Subscribe
Join the PCN mailing list.


Thank you for responding to the "Right to a Healthy Environment" implementation consultation. Learn more, and access PCN's submission.

If CEPA was indeed protecting public health, we would expect declining diseases from environmental exposures. Canadian examples point to the opposite. Endocrine-related obesity and metabolic syndrome, disorders of early development and sexual differentiation, and cancers in hormone-sensitive tissues have not been prevented. Endocrine disruption does not follow classic dose-response, so these substances must be regulated based on their innate hazard. With many thousands of EDCs, classes of similar chemicals require group actions.

A regulatory conclusion that an environmental exposure poses an “acceptable risk” is initially based on little data. Ethically, regulators should follow up to detect harms at the earliest possible opportunity. Relying on epidemiology can result in harms to generations.

Fourteen Canadian environmental and health groups are concerned about industry interference after learning that many of Canada’s biggest polluters sent a letter to the Senate Speaker to “urge the full Senate to reverse the amendments introduced by the Committee and pass Bill S-5 as it was originally introduced.”

Radiofrequency radiation from telecommunications can be bioactive. It needs to be assessed and regulated in Canada.

Your genes are not your destiny! Identical twins look different (at least to those who know them) and do not necessarily succumb to the same diseases. Key differences lie in…

Four Key Steps to Making it Matter in CEPA Reform Share your priorities with Senators and Ministers The Right to a Healthy Environment is a tall order! This is a…

Bill S-5 needs to launch important improvements to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. (PCN in the National Observer)

Canada’s chemicals laws are two decades old. Parliament needs to modernize them properly. (PCN in the Hill Times.)