This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Regulation of flame-retardant chemicals

Petition

Mary-Pat Gleeson
454 Maude Street,
Petrolia, Ontario N0N 1R0
Telephone: 519-882-1718
Email: mpgleeson9@sympatico.ca

May 20, 2007

Mr. Ron Thompson, FCA,
Office of the Auditor General of Canada,
Attention: Petitions
11th Floor,
240 Sparks Street,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G6

Dear Commissioner;

Please accept this as a petition under Section 22 of the Auditor General Act. Please forward this petition to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Environment and any other responsible departments. This petition is in regard to banning the use, manufacturing and importation of all Polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants (PBDEs).

PBDEs are man-made chemicals used as fire retardants in a wide-range of consumer products including furniture; curtains; mattresses; computers; televisions; children's clothing. Recent studies have shown that PBDEs are leaching into the environment, bioaccumulating in animals and that they are now being linked to serious human health issues including thyroid hormone disruption, neurodevelopmental deficits and cancer.

It is acknowledged that as of December 16, 2007, tetraBDE, pentaBDE and hexaBDE were included on the CEPA Registry for virtual elimination. It must be pointed out, however, that while regulations ban the manufacturing of these chemicals in Canada, no PBDE's were manufactured in this country at the time of the ban. Further, two of these PBDEs had already been voluntarily phased out. What is incomprehensible is that the most common PBDE (dexaBDE), which accounts for 80 percent of all use in North America, is not yet on the CEPA Registry for elimination.

On the Health Canada website, an article entitled PBDE Flame Retardants and Human Health seems to diminish the danger of PBDEs: "PBDEs have been found both in the environment and in humans, including in human breast milk in Canada, the United States and Europe. While the levels in humans are very low, they have been increasing with time and are higher in North Americans than Europeans." The article goes on to say that "there is no clear evidence of any adverse effects or of increased disease." In fact, according to a study by the State of Oregon Department of Human Resources Environmental Toxicology Program, "the levels of PBDEs have been found to be 10 to 100 times higher in the United States and Canada than in most other parts of the world, including Europe where they are banned."

In a paper submitted to Health Canada by K. Bruce Newbold and John Eyles (Chemicals of Concern in Ontario, McMaster Institute of Environment and Health) it is clear that there are serious health concerns around PBDEs. Newbold and Eyles note: "Initially, European studies revealed alarming levels of PBDEs in women's breast milk. This was followed by other North American studies, which reported astonishing levels 10 times those seen in Europe. The findings point to the potential health hazards PBDEs could pose for nursing infants. Human studies have documented PBDEs ability to disrupt the normal function of thyroid hormones and more recently, [it was] reported that developmental exposure to low-dose PBDE-99 not only caused persistent neurobehavioral effects but also permanently affected adult male reproductive health."

Further, Health Canada's notice on PBDEs seems grossly incongruous, particularly in view of studies which link PBDE's to neurotoxicity and thryotoxicity (New Pollutants-Old Diseases, Clinical Medicine and Research, (CMR) Sept. 19, 2003).

According to the CMR, "Children and young adults are prone to developmental dysfunction as a consequence of PBDE exposure…short term exposure to less-brominated PBDE congeners interferes with thyroid function and disrupts hormonal balance…highly brominate PBDE's can also cause thyroid hormone imbalance." This is particularly alarming when one considers that PBDE's are widely used as a flame retardant in children's clothing. Imagine infants and children sleeping in chemical-laced pajamas.

Studies by Swedish researchers in the early `70's so alarmed that country that PBDEs were comprehensively banned, as they have been by the European Union (Directive 2003/11/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003). According to newrules.org (The Environment Sector) "roughly 50,000 metric tons of PBDEs are produced annually world-wide, with 40 percent of their use in North America. The chemicals are extremely potent thyroid disruptors and may lead to the development of ADHD and low sperm count." PBDEs can constitute by weight up to 30 percent of many consumer products (Chemicals of Concern in Ontario).

A study by the Environmental Working Group (a non-profit, non-partisan environmental advocacy and research organization) found that milk from 20 first-time mothers was 75 times the average found in recent European studies. On April 3, 2007, the state of Washington announced that it had overwhelmingly passed a ban on PBDEs—in part because of the research done by the Environmental Working Group. Washington is added to the list of several US states that have banned PBDEs including Michigan, California, Oregon, Illinois, Maryland and New York, Maine and Hawaii.

Even in the face of aggressive lobbying by the plastics industry, we should expect our government to protect us from harmful chemicals, just as the EU is protecting its citizens. [Name and position withheld] cautions the use of PBDEs: "I have considerable human health concerns. There is a deep-seated conservatism that has prevented us from acting proactively even when we have evidence from our PCB experience…" (Walrus Magazine, Feb. 26, 2005)

The question of course is: Why would our government risk the health and safety of our most vulnerable—our children? Who will own the consequences of government in-action? I respectfully request that The Ministry of Health (Health Canada) and Ministry of Environment immediately ban the manufacturing, distribution, sale and importation of all PBDEs.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Mary Pat Gleeson]

Mary-Pat Gleeson,
454 Maude Street,
Petrolia, Ontario, N0N 1R0
Telephone: 519-882-1718
Email: mpgleeson9@sympatico.ca

QUESTIONS

1. What is the position of the Ministry of Health, Health Canada and Ministry of the Environment on banning all PBDEs in Canada, given the research, the European ban, the growing number of U.S. states that have banned PBDEs, and the serious health issues related to the increase of PBDEs at an alarming rate in breast milk, household dust and food?
2. In 2004, Environment Canada carried out a screening assessment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which stated that PBDEs are entering the environment at a rate "that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect…and are considered "toxic" as defined under paragraph 64(a) CEPA 1999." The assessment recommended that all PBDEs be added to the list of toxic substances, known as the Priority Substance List. To date only three PBDEs are on the CEPA list for virtual elimination. What is the government's plan (including timelines) to include all remaining PBDEs for virtual elimination? If there is not a plan, why not?
3. Why did the federal government exclude decaBDE, the most prevalent form of PBDE which accounts for 80 percent of all fire retardant use in North America, Asia and Europe from the CEPA list?
4. Why did Health Canada claim that the levels of PBDEs found in food is very low and does not pose a health risk and then go on to advise Canadians to limit their consumption of fatty foods if they want to limit their consumption of these chemicals? If these chemicals are harmless why did Health Canada advise Canadians to clean their houses often in order to avoid these chemicals that accumulate in household dust?
5. Why won't the government support an amendment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to explicitly recognize the rights of every Canadian to clean water, clean air and a healthy ecologically balanced environment?
6. Has the government alerted industry, Provincial Workman's Compensation Boards, labour organizations, healthcare providers and the waste management industry about the hazards surrounding PBDE's?
7. Has Health Canada done a comprehensive study of the effects of PBDE's on Canadians?
8. Given the serious health implication of PBDE's, will the Canadian government phase out ALL forms of PBDEs—i.e. ban the use, sale, offer for sale and import of hepta, octa, nona and decaBDE within two years?
9. Will the government demonstrate environmental leadership by researching and promoting safer non-toxic alternatives to hazardous chemicals, and immediately commission a study on the effects of PBDEs on the health of Canadians?
10. Will the government clearly label all products containing PBDEs so that consumers are made aware of the health risks associated with PBDEs (similar to the packaging of tobacco) and have an option of choosing products without them?
11. Since most homes already have products containing PBDEs, will the federal government advise Canadians as to how to use and safely dispose of products which contain these chemicals as they represent a source of ongoing contamination to Canadian homes and landfills?
12. In view of recent evidence surrounding the harmful effects of PBDEs, will the government adequately test replacement fire retardants prior to government approval in order to ensure that they are not persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic.

DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED*

• Chemical of Concern in Ontario submitted to health Canada by K. Bruce Newbold and John Eyles, McMaster Institute of Environment and Health
• Health Canada: It's Your Health. PBDE Flame Retardants and Human Health
• Labour Environmental Alliance Society: Ban should include all PBDEs
• Sierra Legal Defence Fund: Media Release February 16, 2007
• Sierra Legal Defence Fund: Media Release, April 24, 2007
• Newrules.org: The Environment Sector (Ban on Toxic Flame Retardants PBDEs California)
• Environmental Science and Technology, Dec. 7, 2001 (Rapidly rising PBDE levels in North America)
• CMR September 19, 2003 (PBDEs: New Pollutants-Old Diseases)
• Walrus Magazine, web page, February 26, 2005 (Everyday Poisons)
• Environmental Working Group (Study Finds Record High Levels of Toxic Fire Retardants in Breast Milk from American Mothers, 2007)
• Environmental Working Group (Toxic Fire Retardants Are Building Up Rapidly in Fish and People, April 3, 2007)

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Environment Canada

3 October 2007

Ms. Mary-Pat Gleeson
454 Maude Street
Petrolia, Ontario
N0N 1R0

Dear Ms. Gleeson:

I am pleased to respond to your Environmental Petition no. 204, to the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the banning of polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants. The petition was received in Environment Canada on June 12, 2007.

As some of the questions in your petition contain issues that are jointly administered by Environment Canada and Health Canada, I am also responding on behalf of the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Health.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition, and I trust that you will find this information useful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by John Baird, Minister of Environment]

John Baird, P.C., M.P.

Enclosure

Response of Environment Canada and Health Canada
to Environmental Petition No. 204, regarding the banning of
all polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).

Question 1: What is the position of the Ministry of Health, Health Canada and the Ministry of the Environment on banning all PBDEs in Canada, given the research, the European ban, the growing number of U.S. States that have banned PBDEs, and the serious health issues related to the increase of PBDEs at an alarming rate in breast milk, household dust and food?

Response: The Government of Canada has taken a number of steps to assess and manage the potential environmental and health risks associated with PBDEs. These efforts are ongoing.

Ecological and human health screening assessments have been completed for PBDEs, and a final report on their findings was published on July 1, 2006, in the Canada Gazette, Part I. The assessment reports concluded that PBDEs (tetra-BDE, penta-BDE, hexa-BDE, hepta-BDE, octa-BDE, nona-BDE and deca-BDE) are entering the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; however, they were not considered to pose an immediate threat to human health. These findings are generally consistent with the risk assessments of other jurisdictions, including the European Union. The ecological assessment report recommended that all seven PBDEs be added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) and noted that tetra-BDE, penta-BDE, and hexa-BDE met the criteria for virtual elimination. On December 27, 2006, all seven PBDEs were added to Schedule 1.

On September 20, 2006, Environment Canada posted a proposed risk management strategy for PBDEs on-line for public comment. Based on the comments received, a revised version was posted on-line on December 15, 2006. PBDEs were identified as a high priority in the Chemical Management Plan. On December 16, 2006, the proposed Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for a formal 60-day public comment period.

The proposed regulations are an important first step in the risk management of PBDEs in Canada. They will prohibit the manufacture of seven PBDEs (tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, octa-, nona- and deca-BDE) and the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and import of tetra-, penta-, and hexa-BDE and any mixtures, polymers, and resins containing them. The final regulations are expected to be published in Canada Gazette, Part II in late 2007.

In line with the Risk Management Strategy, development of additional risk management actions are currently underway to complement the proposed regulations. This includes additional regulations targeting certain PBDEs in products, and an Environmental Performance Agreement which aims to minimize releases of the DecaBDE commercial mixture (containing nona-BDE and deca-BDE) to the environment from textile and plastic manufacturing operations.

Environment Canada is currently evaluating new scientific evidence on deca-BDE to determine if further actions are warranted. The Government of Canada is closely following the initiatives of other jurisdictions with respect to regulations on deca-BDE, and aims to harmonize its approach with the international community, while taking into account the Canadian context.

Question 2: In 2004, Environment Canada carried out a screening assessment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which stated that PBDEs are entering the environment at a rate "that have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect…and are considered "toxic" as defined under paragraph 64(a) of CEPA 1999." The assessment recommended that all PBDEs be added to the list of toxic substances, known as the Priority Substances List. To date only three PBDEs are on the CEPA list for virtual elimination. What is the government's plan (including timelines) to include all remaining PBDEs for virtual elimination? If there is not a plan, why not?

Response: The Priority Substance List, List of Toxic Substances, and list of substances targeted for virtual elimination are each separate and distinct.

The Priority Substances List (PSL) identifies substances that are to be subject to in-depth assessment to determine whether they pose a significant risk to the health of Canadians or to the environment. Once a substance has been scientifically evaluated and found to meet the criteria of CEPA 1999 section 64, the Ministers of the Environment and of Health can jointly recommend to the Governor in Council that she make an order adding the substance to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999. The Act also requires the Ministers of Environment and of Health to compile a list of toxic substances whose releases to the environment must be targeted for virtual elimination.

On December 27, 2006, all seven PBDEs assessed under CEPA 1999 were added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999.

Tetra-BDE, penta-BDE and hexa-BDE, because they are bioaccumulative, persistent and result primarily from human activity, are targeted for virtual elimination. Hepta-BDE, octa-BDE, nona-BDE, and deca-BDE are not considered candidates for virtual elimination, as they did not meet the criteria for bioaccumulation under CEPA 1999. While hepta- to deca-BDEs were not found to meet the criteria, they are found to accumulate and potentially biomagnify to some degree in the tissues of wildlife. The other main concern about deca-BDE is the likelihood that it can debrominate under at least some environmental conditions to form the lower brominated PBDEs, including those that meet the criteria for virtual elimination under CEPA 1999. New evidence concerning these phenomena is currently under examination, in order to determine if further restrictions are warranted.

Question 3: Why did the federal government exclude decaBDE, the most prevalent form of PBDEs which accounts for 80 percent of all fire retardant use in North America, Asia and Europe from the CEPA list?

Response: Deca-BDE was added to the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 along with the other PBDEs, on December 27, 2006.

Question 4: Why did Health Canada claim that the levels of PBDEs found in food is very low and does not pose a health risk and then go on to advise Canadians to limit their consumption of fatty foods if they want to limit their consumption of these chemicals? If these chemicals are harmless why did Health Canada advise Canadians to clean their houses often in order to avoid these chemicals that accumulate in household dust?

Response: Ecological and human health assessments were conducted under CEPA 1999 for seven PBDEs (tetra-BDE, penta-BDE, hexa-BDE, hepta-BDE, octa-BDE, nona-BDE, and deca-BDE) contained in three commercial mixtures. As a result of the ecological assessment, PBDEs were declared "toxic" under CEPA 1999 and placed on the List of Toxic Substances in December 2006. Accordingly, while these chemicals are not harmless, the human health assessment concluded that worst-case estimates of the exposure of Canadians to PBDEs were much lower than the levels of exposure that caused health effects in laboratory animals. The control measures proposed to protect the environment from PBDEs are expected to further reduce human exposure.

The Government of Canada has proposed that the manufacture of all seven PBDEs be prohibited, along with the use, sale, offer for sale, and import of three PBDEs (i.e., tetra-BDE, penta-BDE, and hexa-BDE) that met the criteria for virtual elimination. The prohibition of the manufacture, use, sale and import of these three substances will effectively prohibit two of the three PBDE commercial mixtures (i.e., commercial PentaBDE and commercial OctaBDE) from entering into Canada.

Although the health assessment did not identify a current risk to human health from PBDEs, it is recognized that these substances are not harmless and that some people may still have concerns about these substances. As such, Health Canada has made information on ways to minimize exposure to PBDEs available to the public through the "It's Your Health" fact sheet entitled PBDE Flame Retardants and Human Health.

Question 5: Why won't the government support an amendment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to explicitly recognize the rights of every Canadian to clean water, clean air and healthy ecologically balanced environment?

Response: The Government of Canada is of the view that existing legislation and management institutions provide the basis for ensuring that Canadians have access to clean water, clean air and a healthy environment. There is no plan to amend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this regard.

Given the role of the Federal Government and that of the provincial and territorial governments in ensuring that Canadians enjoy clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment, the Government of Canada will continue to support an effective regulatory system involving all levels of government to protect the health of Canadians and the environment.

Question 6: Has the government alerted industry, Provincial Workman's Compensation Boards, labour organizations, healthcare providers and the waste management industry about the hazards surrounding PBDEs?

Response: Industry, organizations and individuals are continually invited to participate in a wide variety of public consultations through notices published in Canada's official parliamentary journal, the Canada Gazette (http://canadagazette.gc.ca). Notices of consultations are also published on the CEPA Environmental Registry (www.ec.gc.ca/CEPARegistry/) and the Government of Canada Consulting with Canadians Web-site (www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca). Fact sheets and other public documents can be found on these web-sites, as well as Environment Canada's Green Lane (www.ec.gc.ca) and the Government of Canada's Chemical Substances Portal (www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca).

With respect to the process for the assessment and management of toxic substances, there are several public consultation periods mandated under CEPA 1999. Both draft risk assessment reports and proposed risk management instruments are subject to 60-day public comment periods following publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Proposed risk management strategies are also published for public comment on the CEPA Environmental Registry.

Question 7: Has Health Canada done a comprehensive study of the effects of PBDEs on Canadians?

Response: Yes, a human health assessment on PBDEs was published by Health Canada in 2006. It concluded that worst-case estimates of the exposure of Canadians to PBDEs were much lower than the levels of exposure that caused health effects in laboratory animals. The control measures the Government of Canada is proposing to protect the environment from PBDEs are expected to further reduce human exposure.

Question 8: Given the serious health implication of PBDEs, will the Canadian government phase out ALL forms of PBDEs—ie. Ban the use, sale, offer for sale and import of hepta, octa, nona and decaBDE within two years?

Response: The risk management strategy for PBDEs is based on the conclusions of an ecological assessment that indicated that PBDEs are considered "toxic" under the terms of CEPA 1999. The assessment also noted that tetra-BDE, penta-BDE, and hexa-BDE met the criteria for mandatory virtual elimination. As a result, PBDEs have been placed on the List of Toxic Substances in Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999, and the Government of Canada has proposed strict regulations governing their use and release, and further regulations to address PBDEs in products and articles are currently under development.

The health assessment conducted by Health Canada on PBDEs concluded that worst-case estimates of the exposure of Canadians to these substances were much lower than the levels of exposure that caused health effects in laboratory animals. The proposed regulations are expected to further reduce human exposure.

The Government of Canada is reviewing new evidence concerning the bioaccumulation and debromination of deca-BDE to determine if further restrictions on this substance are warranted.

Question 9: Will the government demonstrate environmental leadership by researching and promoting safer non-toxic alternatives to hazardous chemicals, and immediately commission a study on the effects of PBDEs on the health of Canadians?

Response: The Government of Canada agrees with the need for an orderly transition to safer products and technology. CEPA 1999 provides the authority to regulate the quantity or concentration of a toxic substance in any product, as well as the authority to prohibit a product containing a toxic substance.

By establishing the regulatory framework in which substances are assessed and managed in Canada, industry can take the initiative by innovating and considering economically-viable, safer alternatives to potentially harmful substances.

With regard to commissioning a study on the human health effects of PBDEs, a human health assessment of these substances was already published by Health Canada in 2006. The assessment report concluded that worst-case estimates of the exposure of Canadians to PBDEs were much lower than the exposure levels that caused health effects in laboratory animals. Control measures proposed by the Government of Canada to protect the environment from PBDEs are expected to further reduce human exposure.

Further study of PBDE levels in humans is planned under the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS), and the Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study. The CHMS is a national survey that will be carried out by Statistics Canada from 2007 to 2009. The survey will include a biomonitoring component to measure human levels of environmental chemicals in a representative sample of the Canadian population and a questionnaire about risk factors related to exposure to these substances. The MIREC study focuses on biomonitoring of infants and women before and after childbirth. One of the aims of the study is to measure the extent to which pregnant women and their infants are exposed to chemicals (including PBDEs). Health Canada is also providing financial support to a study being conducted at the University of British Columbia in collaboration with the University of Alberta and Environment Canada. The study is looking at blood levels of PBDEs in pregnant women and cord blood. By establishing a representative baseline of PBDE concentrations in humans, these surveys will help to identify future trends and allow comparisons to other countries.

Question 10: Will the government clearly label all products containing PBDEs so that consumers are made aware of the health risks associated with PBDEs (similar to the packaging of tobacco) and have an option of choosing products without them?

Response: Certification under Environment Canada's Environmental Choice Program is awarded to Notebook and Desktop Computers that demonstrate environmental leadership throughout their life-cycle and meet requirements for reduced use of certain substances, design for re-use and recycling, energy efficiency, reduced packaging and ergonomic considerations. To be authorized to carry the EcoLogoM, the Notebook and Desktop Computer product must not contain any plastic parts manufactured with PBDEs.

The Government of Canada recognises the usefulness of product labelling. Studies of consumer practice and behaviour have shown that only the most important safety related information should appear on product labels, and that overloading the label with too much information is counter-productive and can lead to consumer apathy towards the hazards inherent in a product.

Full ingredient disclosure of all product formulations on their labels is impractical due to space limitations on the label itself, but also the disclosure would not necessarily serve in the public's interest. Many of the chemical names for product formulations would not necessarily influence the safe use of a product by consumers. At this time, there are no plans to mandate full ingredient disclosure of all household product formulations on their labels.

Manufacturer due diligence, along with their in-depth knowledge of their products, puts the onus on them to inform their clients, in this case the users, about any hazards that they are aware of related to their product. With the coming into force of new regulatory requirements, many manufacturers will voluntarily recognise the advantage to marketing their products as PBDE-free, which will allow consumers to make informed choices.

Question 11: Since most homes already have products containing PBDEs, will the federal government advise Canadians as to how to use and safely dispose of products which contain these chemicals as they represent a source of ongoing contamination to Canadian homes and landfills?

Response: There is no need for Canadians to get rid of household products that may contain low levels of these substances. In the few studies of humans exposed to PBDEs, there has not been any clear evidence of adverse effects or increased disease. Current levels of exposure to these substances appear to be well below levels that would cause Health Canada to have any immediate concerns for population health. The health assessment conducted by Health Canada considered exposure to PBDEs from consumer products, and concluded that worst-case estimates of the exposure of Canadians to PBDEs were much lower than the levels of exposure that caused health effects in laboratory animals. The control measures proposed to protect the environment from PBDEs are expected to further reduce human exposure.

With respect to advising Canadians on the safe disposal of products, the Federal Government does not assume this role as waste management is a shared jurisdiction in Canada. The management of household waste in Canada falls under provincial/territorial or municipal jurisdiction.

Question 12: In view of recent evidence surrounding the harmful effects of PBDEs, will the government adequately test replacement fire retardants prior to government approval in order to ensure that they are not persistent, bioaccumulative or toxic.

Response: All chemicals, polymers, and animate products of biotechnology that are new to Canada—including any alternatives to PBDEs—are subject to the New Substances Notification Regulations of CEPA 1999. As part of the "cradle to grave" management approach prescribed by the Act, these regulations ensure that no new substances are introduced to the Canadian marketplace before an assessment of whether they are potentially toxic has been completed and any appropriate or required control measures have been taken. As such, if alternatives to PBDEs are new to Canada, it would be the responsibility of the company or individual proposing to import or manufacture a new substance to provide Environment Canada with information. This information is used to perform a joint assessment with Health Canada that includes a characterization of the environmental entry, risk, fate, and exposure of the substance and assesses its ability to elicit adverse effects.

When this process identifies a new substance that may pose a risk to human health or the environment, CEPA 1999 empowers the Government of Canada to intervene prior to or during the earliest stages of its introduction into Canada. This ability to act preemptively gives the New Substances Program a unique and essential role in the federal management of toxic substances.

If the PBDE replacement in question is an "existing" substance (i.e. one of approximately 23,000 substances were already in Canadian commerce when the first Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) was passed in 1988), it is assessed and managed under the Existing Substances Program of Environment Canada and Health Canada. This program prioritizes and assesses the risk associated with existing substances. If an assessment concludes that a substance is toxic as per CEPA 1999, risk managers within Environment Canada and Health Canada will develop a strategy to manage the risks posed by the substance.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Health Canada

5 October 2007

Ms. Mary-Pat Gleeson
454 Maude Street
Petrolia, Ontario
N0N 1R0

Dear Ms. Gleeson:

This is in response to your petition no. 204 of May 20, 2007, addressed to Mr. Ron Thompson, the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD).

In your petition you requested information from Health Canada and Environment Canada with respect to the banning of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants. The petition was received in Health Canada on June 13, 2007.

Due to the nature of the issues being raised in the petition, my colleague, the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, will provide you with the joint Government of Canada response.

I appreciate your interest in this important matte, and I hope that you will find this information useful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Tony Clement, Minister of Health and the Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Tony Clement