many of them dealing with electromagnetic exposure. His findings are intriguing, revolutionary and relatively unknown. Some discount his conclusions and deny that magnetic field and/or dirty electricity are harmful. I don’t agree with them. Dr. Milham is ahead of his time and we need to listen to his warnings.

This doesn’t mean we should stop using electricity but rather that we should use it wisely and manufacturers should make devices that produce low magnetic fields and no dirty electricity. To some degree this has already been done for certain appliances such as electric blankets and computers that emit much lower magnetic fields than they did decades ago. Also, knob & tube wiring in homes, which generated high magnetic fields, is no longer used. So we are progressing. However, we need to do more to minimize our exposure to electromagnetic fields associated with our use of electricity.

Twenty years after retirement, as he approaches his 80th year, Dr. Milham is as active as he was decades ago. If you would like to learn more about this remarkable man, read his book, Dirty Electricity, watch his video: Dirty electricity in Schools–the Case of La Quinta.

If you want to prevent cancer now, here are some tips …

Keep electric equipment away from your bed (computers, TVs, stereos, even lamps especially if they have compact fluorescent bulbs). Moving the electric alarm clock at least another meter away from your bed will also make a difference. Exposing your body to low levels of magnetic fields for long periods increases your overall dose.
Unplug the electric blanket at night after it has warmed up your bed. Turning it off is not enough as the blanket still produces an electric field. To get rid of the field the blanket has to be unplugged.
Ensure that your bed is not near an electrical panel and that includes a panel that might be in an adjacent room as the magnetic field penetrates walls.
During the day increase your distance from computers. Even a few inches can make a difference.
Use hair dryers, electric razors, and electric power tools as little as possible. These generate high magnetic fields.
Don’t move into a home near a high voltage power line, substations or transformers as they generate magnetic fields.
Avoid electric cars. The magnetic field around the battery and cable is high. This field can be shielded with metal but it is expensive.
Measure the dirty electricity in your home and reduce it with special filters. If you have plasma TVs, use energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs and have dimmer switches.
Even if you don’t have these devices, dirty electricity from your neighbours can enter your home along the wiring.
De-stress by taking Epsom salt baths, walking barefoot on the grass, or standing in a stream. All of these help to ground you.

About the Author: Magda Havas, BSc, PhD is Associate Professor at Trent University, Peterborough, Canada where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of electromagnetic energy. Her website is www.magdahavas.com and her YouTube channel is www.youtube.com/magdahavas

REFERENCES:

(1) Milham and Ossiander, 2001. Historical evidence that residential electrification causes emergence of the childhood leukemia peak. Medical Hypotheses 56(3): 290-295.
(2) mG (milli Gauss) is the unit used to measure the strength of the magnetic field.
(3) Havas, 2007. Expert Testimony of Magda Havas, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board Application No. 1478550 by Altalink Management Ltd. (“Altalink”), 40 pp. Proposed Routing for 500 kV Transmission System Reinforcement Project in the Edmonton–Calgary area.
(4) Yang et al. 2008. Case-only study of interactions between DNA repair genes (hMLH1, APEX1, MGMT, XRCC1 and XPD) and low-frequency electromagnetic fields in childhood acute leukemia. Leukemia & Lymphoma 49(12):2344-2350.
(5) Milham, 2004. A cluster of male breast cancer in office workers. Amer. J. Ind. Med 46:86-87.
(6) Liburdy, et. al. 1993. ELF magnetic fields, breast cancer and melatonin: 60 Hz fields block melatonin’s oncostatic action on ER positive breast cancer cell proliferation. J. Pineal Res. 14: 89–97
(7) Milham and Morgan. 2008. A new electromagnetic exposure metric: High frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school. Am. J. Ind. Med. 51(8):579-586.

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

One Simple Change for Health and for the Environment

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:51:34 +0000

By Camille Labchuk

What if you knew that making one simple change to your diet could substantially reduce your risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and a whole host of other diseases? What if this one simple change could save our healthcare system billions per year? What if we could save millions of people from getting sick in the first place, instead of focusing on treating them after they become ill?

The truth is, all of the diseases mentioned above are linked closely with consuming meat and other animal products. And by cutting these products out of our diet – opting instead to eat plant-based foods – we can take a bite of the human toll of many preventable diseases.

For as long as most of us can remember, we’ve been inundated with the message that eating meat and drinking milk are both natural and necessary for us to grow into healthy, strong adults. Government-issued food pyramids have reflected this apparent wisdom, and the animal agriculture industry has spent billions of dollars marketing meat, dairy, and eggs to consumers.

But in recent years, there has been a growing understanding that animal food products aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. As the scientific evidence piles up, many in the medical community have realized that consuming animal products is not only unnecessary for human health, it’s also harmful. The research clearly and comprehensively shows the health benefits of reducing meat and dairy consumption. Armed with this knowledge, more and more people are choosing to either cut out animal products completely by going vegan, or substantially reduce their intake of these products.

Adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet is a powerful way to protect against heart disease, strokes, cancer, and diabetes — which claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians every year. Vegetarians have lower rates of cancer than non-vegetarians, and a recent Oxford University health study has shown that consuming meat is responsible for more than 45,000 premature deaths each year in the United Kingdom. That’s approximately 31,000 deaths due to heart disease, 9,000 cancer-related deaths and 5,000 deaths from strokes.

According to the American Dietetic Association, a comprehensive, evidence-based review shows that well-planned vegan and vegetarian diets are not only associated with a lower risk of death from heart disease, but also lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes and many types of cancer. The evidence is overwhelming. Eating meat greatly increases the risk of heart disease and death, while reducing or eliminating meat from our diets can prevent and even reverse heart disease.

Vegans also have much lower rates of obesity, and on average weigh 10% less than non-vegetarians. In addition to looking slimmer, being lighter reduces the risk of a myriad of health problems including respiratory problems, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

With all of the evidence piling up, it’s no surprise that plant-based diets are on the rise. Even former US President Bill Clinton has adopted a nearly vegan diet for health reasons – after undergoing heart surgery in recent years. But health isn’t the only reason to give up animal-based foods – a vegetarian or vegan diet also causes less suffering to animals, and protects the environment. According to the UN, the animal agriculture industry causes more emissions than the entire transportation sector combined. It’s also responsible for billions of tons of soil, water, and air pollution. On top of that, animals raised in factory farms are kept in crowded, filthy, and stressful conditions, undergo painful mutilations, and often undergo extreme suffering during slaughter.

Giving up meat, dairy, and eggs could help Canadians live longer and experience less disease. It’s also better for the animals, and the environment. It’s time to start a national conversation on how to bring more attention to the link between eating animal products and poor human health outcomes.

Camille Labchuk represents Ontario on the Green Party’s Federal Council and formerly worked as leader Elizabeth May’s press secretary. She is currently studying law at the University of Toronto.

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

Fracking, shale gas and cancer: Health risks at every step

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:44:41 +0000

By Barb Harris

“We’ve got to push the pause button, and maybe we’ve got to push the stop button” on fracking, said Dr. Adam Law, an endocrinologist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Law was among doctors at a conference in Virginia calling for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in populated areas until health effects are better understood. The January 2012 conference was organized by the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment and Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy.

Fracking for shale gas has been the hot environmental health story of 2011. An unfamiliar word to most people a year ago, fracking is now a household term in much of North America. Millions of people already live with the effects of shale gas and fracking, or face the impending threat. Fracking is a technology used to extract natural gas from dense shale, (or from coal). Fracking for shale gas combines several new techniques, including multi-well pads, horizontal drilling, high pressure fracturing, and the addition of fracking fluids containing toxic chemicals to huge volumes of fresh water.

Development of shale gas, including fracking, releases toxic chemicals into air, water and soil at every step of the process, from drilling to waste storage and disposal. Multiply these exposures by thousands, because shale gas development is dense, averaging one well pad with 8 or more wells per 10 acres. In Pennsylvania, more than 3,000 gas fracking wells and permitted well sites are located within two miles of 320 day care centers, 67 schools and nine hospitals, and development is still in the early stages.

Over the last year, the public health impacts of fracking have gained increasing attention. Scientific American, June 2011, published an article titled “Science Lags as Health Problems Emerge Near Natural Gas Fields.” “In some communities it has been a disaster,” states Christopher Portier, director of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Center for Environmental Health. “…We do not have enough information on hand to be able to draw good solid conclusions about whether this is a public health risk as a whole.” In July 2011, Global Community Monitor released “Gassed”, a study of toxic air near natural gas operations in Colorado and New Mexico. When citizens became ill in large numbers and could not convince government agencies to respond to their concerns, they were trained by Global Community Monitor to take their own air samples. The samples were sent to a lab for analysis, and the results compiled. Citizen air sampling found four known carcinogens, including high levels of benzene and acrylonitrile, as well as toxins known to damage the nervous system and respiratory irritants.

Corporate pressure to develop shale gas is intense and poses the same risks to Canadians as Americans are already facing. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have been hotbeds of Canadian resistance to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing this year. Thousands of people have educated themselves and their neighbours, demonstrated in the streets, written letters, and held community meetings.

In British Columbia and Alberta where fracking for shale gas and coal bed methane have taken place for over a decade, the actual health impacts, as well as evidence that health risks have never been appropriately assessed, are slowly coming to light. In Ontario, shale gas development has not yet started, but oil and gas companies have quietly leased huge tracts of land in preparation. Québec remains the only province to enact, and continue, a moratorium on shale gas development and fracking. That moratorium too is under threat, in spite of tremendous public opposition to fracking through public hearings and grassroots actions.

Fracking and shale gas pose serious and irreversible multiple health risks, including cancer, respiratory damage and endocrine disruption that can lead to birth defects and increase cancer risks. It is too early yet to know definitively whether cancer rates are rising in areas where shale gas development and fracking is taking place. But there is abundant evidence of exposure to carcinogenic substances from these operations.

Environmental biologist and prize-winning author Dr. Sandra Steingraber (photo below) summarizes the cancer risks of fracking in a letter to New York State Governor Cuomo. New York State is poised to decide whether to lift a moratorium on fracking and allow extensive development throughout the state. The state’s environmental assessment has been widely criticized for virtually ignoring all health issues. The Steingraber letter was signed by major cancer prevention organizations throughout New York State and sent to Governor Cuomo and review panel members on December 12, 2011 as part of the state’s environmental review process.

The main points of the letter are excerpted below. Numbering was inserted by An Ounce.

1. Hydraulic fracturing introduces cancer risks from the start and into perpetuity. Cancer-causing chemicals are associated with all stages of the high-volume hydraulic fracturing process, from the production and use of fracking fluids, to the release of radioactive and other naturally hazardous materials from the shale, to transportation and drilling-related air pollution, to the disposal of contaminated wastewater. The potential for accidents during the injection and transportation of fracking chemicals concerns us deeply. And, as data from other states clearly demonstrate, the storage, treatment and disposal of the contaminated water can be a source of human exposure to chemical carcinogens and their precursors (Volz, 2011). In addition, the industrialization of the landscape and congestion of small communities with truck traffic impairs the safety and healthfulness of outdoor exercise. Regular exercise is an important, established risk reducer for many cancers, including breast cancer (Bernstein, 2009). Outdoor exercise is associated with a greater intent to continue the activity, along with other positive health indicators.

2. Fracking fluids contain carcinogens and cancer-promoting chemicals. More than 25% of the chemicals used in natural gas operations have been demonstrated to cause cancer or mutations (Colborn, Kwiatkowski, Schultz, & Bachran, 2011). Between 2005 and 2009, according to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, hydraulic fracturing companies used 95 products containing 13 different known and suspected carcinogens. These include naphthalene, benzene, and acrylamide (Committee Staff for Waxman, 2011). Thirty-seven percent of chemicals in fracking fluids have been identified as endocrine-disruptors. By definition, these substances have the power, at minute concentrations, to alter hormonal signaling pathways within the body. Many can place cells on the pathway to tumor formation. Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals has been implicated in cancers of the breast, prostate, pituitary, testicle, and ovary (Birnbaum & Fenton, 2003; Soto & Sonnenschein, 2010). These exposures may alter gene expression in pregnancy and early life (Colborn, et al., 2011).

3. Fracking operations release from the earth radioactive substances, carcinogenic vapors, and toxic metals. The shale bedrock of New York State contains many highly carcinogenic substances that can be mobilized by drilling and fracturing. Among these are arsenic, chromium, benzene, uranium, radon, and radium (Bishop, 2011). Drill cuttings and flowback waste are typically contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive substances and cancer-causing metals, which would otherwise remain safely entombed underground. Flowback waste can contain up to 16,000 picoCuries per liter of radium-226, this is more than 200 times higher than the discharge limit in effluent (60 pCi/L) and more than 3,000 times higher than the US EPA drinking water standard (5 pCi/L) (NYSDOH Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection, 2009). Traditional water filtration cannot remove these contaminants. We are especially alarmed by the ongoing practice of burying radioactive drill cuttings on-site (Bishop, 2011) and of using radioactive production brine from (currently out-of-state) fracking operations on New York State roads, for purposes of dust control and de-icing (NYSDOH Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection, 2009). This practice exposes unknown numbers of people, without their consent, to unknown amounts of a known human carcinogen.

4. Fracking pollutes the air with known and suspected human carcinogens. Air pollutants from fracking take the form of diesel exhaust (from trucks, pumps, condensers, earthmoving machines, and other heavy equipment) along with volatile organic compounds, including benzene (released from the wellheads themselves) and formaldehyde (produced by compressor station engines). Exposure to these air pollutants have been demonstrably linked to lung, breast, and bladder cancers (Brody et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2009). Using US EPA risk assessment tools to examine carcinogenic effects of air quality at oil and gas sites, researchers in Colorado found excess cancer risks from air pollution alone (from 5 to 58 additional cancers per million). At 86 percent of these sites, the human carcinogen benzene was found at hazardous levels. Airborne concentrations of other carcinogens were also elevated (Witter et al., 2008).

Volatile organic compounds can combine with tailpipe emissions to create ground-level ozone. We are alarmed by studies conducted in the gas fields of Wyoming that reveal ozone non-attainment in areas with formerly pristine air quality (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, 2009). Ozone can travel up to 200 miles beyond the gas production area (Colborn, et al., 2011). While not a direct carcinogen, ozone exposure is strongly associated with premature death and is believed to promote the development of metastases, thus making cancer more lethal (Breslin, 1995; Fann et al., 2011). Exposure to traffic exhaust and petroleum fumes further potentiates tumor formation and increases cancer risk (Hanas et al., 2010).

Natural gas drilling in New York State is predicted to increase heavy truck traffic on local roads by as much as 1.5 million more trips per year, with an average of 90 and up to 1000 trucks per day at a single well pad (NYSDOT, 2011). For each individual site, hundreds of tanker trucks hauling fracking fluids for injection and flowback fluids for disposal will roll through our communities and neighborhoods, and yet no one has calculated the cumulative impact of the resulting particulate matter and ozone on public health.

We remind the Governor that traffic exhaust, especially from diesel engines, is a well-established cause of chronic illness and premature death – even at levels well below regulatory limits. Most ominously, research is steadily corroborating the relationship between childhood leukemia and traffic density, and childhood leukemia and exposure to airborne benzene (Amigou et al., 2011; Pearson, Wachtel, & Ebi, 2000; Whitworth, Symanski, & Coker, 2008). We are also deeply concerned by the growing evidence linking lung cancer in non-smokers to air pollution, including traffic exhaust. Among adults, non-smoker’s lung cancer is now the sixth most common cancer diagnosis, and rates are rising particularly rapidly among women. A new, nationwide study finds that people who have never smoked but live in areas with higher air pollution are 20 percent more likely to die from lung cancer than people breathing cleaner air (Turner et al., 2011). Fracking will increase this lethal risk.

5. Fracking adds carcinogens to drinking water. Nationwide, more than a thousand different cases of water contamination have been documented near fracking sites. We draw your attention to one of these: the drinking water wells of Pavillion, Wyoming. An EPA study released just this month confirms the presence of the carcinogen 2-butoxyethanol, a widely used fracking chemical, in the aquifer under Pavillion, which is an intensively drilled community (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). Pavillion’s drinking water also contains benzene, naphthalene, and diesel fuel. We are deeply troubled that confirmation of these cancer-causing contaminants comes three years after their initial discovery and in the wake of repeated denials of responsibility by the gas industry. The story of Pavillion reveals not only that drinking water is at risk of chemical contamination from fracking operations but also that swift mitigation of such disasters is far from assured. The wheels of science grind slowly while the lives of people have remained in harm’s way.

We are also troubled by the discovery that drinking water wells located near active gas wells here in the Marcellus region contain methane levels that are 17 times higher than those located near inactive wells (Holzman, 2011; Osborn, Vengosh, Warner, & Jackson, 2011) and by the reports of spiking bromide levels in the rivers of western Pennsylvania that followed discharges of fracking wastewater into sewage treatment plants last spring (Hopey, 2011). While methane and bromide are not suspected carcinogens, they serve as precursors for the creation of trihalomethanes, which can form when water is chlorinated. Trihalomethanes are associated with both bladder and colorectal cancers (Weinberg, Krasner, Richardson, & Thruston, 2002).

6. Preliminary evidence points to high rates of cancer in intensively drilled areas. In Texas, breast cancer rates rose significantly among women living in the six counties with the most intensive gas drilling (Heinkel-Wolfe, 2011). By contrast, over the same time period, breast cancer rates declined within the rest of Texas. In western New York State – where vertical gas drilling has been practiced since 1821 and has resulted in significant contamination of soil and water – rural counties with historically intensive gas industry activity show consistently higher cancer death rates than rural counties without drilling activity. In women, cancers associated with residence in a historically drilling-intensive county include breast, cervix, colon, ovary, rectum, uterus, and vagina. Men living in the same region are consistently in the highest bracket for deaths from cancer of the bladder, prostate, rectum, stomach, and thyroid (Bishop, 2011), (based on National Cancer Institute cancer mortality maps and graphs).

While these correlations do not prove a connection between abnormally high rates of cancer and gas industry pollution, they do offer clues for further inquiry. We in the cancer advocacy community believe that this inquiry must precede, not trail behind, any decision to bring hydro-fracking to New York State. Benefit of the doubt goes to public health rather than to the forces that threaten it.

7. Fracking operations will undermine New York State efforts to prevent chronic disease. New York State currently funds important projects, such as the creating Healthy Places to Live, Work and Play programs, many of which are being carried out in rural or small-town communities. Objectives of this initiative include increasing the availability and accessibility of places to be physically active and creating landscapes conducive to physical activity, such as playgrounds and walking trails. It is clear that the industrialization of the landscape where fracking would occur – with increased truck traffic and reduction in air quality described above – undermines these initiatives.

As cancer advocates, we know that regular physical activity lowers the risk for many common cancers. Indeed, the American Cancer Society attributes one-third of all cancer diagnoses to sedentary lifestyles, obesity, and poor diet and thus specifically advocates for land use and urban design that encourages outdoor exercise: “Let’s make our communities safer and more appealing places to walk, bike, and be active” (American Cancer Society). Fracking does the opposite. No one wants to walk, bike, or jog along roads filled with 18-wheelers hauling hazardous materials and filling the air with diesel exhaust. Changes to the built environment that discourage outdoor recreation and promote sedentary behavior will increase our state’s cancer burden and further fan the flames of rising health care costs.

8. The proposed mitigation strategies set forth in the revised environmental impact statement are insufficiently protective. The revised environmental impact statement makes no attempt to explicate the possible human health effects that may result from permitting thousands of gas wells within New York State and from filling our roadways with the fleets of trucks that will service them – or to project the monetary costs of these health effects. Rather, the document asserts, axiomatically, that no such health effects will occur because each gas well will be surrounded by a buffer zone that sets it apart from residential areas and public drinking water sources. But set-backs, like non-smoking sections inside airplanes, are imaginary circles that cannot contain volatile, inherently toxic substances when they are released from multiple sources into interconnected environmental media. We all breathe the same air, and we all live downstream. The best science shows us that cancer is the end result of multiple stressors adding together over time to alter the genetic signaling pathways within our cells (President’s Cancer Panel Report, 2010) When it comes to cancer, the cumulative impact of many small straws is what breaks the camel’s back.

9. Chemical disclosure requirements, health registries, and after-the-fact bio-monitoring programs cannot substitute for due diligence. Disclosing the chemicals used in fracking operations, monitoring human exposures to those chemicals, and establishing registries of those harmed by chemical exposures are useful tools for scientific study and are basic to a transparent, right-to-know democracy, but they do not, by themselves, protect public health. Instead, we need a precautionary, prevention-oriented approach to reducing environmental cancer risk. Drawing on scientific research conducted here in New York and concluding that “… the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated,” the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the President’s Cancer Panel, calls on state governments to take action to reduce and eliminate toxic exposures implicated in cancer causation before human harm occurs (President’s Cancer Panel, 2010). To permit a form of fossil fuel extraction that opens countless portals of toxic contamination – upon commencement of the fracking operation and in perpetuity – turns us away from a meaningful approach to cancer prevention.

Full text of the letter including references and supporting organizations is available here.

Fracking Photo: Jim Blecha

See also: The Whole Fracking Enchilada, Steingraber’s explanation of why she has ”come to believe that extracting natural gas from shale using the newish technique called hydro-fracking is the environmental issue of our time.”
For more information on shale gas, fracking and health, see: Fracking, shale gas and health: A case for precaution (Summer 2011 Edition of An Ounce).

Barb Harris is a writer, researcher and activist. Her focus for the last decade has been the human health impacts of environmental toxins and finding healthier alternatives. For the last year, she has researched the health impacts of shale gas and fracking. She is a Board member of the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia, and co-author of the on-line Guide to Less Toxic Products. She lives in River John, Nova Scotia.

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

Burning Public Money

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:44:13 +0000

By Linda Gasser

Communities across Canada have been invaded by hordes of incinerator vendors and their entourages, who pitch incineration as the magic solution to waste woes to municipalities large and small from Ontario to British Columbia. They range from salesmen for foreign vendors with no history of operating incinerators (e.g. Partners Energy Group and Meaford, Ontario) to politically connected domestic vendors such as Plasco Energy, who last December managed to convince the City of Ottawa to cut a deal with them even though their demonstration plant in Ottawa (which had 25 emissions exceedances) failed to process permitted waste volumes and meet energy production claims. Multinational corporations such as Covanta Energy salivate as they realize that their plans to secure a toe-hold in Canada and to access public dollars are coming closer to fruition, with the help of industry friendly politicians like their friends on Durham and York Region councils.

In Metro Vancouver, several councillors who had supported incineration were returned to office last November. The feeding frenzy has begun as incinerator vendors line up to bid on what could be the largest contract to burn garbage in Canadian history.

Fraser Valley communities are prepared to do battle with Metro Vancouver to protect air quality in their sensitive air sheds. Citizens and their municipal governments must ensure they would be consulted early and often so that relevant concerns would be considered before limiting decisions would be taken.

Durham residents learned hard lessons as they watched earlier council commitments to protect health evaporate as the project costs escalated. Durham councillors ensured there was plenty of money to send politicians and staff on several “fact finding” trips, pay high-priced consultants to “educate” staff and politicians, and to host lavish ground-breaking ceremonies. But, some of the same politicians and senior staff – who years before had promised “the best of the best” declined to pursue enhanced monitoring beyond the bare bones required by the Ministry of the Environment, which in turn did not require monitoring to be as stringent as they themselves recommend in their own A-7 Guidelines. Citizens in the Lower Mainland should beware of similar political promises going up in smoke.

Durham Region will use ALL of the federal gas tax dollars accumulated to date and future gas tax funds to pay for their incinerator, instead of this funding being directed to “environmentally sustainable” projects such as improving regional transit or other municipal infrastructure. Thus, anyone who buys gas in Canada is helping to pay for the Durham-York incinerator. This gas tax shell game allows staff and politicians to claim property tax dollars will not be used for the incinerator. However, property tax dollars will be needed to fund projects to which gas tax funds could have been applied.

Another subsidy to the incinerator industry comes in the form of Power Purchase Agreements, which pay incinerator proponents above market prices for any power produced. Durham-York Regions would be paid 8 cents per kWh –a significant subsidy.

Ontario’s Energy Minister, Chris Bentley, recently opined that diversifying Ontario’s energy mix something his government was looking at. Ontarians are hoping he is not talking about trash as may be signaling an unwelcome change in Ontario’s FIT policies. “Energy-from-waste” (EFW) was not defined as renewable energy when Ontario brought in the “Feed-in-Tariff” (FIT) in 2009 to support the renewable energy industry to diversify the energy mix and so that polluting coal-fired power plants could be phased out by 2014.A number of states in the U.S. have made EFW eligible for such subsidies.

With the two year review consultation completed, it emerged that various organizations including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) support making EFW eligible for FIT. Both Prevent Cancer Now (PCN) and the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition (OZWC) are strongly opposed to a possible revision to FIT to include EFW and sent letters to Minister Bentley this past week. OZWC has also organized a media conference at Ontario’s Provincial Parliament (Queen’s Park) media center for Tuesday January 24th with renowned incinerator opponent and Zero Waste advocate Dr. Paul Connett the main speaker. Also speaking will be PCN Board member Margaret (Meg) Sears, MEng, PhD, a health researcher studying the environmental determinants of health.

Incineration is the most polluting and risky waste disposal option, IF the technology works. There is also the matter of dangerous incinerator process residues that can range up to one third by mass of incinerated waste. For mass-burn, fly ash is hazardous waste and bottom ash is laced with toxic residues.

Air pollution is a public health crisis that should compel all governments to take all steps to move away from incineration rather than subsidize polluting, inefficient incinerators that destroy resources we should be conserving. As well as concerns about avoidable exposure to hundreds of pollutants including carcinogens, subsidies for incineration – green-washed as “energy-from-waste” – will serve to distort the market, displace truly “green and clean” forms of energy such as wind and solar, stunt local job creation and reward a dirty industry that mostly exports their profit.

We urge Canadians to become aware of how waste is handled in their community and how incineration impacts public health, the natural environment, energy, efforts to address climate change and taxation/public spending at all levels of government.

Please review our incineration “tool kit”. Take action and let your political representatives know that you support sustainable materials management policies and oppose incineration of municipal and industrial/commercial and institutional (ICI) solid waste.

Linda Gasser leads Prevent Cancer Now’s Incineration Campaign

To read more updates and articles from Linda Gasser and for information on Prevent Cancer Now’s incineration campaign, visit here.

Related information resources:

American Lung Association News Release (Nov. 2011)- Advocates Urge New York State Public Service Commission to Reject Covanta’s petition Seeking Clean Energy Funding for Dirty Garbage Incinerators.
Burning Public Money for Dirty Energy (Nov. 2011) – Misdirected Subsidies for WTE Incinerators. See Appendix A: List of pollutants emitted by incinerators.
Waste to Energy: Dirtying Maryland’s Air by Seeking Quick Fix on Renewable Energy (Oct. 2011).
More Jobs, Less Pollution (Nov. 2011) –Describes how a Zero Waste strategy that reduces waste generation and maximizes diversion builds a green economy and create jobs while reducing pollution.

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

BizNGO: Businesses and NGOs working together to promote safer chemicals in products and manufacturing

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:43:43 +0000

By Bev Thorpe

Chemicals are increasingly viewed as contributors to the rising levels of cancer in Canada and the US. Almost one in two Canadians can expect to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. As the President’s Cancer Panel in the US noted in 2010, “the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to environmental carcinogens is widespread.”

The situation in Canada is comparable. We face the same general lack of information about the human health and environmental impacts of chemicals in the products we buy and although Canada has a dedicated screening programme to fill these data gaps (funded through our own tax dollars; not paid for by chemical producers), our regulations are not focused on a clear goal of eliminating all known or suspected carcinogens from use.

Instead regulations in both Canada and the US are deeply flawed. Chemical producers still do not have to submit full environmental and human health impact data on the chemicals they produce prior to market. And those chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogenic can still be used in our economy if producers and users can demonstrate ‘adequate control’ of exposure. Perchloroethylene, a common dry cleaning solvent declared to be officially ‘toxic’ by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was not targeted for substitution. Instead federal regulators encouraged drycleaners to reduce their exposure to this chemical through the use of better dry cleaning machines.

Many consumers associate chemicals with cleaning products, paints and pesticides not realizing that hazardous chemicals in plastics, such as PVC shower curtains and flooring or hazardous flame retardant chemicals in electronic products can leach into our homes and household dust. We all contain hundreds of hazardous chemicals in our body tissues through the food we eat, the air we breathe and the products we buy. Most worrying: even babies are now born ‘pre-polluted,’ with a recent study finding 300 industrial chemicals in umbilical cord blood.

So, in the absence of regulations that prioritize the substitution of carcinogens and other hazardous chemicals, how are we to achieve a non-toxic future? Pressuring the government to focus on green chemistry innovation and adoption is a necessary though slow bureaucratic process. Companies increasingly realize that hazardous chemicals in their products are a big business risk and are seeking ways to reduce their liability and reputation damage.

In 2006 a group of companies and environmental health advocates met in Boston to discuss how to advance safer chemicals in products. The result was the formation of the BizNGO Working Group for Safer Chemicals and Sustainable Materials. What makes this working group so unique is that campaigning advocates and companies are collaborating to produce tools and strategies that advance safer chemicals in the economy. This is a far cry from the often held notion that campaigners and companies are always at loggerhead over how chemicals should be used in industry. In reality, leading companies understand the value of working with NGOs to gain their scientific insight into the next group of chemicals to be targeted by advocates and the public.

In return, NGOs gain useful insight into barriers that companies face when trying to find safer substitutes for such chemicals of concern. Such barriers include lack of information and safety data from their chemical suppliers and lack of tools to ensure that replacement chemicals are comparatively safer in the long term. Just because a chemical is not listed as a known or suspected carcinogen, reproductive toxin or other similar hazard does not mean it is safe. It may simply not have been tested.

This presents huge business risk for companies who are ‘downstream users of chemicals’ such as product manufacturers and retailers. These companies rely on the chemical manufacturers to assure them the chemicals they use in their products are safe but in reality they rarely get full disclosure or full safety information from their chemical suppliers. Yet it is these companies who face liability and reputation damage when product recalls are forced such as the removal of polycarbonate baby bottles due to the presence of Bisphenol A (BPA) in the plastic. It is not the producers of the BPA chemical who make the news; it is the retailers who stock these products on their shelves.

Of course it should be the responsibility of downstream companies to know and assess the hazards of the chemicals in their products. Company participants within the BizNGO Working Group share their experiences with other company leaders to find the most successful ways to pressure chemical suppliers for complete information.

Last year the collaboration produced the BizNGO Principles for Safer Chemicals and this year the working group will produce a Guide to Safer Chemicals to help companies implement these principles through best practice. A series of company fact sheets, testimonies and other resources have also been produced for government regulators and the general public explaining why these leading companies support chemicals policy reform.

Company leaders within the BizNGO have given testimony in support of chemicals policy reform to federal regulators in Washington who were surprised and appreciative to hear a different industry voice than the usual chemical manufacturers’ lobby. Such company testimonies support the NGO campaigns for comprehensive chemicals reform and demonstrate that the protection of public health and the environment is part of innovative business thinking. Green chemistry and safer chemical adoption are achievable. This type of collaboration between NGOs and leading companies is essential if we are to hasten our progress towards the elimination of hazardous chemicals in our economy.

Bev Thorpe is to Co-Director of Clean Production Action and is a former Board Member of Prevent Cancer Now. For more information you can contact her by email.

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Can citizens stop a project to revive Canada’s deadly asbestos trade?
Misreading Research: What the news said vs. what the science said
Why iPads and iPhones are Not Kids’ Toys
Did you know . . . six facts about cancer
One Simple Change for Health and for the Environment
Fracking, shale gas and cancer: Health risks at every step
Burning Public Money
BizNGO: Businesses and NGOs working together to promote safer chemicals in products and manufacturing
Healthy Beauty for Life
Petition to the Auditor General of Canada: Properly manage carcinogens in cosmetics!
CAPE Pushing for Pesticide Ban in B.C.
“12 Days of Prevention” Holiday Campaign a Big Success!
PCN Shorts
Make a donation to PCN today! We need you!

Published: February 3, 2012

Healthy Beauty for Life

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:38:59 +0000

By Laura Woodward

Parents should be proactive when their teenagers begin experimenting with cosmetics and personal care products. A large number of the chemicals in these products on the shelves of grocery stores and pharmacies are largely untested for potentially harmful health effects.

Companies are not required to disclose that these products may contain dangerous chemicals and Health Canada does not require companies to perform “patch-tests” on individuals before they launch a new product. Not only is there a lack of understanding of how each chemical may affect human health, it is also unknown how the chemicals interact in the body and in the environment.

It important for parents to talk to their teens about the potential health hazards of the products they try out. The average North American woman uses about 10-12 beauty products a day. Her teenage daughter uses about 17.Teenagers are more sensitive to certain chemicals, so a healthy start could potentially mean fewer health related complications at later stages of life.

The chemicals may be absorbed through skin and settle in the blood stream and tissues which may contribute to such complications as cancer, allergic reactions, premature sexual development in girls, hormone disruption, male reproductive disorders, and/or pre-term births. Chemicals from cosmetics have even been found in developing fetuses, passed on from their mother’s use!

Sierra Club Canada is developing a Healthy Beauty for Life campaign to help parents educate their teens about toxic chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products and to offer alternatives to the more harmful products they use. As a part of the campaign, Sierra Club Canada will be offering a Healthy Cosmetics Kit for teenagers that will include products from companies that produce safe, non-toxic chemicals as well as literature on the main chemicals to avoid and tips on how to have a more healthy beauty regime.

The campaign will be launched on Earth Day, April 22nd, 2012. Visit our website near that time for more information.

In the meantime, you can read a backgrounder and download a great poster on the Sierra Club Canada Chemicals in your Cosmetics webpage. The Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Database is another resource where you can look up cosmetic products and see their toxic rating.

Laura Woodward is a Campaigner with Sierra Club Canada

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Published: February 3, 2012

Petition to the Auditor General of Canada: Properly manage carcinogens in cosmetics!

bradford — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:38:40 +0000

By Sandra Madray

There are continued concerns about the presence of toxic substances and in particular, carcinogens, in our cosmetics and personal care products in Canada. While some of us may feel a certain level of frustration that we are still being exposed to carcinogens through our daily use of cosmetics and personal care products, others are totally unaware of the presence of carcinogens in these products.

The Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist under the Cosmetic Regulation of the Food and Drug Act (Health Canada) is the main tool used by government to address the utilization of toxic substances, including carcinogens, in cosmetics. The Hotlist gives a listing of substances that are banned and permitted in cosmetics. It also includes any restrictions regarding the concentration of a substance in a cosmetic.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association and Chemical Sensitivities Manitoba have submitted a joint petition to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (Office of the Auditor General of Canada). The purpose of the petition is to assess the effectiveness of federal government measures in the elimination or reduction of toxic substances in cosmetics and personal care products, with an emphasis on carcinogens. The petition also seeks to promote the view that such information is needed for transparency in the government’s decision making process and accountability of manufacturers and importers to ensure the safety of cosmetics and personal care products that are available to Canadians.

A response from the government is expected by March 7, 2012 (it will be posted shortly thereafter on the Prevent Cancer Now website).

Sandra Madray is with Chemical Sensitivities Manitoba and also sits on the Board of Prevent Cancer Now.

Also in the Winter 2012 Issue of An Ounce …

Can citizens stop a project to revive Canada’s deadly asbestos trade?
Misreading Research: What the news said vs. what the science said
Why iPads and iPhones are Not Kids’ Toys
Did you know . . . six facts about cancer
One Simple Change for Health and for the Environment
Fracking, shale gas and cancer: Health risks at every step
Burning Public Money
BizNGO: Businesses and NGOs working together to promote safer chemicals in products and manufacturing
Healthy Beauty for Life
Petition to the Auditor General of Canada: Properly manage carcinogens in cosmetics!
CAPE Pushing for Pesticide Ban in B.C.
“12 Days of Prevention” Holiday Campaign a Big Success!
PCN Shorts
Make a donation to PCN today! We need you!

Published: February 3, 2012