Paying the price for our toxin addiction

National Observer

3 days ago

'How badly are we messing up? Badly. Can we stop? It's hard: we're addicted to our own toxins. What are the penalties for not stopping? Severe.' So said Margaret Atwood, reflecting on our toxic chemical habits.
By mid-summer, the scent of soil is joined by something far more troubling: chemical traces from weed killers, pesticides and other toxins saturating farms, parks and gardens. This raises urgent questions: why are these substances still so widespread, and who is paying the price? The short answer: private sector interests continue to drive chemical use, often at the cost of human and ecological health.
From soil to system
The impact of these toxic chemicals is made clear in numerous reports documenting dramatic declines in insect populations, as well as the birds and other animals that feed upon them. A recent study of US imperilled species found that while land and sea use change and climate change were the most prevalent threats, pollution was the fourth-most important factor and most species were threatened by a combination of several factors.
The combination of toxic pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss (' triple planetary crisis ') has put human health and well-being in danger. Scientists have documented that the Earth is now beyond the safe operating limit to support humanity with six out of nine planetary boundaries exceeded, one of which is 'novel entities' such as pesticides and other toxic chemicals.
The commercial determinants of health
Business, market and political practices, favourable policy environments and global drivers such as market-driven economies and globalization have contributed to the ill health and injustices associated with hazardous chemicals.
Why are pesticides still so widespread, and who is paying the price? write Jane McArthur, Raquel Feroe and Trevor Hancock
A greater understanding of the impact of private sector activity on human health originated in the 2010s with the concept of commercial determinants of health. This field, situated within public health, recognizes that commercial strategies, shaped by both political and economic systems, can significantly influence health outcomes, social inequality, climate change and pollution, positively and negatively.
The concept of commercial determinants of health shows how corporate strategies — enabled by political and economic systems — can shape health, inequality, climate change and pollution, both positively and negatively.
Indigenous peoples and children are particularly affected
Indigenous Peoples are directly impacted by pesticide use. For example, glyphosate and other herbicides are widely used in forestry, which disrupts traditional Indigenous harvesting and violates harvesting rights. As such, Indigenous communities have advocated for action by governments on pesticide spraying, but little action has been taken.
The federal government's own survey data reveals that Indigenous Peoples in Canada have less confidence that Health Canada is doing a good job of protecting human health and the environment from pesticides, compared with non-Indigenous people in Canada. Indigenous knowledgekeepers and land stewards have asserted that ' pesticides have no place in Indigenous stewardship.' This begs the question to what extent, if any, is there a place for pesticides given the current triple planetary crisis?
Unions, such as the United Food and Commercial Workers, have expressed their concern about pesticide overuse, especially as it impacts workers in the agricultural and food processing sectors, who face health consequences. Overuse of dangerous pesticides is linked to a growing reliance on vulnerable labour such as migrant workers, a move that has been criticized by UN Special Rapporteurs.
Pesticide exposure is especially harmful to children due to biological and developmental factors. As well, children may face greater exposure to pesticide residue found indoors due to behavioral factors (crawling, mouthing etc.). Adverse health impacts for children exposed to pesticides include altered behaviour, liver cancer, brain tumours, endocrine system impacts and effects on puberty. In light of those concerns, the widespread use of pesticides in the home and garden to kill dandelions or ants is a frivolous and unnecessary practice.
Canada can take concrete steps and reverse the status quo
As the host country, Canada played a leadership role in negotiating the Global Biodiversity Framework, aiming to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to sustain life on Earth. Under the Framework, Canada agreed in Target 7 to reduce overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half by 2030. However, Canada currently lacks the infrastructure to systematically manage the growing number of chemical products approved for use.
To meet its commitments under the Framework, Canada must move beyond pledges and take concrete regulatory and policy action.
Health Canada should invest in data collection, safer alternatives, and incentives for industry innovation, while swiftly removing hazardous products containing PFAS, genotoxins, neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors.
The Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) should raise registration fees, and the federal government must enforce the polluter-pay principle so the costs to public health of our chemical addictions can be mitigated.
For the children who play in the dirt, the workers who farm the soil, and the Indigenous communities who maintain a life-giving connection with the land — as well as the rest of us — reducing the development, registration, sale and use of pesticides and other toxic chemicals is necessary. World leaders are not ignorant of this fact.
Jane McArthur is toxics program director at the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE).