Search Climate Insights Directory

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and other groups are calling for the modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), 1999, asserting that the law is outdated and fails to address current environmental and health risks. The briefing highlights the disproportionate impact of toxics on marginalized groups, including Indigenous people and lower-income Canadians, and advocates for the implementation of 87 recommendations made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in 2017. Proposed amendments include banning highly hazardous substances, establishing national air and drinking water quality standards, and recognizing the human right to a healthy environment.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) submitted a brief to the City of Edmonton arguing that the current Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy fails to adequately address human health risks. CAPE highlights that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure, which is linked to developmental deficits and childhood cancers, while adults face risks of Parkinson's disease and various cancers. The document criticizes Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) for relying on industry-supplied data and failing to conduct timely re-evaluations of registered pesticides. CAPE recommends that Edmonton formalize a policy to eliminate routine toxic pesticide use in city-managed parks and for mosquito control, and implement a bylaw restricting non-essential pesticide use on residential and private lawns.

CAPE submits that Calgary's current Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan is insufficient to protect residents from the health risks of toxic pesticides. The organization highlights specific vulnerabilities of children and adults, criticizes the federal PMRA regulatory process, and recommends a corporate ban on routine toxic pesticide use alongside a municipal bylaw for private properties.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and a coalition of organizations argue that voluntary measures to reduce lead in ammunition and fishing gear are ineffective. They cite scientific evidence that no safe level of lead exposure exists, posing severe risks to children and wildlife. The document highlights the particular vulnerability of Indigenous communities in Nunavik and James Bay and urges the government to phase out lead products, update Health Canada's blood lead guidelines, and provide financial assistance for Indigenous communities to transition to non-lead alternatives.

The document outlines opposition to a Draft Screening Assessment regarding hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sodium bisulfide (Na(SH)), and sodium sulfide (Na2S). The authors argue that H2S poses significant risks to human health, particularly for communities near oil and gas operations, and that the government's assessment fails to apply a precautionary approach or account for olfactory nuisance as an adverse effect.

The brief, submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of community members, contends that medical monitoring is essential for detecting and treating health effects linked to PFC exposure, such as various cancers and autoimmune issues. It argues that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) does not bar private state-law claims for medical monitoring against potentially responsible parties, even while a federal clean-up is ongoing. The document highlights the severe health impacts suffered by residents near the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove and the Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, and asserts that the District Court erred in applying CERCLA's 'Timing of Review' provision to block these health-related claims.

Earthjustice, representing St. Johns Riverkeeper and Miami Waterkeeper, urges the EPA to reject Florida's proposed water quality criteria revisions. The statement claims the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) violated public participation laws and used an unsound probabilistic risk analysis that fails to protect sensitive populations, such as children and subsistence fishers. The document highlights drastic increases in allowable concentrations for several toxins and the failure to regulate 22 substances recommended by the EPA.

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) is calling for a review of South Africa's National Dust Control Regulations, arguing that current monitoring methods are inadequate and that the government is incorrectly treating fugitive dust as a 'nuisance' rather than a health risk. CER specifically highlights the danger of toxic substances like arsenic and uranium in gold mine residues in Gauteng and opposes a proposal to double the allowable 30-day average dust limit from 600mg/m2 to 1200mg/m2. The letter also demands that the scope of regulated activities be expanded to explicitly include gold mine tailings re-mining operations.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the Committee on the Rights of the Child should recognize an implied right to a healthy environment to ensure the effective realization of children's rights. Drawing on jurisprudence from other human rights bodies, CIEL demonstrates how a healthy environment is a necessary precondition for the rights to life, health, food, water, and an adequate standard of living. The document highlights that over 140 states have already incorporated environmental rights into their national constitutions, supporting an evolutionary interpretation of the Convention.

The document argues that the global trade of lead and cadmium creates significant health and environmental risks that cannot be effectively managed by countries acting unilaterally, particularly in developing nations. It highlights the toxicity of these metals, the externalization of environmental costs to producing countries, and the failure of existing frameworks to cover the entire lifecycle of these substances.

The document outlines recommendations from environmental and health groups to enhance Bill S-5 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). Key proposals include reinforcing the right to a healthy environment, improving public disclosure of chemical ingredients in products, establishing strict timelines for chemical assessments, and limiting the use of Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims to increase transparency regarding health and environmental risks.

The document calls for the modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), 1999, through an improved Bill C-28. It emphasizes the need for stronger regulation of toxic substances, including bans on carcinogens and hormone disruptors, and the implementation of chemical labelling for consumer products. The briefing highlights the disproportionate impact of toxics on marginalized groups, such as Inuit women and children, and lower-income Canadians, arguing that a strengthened CEPA is essential for a green and just recovery from COVID-19.

PFAS are a class of over 4,700 synthetic chemicals linked to various severe health conditions, including cancer and immune suppression. In Canada, 98.5% of a national sample had at least three types of PFAS in their blood, with vulnerable populations disproportionately affected. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) urges the Canadian government to finalize the listing of PFAS as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to enable comprehensive regulation and banning.

The document outlines the established safety protocols for transporting ammonia by sea and the necessary developments for its adoption as a marine fuel, emphasizing the management of its toxicity.

The document outlines seven ways the TTIP (or TAFTA) could negatively impact the regulation of toxic chemicals, specifically warning that the drive for regulatory harmonization may lead to a 'race to the bottom' that favors industry over public health. It highlights risks such as the erosion of EU member states' authority, the potential for secret arbitration panels to penalize environmental laws, and the possible promotion of fracking through investor-state dispute mechanisms similar to those in NAFTA.

The document evaluates the FDEP's proposed revisions to water quality criteria for 81 harmful chemical substances. It argues that the FDEP's reliance on Monte Carlo simulations is premature and flawed, leading to criteria that are substantially less protective than U.S. EPA recommendations. The author highlights failures to protect sensitive populations, including children and subsistence fishers, and criticizes the proposed compliance monitoring plan as inadequate.