Toxic Substances

• Author: Jamie Benidickson
• Pages: 280-304

280

CHA PTER 13

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

A. THE TOXICS CHALLENGE IN CANADA

The phrase from sawdust to toxic blobs has been u sed to describe a long-

term transform ation in the Canadian pollution-control agenda.1 Public

concern with a generalized and traditional understanding of pollution

(visible emissions and disch arges presumed to decompose without

harm if released at “safe” levels) has given way to heightened anxiety

over long-term threats to human and env ironmental health from cer-

tain ty pes of contaminants. The concept of toxic substances offers the

prospect of establishing some priorities for new regulatory and remed-

ial efforts. References to “v irtual elimin ation,” to “zero discharge of

toxic chemicals,” and to the precautionary principle are incre asingly

part of these developments. For its part, Europe ha s proceeded further

with the formulation of an initiative known as REACH for Registra-

tion, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals, a program that is

expected to inf‌luence chemicals management around the world.2

Designation of persistent toxics for speci al attention was an import-

ant step in the process of acknowledging t hat, if the environment is

contaminated, so, in time, w ill be the species, including huma ns, who

occupy the planet. But labelling the category of persistent toxics does

1 D Chappell, From Sawdust t o Toxic Blobs: A Considerat ion of Sanctioning Strat-

egies to Combat Pollution in Cana da (Ottawa: Supply & Services , 1989).

2 For general guida nce on REACH from the European Chemic als Agency, see

online: https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/re ach/understandin g-reach.

Toxic Substances 281

not lessen the challenge of identifying the characteri stics and ultim-

ately determining the contents of th at category. In general, concern

with toxics focuses on subst ances that are highly resi stant to natural

processes of degradat ion even as they disperse through air, water, and

soil. They may bioaccumulate within food chains, but even in trace

amounts they may be capable of bring ing about biological changes.3

Toxic chemicals, although they are understood to pose signif‌icant

risks to ecosystems and to human health, have often resisted precise

def‌inition and assessment. It has sometimes been diff‌icult to determine

exactly what human and environmental harm is caused by particular

toxic substances. Substances differ in degree of toxicity and in terms

of the nature of their impact, as well as in the timing in which those

consequences appear. Moreover, toxicity varies in relation to concentra-

tion, length, and conditions of exposure; some segments of the popu-

lation, children and the elderly, for example, may be more vulnerable

than others. To complicate understanding still further, toxicity may

be inf‌luenced by the presence of other substances in the environment,

with such combinations and their synergistic consequences remaining

largely unknown. Yet, during the 1970s and 1980s, toxic contamination

was recognized as a signif‌icantly more widespread and intractable prob-

lem than previously acknowledged.4 Reference to a few much- discussed

toxics serves as a reminder of recent developments and provides a par-

tial setting for consideration of legal initiatives.

The displacement in 1988 of some 3,500 people as a consequence of

PCB storage problems at Saint-Basile-le- Grand, Quebec, demonstrated

the vulnerability of urban populations to toxic concentrations, just as

the 1985 PCB spill on the Trans-Canada H ighway near Kenora, Ontario,

and revelations concerning the conta mination of numerous Arctic sites

and mammal populations demonstrated that remoteness was no guar-

antee of immunity. Although PCBs were already the subject of regula-

tory controls dating from the 1970s,5 attention focused on PCBs again

in the late 1980s amidst considerable controversy over storage, exports,

3 Environment Ca nada, “Management of Toxic Substance s,” online: www.canada.

ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/m anagement-toxic-substances.html.

4 With advances i n science and in measurement te chniques, linkages b etween

exposure a nd health impacts have often b ecome more apparent. See T McClen-

aghan et al, “Env ironmental Standard S etting and Children’s Healt h in Canada”

(2003) 12 Journal of Environmental Law & Pract ice 245; D Davis, Whe n Smoke

Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Dece ption and the Battle Against Pollution

(New York: Basic Books, 2002).

5 JF C astrilli & CC Lax, “E nvironmental Regul ation-Making in Canad a: Towards

a More Open Proces s” in J Swaigen, ed, Environmental Rights in Canada

(Toronto: Butterworths, 1981) at 349–59.