Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, May 2000
From http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/05-pre-e.html
Charles Caccia , Member of Parliament for Davenport , Ottawa, May 2000
For the full report go to
Standing Committee Report
�As we all know, governments act with greater speed and resolution when clear arguments are made about dangers posed to public health. At times governments have acted without waiting for the smoking gun, but at other times reluctantly due to competing views by sectoral interests. In the meantime, the public bore the costs of protracted inaction, be it in the form of pulmonary diseases and cancer in the case of tobacco and asbestos, or in the form of lower IQs and learning disabilities in children, as in the case of lead. With pesticides, we have good reasons to worry about public health, safety and the special vulnerability of our children. [�] The European Union (EU) has experienced a remarkable growth in organic agriculture in the last decade, particularly in Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden, due to the introduction of EU and national grants. The land being farmed organically in Europe has increased about eight times between 1987 and 1997, with Austria leading the way. The European Union's aim is to have 2.5% of all farms in organic production by early this year while the Austrian government has set a target of 20%. The Committee hearings made us aware that we should have started long before now to plan and build such a replacement system in Canada, in light of the strong evidence that chemical pesticides are detrimental to our environment, health and particularly our children's health...� (Charles Caccia , Member of Parliament for Davenport, Ottawa, May 2000, http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/05-pre-e.html)
� Pesticides: �Many studies published in prestigious, peer-reviewed medical and epidemiological journals and reports point to strong associations between chemical pesticides and serious health consequences, including--and I'll just read this list briefly--endocrine disruption and fertility problems, birth defects, brain tumours and brain cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, childhood leukemia, cancer clusters in communities, gastric or stomach cancer, learning disabilities, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, canine malignant lymphoma, and various acute effects. [...] 57 (Dr. Merryl Hammond, founder of Action Chelsea for the Respect of the Environment)�� (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/12-ch5-e.html)
� Organochlorines: �While most of the more persistent and bioaccumulative organochlorines were banned in North America and Europe over 20 years ago, some persistent organochlorines are still used in developing countries because they are cheap and effective against disease-bearing insects. Wind and water bring them to Canada, where they have been found in human breast milk.59...� http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/12-ch5-e.html)
� Organophosphates and Carbamates �Many of these products, which include fungicides and herbicides as well as insecticides, act on a very broad spectrum. In other words, they kill non-target species as well as target species. [�] In terms of impact on human health, it is believed that organophosphate compounds inhibit the enzymes that are essential for the proper functioning of the central nervous system, causing dizziness and sometimes convulsions that may lead to death.63 A number of chronic effects of carbamate exposure have also been reported, including lowered sperm counts, reduced fertility and lower haemoglobin.64...� (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/12-ch5-e.html)
� Phenoxy Herbicides and Pyrethroids � (5.7) While the effects of phenoxy herbicides on plants are well known, their effects on mammals are poorly understood. It is suspected that this group of pesticides stimulates cancer development, delays fetal development, and promotes mutations and other problems,65 but few studies have been carried out. It has also been reported that intense exposure to these herbicides can affect the peripheral nervous system, although studies using laboratory animals have not been able to demonstrate this phenomenon.66 ...� (5.8) Synthetic pyrethroids inhibit the conduction of certain minerals across the nerve cell membrane in parasites and block the transmission of nerve impulses. The effects of synthetic pyrethroids on humans are still very poorly understood,67 but some sources note, at most, that these pesticides can cause irritations.68 [�] �The Committee recommends that the government fund research on those chemical groups of pesticides whose action and chronic effects on human health are still relatively unknown, such as synthetic pyrethroids and phenoxy herbicides.� ...� (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/12-ch5-e.html)
� Endocrine Disruptors: �Approximately 60% of the poundage of contemporary-use pesticides -- these would be agricultural pesticides -- used in the United States, which compares almost identically with the list of pesticides used in Canada, are known endocrine disruptors [...]. The evidence for these statistics comes from peer-reviewed scientific literature and government reports. The list is continuing to expand as new research is published.70 [�] Pesticides suspected of acting as endocrine disruptors appear to be linked to the development of breast, prostate and testicular cancers, endometriosis, abnormal sexual development, lowered male fertility, damage to the thyroid and pituitary glands, lowered immunity, and behavioural problems...� (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/12-ch5-e.html)
� Persistant Organic Pollutants: �According to information provided by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 80% of pollutants detected in the Arctic (the territory north of the 60th parallel, which in fact covers the arctic and subarctic regions) appears to come from countries other than Canada.27...� [�] These pesticides, used in more southerly regions, partially evaporate, are carried by winds, then condense under the effect of cold Arctic air and are deposited on the ground. When pollutants reach the North they tend to accumulate; cool temperatures prevent them from evaporating again. POPs can repeat this cycle a number of times and over long distances in a series of "hops," which led to the process being termed the "grasshopper effect" (Figure 4.2). POPs are persistent because they resist degradation under normal environmental conditions...� (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/11-ch4-e.html)
The Disclosure of Information:
"One of the major concerns raised by witnesses was the lack of public information on pesticides. Many witnesses complained that information was simply not available, whether it be in relation to active ingredients, formulants or test data. Ironically, some pesticide information which is not released in Canada is making its way into this country through public disclosure in the US. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, indicated to the Committee that the information on the hazards posed by pesticides was protected as confidential business information in Canada. "This is especially silly," it added, "since the same data are freely available in the US."228
(http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/20-ch13-e.html#F241)
"The problem in Canada stems from the fact there is no authority under the Pest Control Products Act to allow disclosure to the public of any information whatsoever. Because the Act is silent on this issue, the provisions of the Access to Information Act are applicable. This legislation, however, is quite restrictive. It requires that a request for information be made in writing to the appropriate authority (section 6). Public access is thus not contemplated as a matter of course; a written request must first be made. Even when the request is made, the applicant may not be given the sought-after information due to restrictions under the Act. The most important restrictions for the purposes of this discussion are set out in the exemption in section 20(1). This exemption requires a government institution, such as the PMRA, to refuse disclosure of any record that contains:
trade secrets of a third party;
financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by that party;
information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a third party; or
information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party.
It should be noted that the term "trade secrets" usually refers to the formula and the process used to produce a product such as a pesticide. Trade secrets, however, are frequently lumped in with other business information considered confidential by the person who owns the information, and, together, are generically termed "confidential business information."
By reason of the restrictions in section 20(1) of the Access to Information Act, the PMRA is thus unable to release "confidential business information." There is, however, a "public interest override" clause in section 20(6) that, in appropriate cases, could lead to the disclosure of the confidential business information otherwise protected under section 20(1). This override clause permits disclosure of information if the "disclosure would be in the public interest as it relates to public health, public safety or protection of the environment and, if the public interest in the disclosure clearly outweighs in importance any financial loss or gain to, prejudice to the competitive position of or interference with contractual or other negotiations of a third party."
A review of the jurisprudence on section 20(6) failed to disclose any cases where the public interest override had been invoked. It would therefore seem to be an under-utilized provision. It must be remembered, however, that the override clause is an exception to the general non-disclosure rule in section 20(1) and, as such, would have to be successfully invoked before the sought-after information could be released.
Given the restrictions under the Access to Information Act, the PMRA has indicated that its hands are tied in terms of disclosing confidential business information to the public."
(http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/20-ch13-e.html#F241)
"The Committee recommends that:
(a) as a condition of product registration, the new Pest Control Act require registrants to provide the Pest Management Regulatory Agency with their sales data on an ongoing basis which, at a minimum, must identify the product and amount sold, as well as the location and date of sale; and
(b) the pesticide sales inventory be made public on the electronic public registry of information.
Like the Crop Protection Institute, however, the Committee questions the utility of having a database on pesticide sales only. As the Institute pointed out, a correlation between sales and use cannot readily be made:
We question the utility of manufacturer's sales data as an indicator of use or risk simply because aggregate sales do not indicate immediate or even near-term use. Inventory levels through our dealers vary from 20% to 50% from one year to another. Additionally, sales are made to national or regional distributors whose end customers may be quite removed from the original sales region. Practically, the only real indicator of pesticide use is at the farm level.241
It should be noted that data on pesticide use is being collected on a more local level. The World Wildlife Fund indicated, for example, that the province of Ontario conducts surveys about every five years on agricultural pesticide usage, which provide detailed data on a county-by-county and crop-by-crop basis. The province of Quebec carries out surveys on certain crops, including corn-soybean rotation. Prince Edward Island also does some data collection, while Alberta does a survey of pesticide distributors to try to assess volume. As the World Wildlife Fund points out, it is "a bit of a hodgepodge" in Canada. The system in California, by contrast, is very extensive and requires reporting from users, distributors and manufacturers.242 "
(http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/20-ch13-e.html#F241)
"The Committee understands that the pesticide use reporting system in California is among the most comprehensive in the world. Inaugurated in the 1950's and expanded over the decades, this system currently imposes reporting requirements on agricultural pest control operators and "commercial pest control operators" (i.e. those engaged in the business of pest control for hire, such as ground and aerial applicators, structural operators and professional gardeners). The reporting requirements also apply in relation to all "agricultural uses," a term broadly defined to include pesticide applications to parks, golf courses, cemeteries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad rights-of-way. All post-harvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities must also be reported, as must all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production as well as livestock applications. The primary exceptions to the full use reporting requirements are home and garden use, and most industrial and institutional uses.243 "
(http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/20-ch13-e.html#F241)
"There is little doubt that collecting data on pesticide use, as opposed to pesticide sales, would be advantageous. Information on use would best enable the PMRA and other government agencies to determine the extent of pesticide use, as well as the rate of compliance with the directions for use.
The Committee notes that Environment Canada has been collecting data on the release of selected pollutants since 1993 under a program called the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). This program, which is mandatory under section 48 of the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, is geared primarily toward tracking industrial pollutants. It does not generally track pesticides. In fact, it expressly excludes from its ambit the growing, harvesting and renewable resources management (forestry, fisheries and agriculture) sectors."
(http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/20-ch13-e.html#F241)
"The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development observed that the PMRA has only a limited enforcement staff to verify compliance with the Act and Regulations. The Agency has the equivalent of 44 officers to inspect farms, food processing plants, commercial application facilities, retail outlets, pesticide registrants and formulators, lawn care companies and so on throughout Canada.245
Given the PMRA's scarce resources and the magnitude of the task at hand, it is important to involve the community in ensuring that the law is observed. Members of the public and workers are well placed to provide assistance, but they must not be placed at risk for coming forward. Meaningful whistleblower protection must be extended to them.
The new Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999 (CEPA 1999) extends such protection. Section 16, for example, encourages members of the public to make voluntary reports by protecting their identity if they request anonymity.246
..." (http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/2/ENVI/Studies/Reports/envi01/20-ch13-e.html#F241)