The Role of Health Professionals in Tobacco Cessation - Joint position statement
This statement was developed cooperatively by the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, Canadian Counselling and Psychotherapy Association, Canadain Dental Hygienists Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Nurses Association, and Canadian Physiotherapy Association.
There is a role for every Canadian health professional in tobacco-use cessation.1 Tobacco use2 inflicts a heavy burden on Canadians' health and on the Canadian health-care system, and health professionals can advocate effectively for tobacco-use cessation at the clinical and public health levels.
As providers of client and patient-centered services, health professionals are involved in tobacco cessation by:
* assessing and documenting all forms of tobacco use, willingness to quit and risk of exposure to second-hand smoke;
* discussing with clients and patients the negative health effects of tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke, and the health and other benefits (e.g., financial) of becoming tobacco free;
* offering to help, and helping, tobacco users to quit;
* offering a variety of tobacco-cessation strategies (e.g., counselling, behavioural therapy, self-help materials, pharmacotherapy) as appropriate to their knowledge, skills and tools;
* providing strategies for non-smokers to help them reduce their exposure to second-hand smoke;
* being knowledgeable about and providing referrals to community-based initiatives and resources;
* recognizing that relapse occurs frequently, and conducting follow-up assessment and intervention;
* tailoring interventions to the needs of specific populations (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, diagnosis, socio-economic status); and
* using a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach.
As educators and researchers, health professionals are involved in tobacco cessation by:
* including education on tobacco-cessation strategies and strategies for resisting tobacco use in basic education programs for health professionals;
* providing professional development programs for health professionals on tobacco cessation;
* conducting research to encourage and improve health professionals' knowledge and provision of tobacco cessation; and
* communicating research evidence about tobacco-cessation strategies.
As administrators of health-care organizations, health professionals are involved in tobacco cessation by:
* offering training on tobacco cessation as part of employee orientation;
* providing access to professional education on tobacco cessation for employees;
* enforcing applicable bans on tobacco wherever health professionals are employed (e.g., health-care facilities, private homes); and
* ensuring that tobacco-cessation programs and tobacco-free workplaces are included in accreditation standards.
As public health advocates, health professionals are involved in tobacco cessation by:
* increasing public awareness that health professionals can help people remain tobacco free or stop using tobacco; and
* advocating for federal, provincial and territorial governments' investment in comprehensive tobacco control that includes programs, legislation and policies to prevent the uptake of tobacco and reduce tobacco use (e.g., bans on tobacco advertising). Programs must focus on health promotion and include community-based initiatives.
Tobacco is an addictive and harmful product, and its use is the leading cause of preventable death in Canada.3 Each year in Canada, more than 37,000 people die prematurely due to tobacco use.4 Approximately 17 per cent of the population 15 years of age and older (about 4.8 million Canadians) smoke.5 Strong evidence has revealed that smoking is associated with more than two dozen diseases and conditions.6 The economic costs of tobacco use are estimated at $17 billion annually ($4.4 billion in direct health-care costs and $12.5 billion in indirect costs such as lost productivity).7
Second-hand smoke is also harmful. Each year, more than 1,000 non-smoking Canadians die due to second-hand smoke.8 Exposure to second-hand smoke is the number two cause of lung cancer (smoking is the number one cause).9 Second-hand smoke can also aggravate allergies, bring about asthma attacks and increase the risk of bronchitis and pneumonia.10 Research also suggests that there may be a link between second-hand smoke and the risk of breast cancer.11
Tobacco use is the result of the complex interaction of individual and social factors, such as socio-economic status, having family members who smoke and exposure to marketing tactics of the tobacco industry. Reduction and elimination of tobacco use requires comprehensive, multi-faceted strategies addressing both physical dependence and social context. Such strategies will include:
* prevention - helping to keep non-users from starting to use tobacco;
* cessation - helping current smokers to quit, and helping prevent relapse; and
* protection - protecting all Canadians from the harmful effects of tobacco use and from the influences of tobacco industry marketing.
Prevention is the most important strategy of the three; being tobacco-free is a vital element of a healthy active life. Thus, for current tobacco users, quitting is the single most effective action they can take to enhance the quality and length of their lives.
Most tobacco users would like to improve their health, and in a Canadian survey 30 per cent of all smokers stated that they intended to quit as means of doing so.12 Indeed, in studies in Canada, the U.K. and Germany, smokers rated health concerns and current health problems as the primary reason for wanting to quit;13 other reasons why smokers quit include the cost of cigarettes14 and persistent advice to quit from family15 and health professionals.16 However, the relapse rate is very high because of the addictive nature of tobacco.17 Most smokers attempt to quit several times before they finally succeed.
Smoking cessation counselling is widely recognized as an effective clinical strategy. Even a brief intervention by a health professional significantly increases the cessation rate.18 Furthermore, counselling programs that initiate follow-up calls to smokers as a "proactive" measure have been found to increase smoking-cessation rates by 50 per cent.19 The majority of Canadians consult a health professional at least once a year,20 creating several "teachable moments" when they may be more motivated than usual to change unhealthy behaviours.21 A smoker's likelihood of quitting increases when he or she hears the message from a number of health-care providers from a variety of disciplines.22
However, health professionals encounter barriers that require solutions, notably:
- the need for better education for health professionals (e.g., how to identify smokers quickly and easily, which treatments are most effective, how such treatments can be delivered);
- the need to allow for sufficient time to provide counselling;
- the need to focus on preventive care by
* increasing funding for preventive care (e.g., providing reimbursement for smoking cessation interventions, follow-up or support); and
* encouraging health-care settings to facilitate preventive care (e.g., access to quick reference guides or tools to identify people with specific risk factors);
- the need to increase public awareness of the smoking cessation services a health professional can provide; and
- the need to recognize the frustration associated with the high rate of relapse. Because of the powerful nature of tobacco dependence, smokers often go through a long period of reaching readiness before they finally quit.
Bao Y., Duan N., & Fox S. A. (2006). Is some provider advice on smoking cessation better than no advice? An instrument variable analysis of the 2001 National Health Interview Survey. Health Services Research, 41(6), 2114-2135
Breitling, L. P., Rothenbacher, D., Stegmaier, C., Raum, E., & Brenner, H. (2009). Older smokers' motivation and attempts to quit smoking. Deutsches Arzteblatt International, 106(27), 451-455.
Canadian Action Network for the Advancement, Dissemination and Adoption of Practice-informed Tobacco Treatment. (2008). Dynamic guidelines for tobacco control in Canada Version 1.0 [Wiki clinical practice guidelines]. Toronto: Author.
Canadian Cancer Society. (2010). Second-hand smoke is dangerous. Toronto: Author. Retrieved May 19, 2010, from http://www.cancer.ca/canada-wide/prevention/quit%20smoking/second-hand%20smoke.aspx
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, (2006). The costs of substance abuse in Canada in 2002. Ottawa: Author.
Canadian Lung Association. (2006). Smoking and tobacco: Second-hand smoke. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.lung.ca/protect-protegez/tobacco-tabagisme/second-secondaire/hurts-nuit_e.php
Canadian Dental Hygienists Association. (2004). Tobacco use cessation services and the role of the dental hygienist - a CDHA position paper. Canadian Journal of Dental Hygiene, 38(6), 260-279.
Canadian Medical Association. (2008). Tobacco control [Policy statement]. Ottawa: Author.
Fiore, M. C., Jaen, C. R., Baker, T. B., Bailey, W. C., Benowitz, N. L., & Curry, S. J. (2008). Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update [Clinical practice guideline]. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
Health Canada. (2009). Smoking and your body: Health effects of smoking. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved June 17, 2010, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/body-corps/index-eng.php
Health Canada. (2007). Overview of health risks of smoking. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved June 17, 2010, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/res/news-nouvelles/risks-risques-eng.php
Nabalamba, A, & Millar, W. J. (2007). Going to the doctor [Statistics Canada, catalogue 82-003]. Health Reports, 18(1), 23-35. Retrieved January 26, 2011, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2006002/article/doctor-medecin/9569-eng.pdf
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. (2005). Smoking in Canada: A statistical snapshot of Canadian smokers. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/SmokinginCanada-2005.pdf
Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario. (2007). Integrating smoking cessation into daily nursing practice [Nursing best practice guideline]. Toronto: Author.
Ross, H., Blecher, E., Yan, L., & Hyland, A. (2010) Do cigarette prices motivate smokers to quit? New evidence from the ITC survey. Addiction, November 2010.
Shields, M. (2004). A step forward, a step back: Smoking cessation and relapse. National Population Health Survey, Vol. 1, No. 1. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. (2009). Canadian tobacco use monitoring survey (CTUMS): CTUMS 2009 wave 1 survey results. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved January 25, 2011, from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/_ctums-esutc_2009/w-p-1_sum-som-eng.php
Stead, L. F., Lancaster, T., & Perera, R. (2006). Telephone counselling for smoking cessation (review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3.
Vangeli, E., & West, R. (2008). Sociodemographic differences in triggers to quit smoking: findings from a national survey. Tobacco Control, 17(6), 410-415.
Young, R.P., Hopkins, R.J., Smith, M., & Hogarth, D.K. (2010). Smoking cessation: The potential role of risk assessment tools as motivational triggers. Post Graduate Medical Journal, 86(1011), 26-33.
Tobacco: The role of health professionals in smoking cessation [Joint position statement]. (2001)
1 For detailed recommendations and guidelines for tobacco treatment related to health professionals, see Canadian Action Network for the Advancement, Dissemination and Adoption of Practice-informed Tobacco Treatment, (2008); Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, (2007); and Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, (2004).
2 For the purpose of this position statement, tobacco includes products that can be inhaled, sniffed, sucked or chewed (e.g., flavoured cigarillos, kreteks, chewing tobacco, moist snuff, betel or qat, hookah or shisha, bidis, cigars and pipes).
3 (Health Canada, 2009)
4 (Health Canada, 2007)
5 (Statistics Canada, 2009)
6 (Health Canada, 2007)
7 (Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2006)
8 (Canadian Cancer Society, 2010)
9 (Canadian Lung Association, 2006)
10 (Canadian Cancer Society, 2010)
11 (Canadian Cancer Society, 2010)
12 (Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, 2005)
13 (Vangeli & West, 2008; Ontario Tobacco Research Unit - Tobacco Informatics Monitoring System (TIMS), 2008; Breitling, Rothenbacher, Stegmaier, Raum & Brenner, 2009)
14 (Ross, Blecher, Yan & Hyland, 2010)
15 (Young, Hopkins, Smith & Hogarth, 2010)
16 (Bao, Duan & Fox, 2006)
17 (Fiore et al., 2008; Shields, 2004)
18 (Fiore et al., 2008)
19 (Stead, Lancaster & Perera, 2006)
20 (Nabalamba & Millar, 2007)
21 (Canadian Medical Association, 2008)
22 (Fiore et al., 2008)
Note: These Guidelines are not intended to encourage people who choose to abstain for cultural, spiritual or other reasons to drink, nor are they intended to encourage people to commence drinking to achieve health benefits. People of low bodyweight or who are not accustomed to alcohol are advised to consume below these maximum limits.
Do not drink in these situations:
When operating any kind of vehicle, tools or machinery; using medications or other drugs that interact with alcohol; engaging in sports or other potentially dangerous physical activities; working; making important decisions; if pregnant or planning to be pregnant; before breastfeeding; while responsible for the care or supervision of others; if suffering from serious physical illness,
mental illness or alcohol dependence.
If you drink, reduce long- term health risks by staying within these average levels:
0–2 standard drinks* per day
0–3 standard drinks* per day
No more than 10 standard drinks
No more than 15 standard
drinks per week
Always have some non-drinking days per week to minimize tolerance and habit formation. Do not increase drinking to the
upper limits as health benefits are greatest at up to one drink per day. Do not exceed the daily limits specified in Guideline 3.
If you drink, reduce short- term risks by choosing safe situations and restricting your alcohol intake:
Risk of injury increases with each additional drink in many situations. For both health and safety reasons, it is important not to drink more than:
Three standard drinks* in one day for a woman
Four standard drinks* in one day for a man
Drinking at these upper levels should only happen occasionally and always be consistent with the weekly limits specified in Guideline 2. It is especially important on these occasions to drink with meals and not on an empty stomach; to have no more than two standard drinks in any three-hour period; to alternate with caffeine-free, non-alcoholic drinks; and to avoid risky situations and activities. Individuals with reduced tolerance, whether due to
low bodyweight, being under the age of 25 or over 65 years old, are advised to never exceed Guideline 2 upper levels.
When pregnant or planning to be pregnant:
The safest option during pregnancy or when planning to become pregnant is to not drink alcohol at all. Alcohol in the mother's bloodstream can harm the developing fetus. While the risk from light consumption during pregnancy appears very low, there is no threshold of alcohol use in pregnancy that has been
definitively proven to be safe.
Alcohol and young people:
Alcohol can harm healthy physical and mental development of children and adolescents. Uptake of drinking by youth should be delayed at least until the late teens and be consistent with local legal drinking age laws. Once a decision to start drinking is made, drinking should occur in a safe environment, under parental guidance and at low levels (i.e., one or two standard drinks* once or twice per week). From legal drinking age to 24 years, it is
recommended women never exceed two drinks per day and men never exceed three drinks in one day.
Approved by the CMA Board in March 2011
Last reviewed and approved by the CMA Board in March 2019.
The above is excerpted from the report, Alcohol and Health in Canada: A Summary of Evidence and Guidelines for Low-Risk Drinking Available: https://www.ccsa.ca/sites/default/files/2019-04/2011-Summary-of-Evidence-and-Guidelines-for-Low-Risk%20Drinking-en.pdf (accessed 2019 March 01).
Industrialization and manufacturing have had enormous positive benefits for humankind, but the consequences of hazardous by-products (chemical contamination) to human health and the environment are less well recognized. A major incident such as Bhopal is an unequivocal example of catastrophic poisoning caused by industry. However, more subtle human health impacts can result from low levels of exposure to chemical and industrial by-products from agriculture, consumer products, manufacturing, and even medical sources. Chemicals from industrial sources have been found in the soil, water, air, food and human tissue. Due to improving technology, even minuscule amounts of potentially noxious substances can be detected.
Some exposures warrant remedial action, but in others the health impact may be negligible: the toxin, dose, route and duration of exposure must be considered. Of course, there are potentially toxic substances that have been found to pose little or no harm to human health, but there are many more for which the health effects are unknown. A substantial knowledge gap exists in that the effects of many chemical agents have not been fully studied. As a result, rigorous surveillance and assessment to ensure potential health impacts are reduced or avoided is necessary. Chemicals like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) can persist in the environment or in living beings long after the product was pulled from the market, making it essential that full and rigorous testing of new and existing chemicals is undertaken. Finally, research is needed to determine whether emerging issues, such as the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, pose a legitimate threat to human health.
Chemicals, properly managed, can and will continue to provide enormous benefits to society, but caution is warranted because of the potential health consequences. Provided below is a discussion of certain classes of chemicals that need to be regulated, monitored and properly researched.
Agriculture represents the largest component of the global economy. Rising pressures to meet the needs of a growing population have resulted in the mechanization of farming, and the widespread use of fertilizers and pesticides.1 Fertilizer and pesticide run-off has been found in soil, water and the human food supply.2 Approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens, are EPA registered pesticides available on the open market.3 Long-term low dose pesticide exposure has been linked to various cancers, immune suppression, hormonal disruption, reproductive abnormalities, birth defects, and developmental and behavioural problems.4 Certain pesticides are also known to be persistent in the human body.5 While many individual pesticides can be safely used, there is a lack of research on the effect of certain pesticides when used in combination.
Modern technologies have led to advances with a positive impact on the quality of human life. While newer consumer products have benefits over earlier materials, their use is not without side effects. Both the chemicals used to make these products and those that form key components of the products themselves may be harmful. Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical added to many hard plastic bottles and to metal based food and beverage cans since the 1960s.6 In August 2010, Statistics Canada reported that measurable levels of BPA were found in the urine of 91 per cent of Canadians aged six to 79.7 Concerns have been raised about effects on the brain, behaviour, and prostate gland from exposure to this chemical, particularly in fetuses, infants, and children.8 In 2008, Canada banned BPA in infant bottles.9 In October 2010, Canada went a step further by becoming the first jurisdiction in the world to declare BPA toxic.10
With the growing demand for consumer products, there has been a corresponding growth in manufacturing. Manufacturing is one of the biggest contributors to outdoor air pollution, and contributes to soil and water pollution.11 In 2004, US industry released 1.8 billion pounds of potentially toxic chemicals. Exposure to some of these chemicals has been linked to severe health effects, including cancer. 12 One of the released chemicals, dioxin, can be harmful at very low levels. Dioxins accumulate in fats and break down slowly. This leads to contamination of the food supply, and human exposure through the consumption of meat, dairy, fish and shellfish.13 Even in the far north, animals have been found to contain dioxins.14 The EPA estimates that the cancer risk from dioxins already present in the general public is 1-per-1,000.15 In most cases the emissions pose minimal risk to human health. However, chemicals, and chemical combinations which remain unstudied should be properly assessed.16
Advancements in medical science and the use of pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment and other medical treatments have prolonged life expectancy. However, these interventions can also contribute to environmental contamination. In 2008, the Associated Press reported pharmaceuticals in the water of 24 major metropolitan areas in the United States, serving 41 million people.17 There is a concern that these pharmaceuticals could negatively impact male fertility, lead to birth defects, cause breast and testicular cancer in humans, and lead to antibiotic resistance.18 For many pharmaceuticals found in water sources, no concerted environmental impact surveys have been carried out.19
Mercury is used in fever thermometers, sphygmomanometers, gastrointestinal tubes, and oesophageal dilators20. Reports indicate that medical waste incinerators are among the largest sources of anthropogenic mercury emissions in both the United States and Canada.21 Medical waste, while not the principle source of mercury poisoning, contributes to the mercury levels present in the environment. In fetuses, infants and children, low-dose exposure to mercury can cause severe and lifelong behavioural and cognitive problems.22 At higher exposure levels, mercury may adversely affect the kidneys, the immune, neurological, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and haematological systems of adults.23 It has also been linked to cancer.24
These examples highlight the major categories of human exposure to chemicals. As the review suggests, some of these chemicals have been linked to harmful human health impacts. What is important to keep in mind, however, is that the harm is conditional on the level and lengths of exposure. For most people, these chemicals pose no harm because the exposure is so low. In some cases, such as BPA, it has been determined that the potential harm is not worth the risk: the Canadian government has decided to declare BPA toxic and regulate it accordingly. In other cases, such as pharmaceuticals, the evidence simply warrants further study and surveillance. Given the potential harm to human health, surveillance and research are vitally important in all categories. The more information that is available to policy makers and health care professionals, the better the chance of limiting human health impacts.
What has been done?
Concerns regarding chemical contamination and human health have led to numerous interventions from the international community. These include the International Programme on Chemical Safety (1980), the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (1995), the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling (2002), and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management, which was adopted by governments and stakeholders at the first International Conference on Chemicals held in Dubai in 2006. 25
Various conventions have also been passed, including the Stockholm Convention (2004) on persistent organic pollutants such as DDT, and the Rotterdam Convention (2004) which applies to pesticides and industrial chemicals.26 There is some concern about the continued effectiveness of the Rotterdam convention. In 2006, the Canadian government was instrumental in preventing the listing of asbestos as a toxic chemical. Given the persuasive evidence of the harm caused by asbestos, this action undermines the legitimacy of voluntary international conventions.27
In addition to being a signatory to all international agreements listed above, the Canadian government has programs for chemical management domestically. The main tool is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1999. Jointly administered by Environment Canada and Health Canada, it is intended to prevent pollution and address the potentially dangerous chemical substances to which Canadians are exposed.28 The plan calls for increased surveillance of certain chemicals to monitor exposure and health effects, and will increase focus on the management of the health and environmental risks of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and chemical contamination in food.29
There were 23,000 chemical substances on the Domestic Substances List (DSL) in Canada in 1999. To date, only about 1,000 of these chemicals have been fully assessed. Of the remaining 22,000, 85% have been categorized as not requiring any additional action.30The most recent Canadian Chemicals Management Plan states that full assessments will be done on 550 substances identified as potentially harmful. Even with these additional assessments, more than 3,000 chemicals will not have been assessed.
Canadian Medical Association
In 2009, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association released a joint position statement on environmentally responsible activity for the health-care sector. Recommendations included the proper handling and disposal of toxic chemicals and the reduction of products using these substances. An adapted version of this position statement was then endorsed by a coalition of 12 national healthcare organizations and the David Suzuki Foundation.
In October 2010, the World Medical Association, of which CMA is a member, adopted a policy statement on environmental degradation and the management of chemicals. The statement calls for mercury-free health care, support for international efforts to restrict chemical pollution and to monitor harmful chemicals in humans and the environment, and mitigation of the health effects of toxic exposure to chemicals.
What needs to be done?
Research and Surveillance
Research on chemicals produced through man-made activities remains insufficient. While some of the more toxic chemicals have been reviewed and are now more closely regulated, thousands remain that have had neither health nor environmental assessments. The Domestic Substances List in Canada has 3,300 chemicals of concern that have not been assessed. There is limited research on the effect of these chemicals in combination or in different mediums. Finally, work must be done to ensure environmental and human surveillance of potential chemical exposure threats.
1. Urges the government to complete the health and environmental assessment of the chemicals on the Domestic Substances List.
2. Encourages research on the health impacts of chemical substances, as well as the combinations of these substances in different products (e.g. pesticides), and in different mediums (e.g. pharmaceuticals in drinking water). Long-term research programs are required to determine health impacts from prolonged low-dose exposures.
3. Encourages ongoing surveillance of chemicals in the environment.
4. Encourages ongoing research on the impact of regulations and monitoring of chemicals on human health and the environment.
Regulations have been developed both internationally and domestically to undertake chemical management. However, gaps remain, largely due to the voluntary nature of the frameworks. Canada can play a lead role by respecting its commitments, seeking continued adherence to these agreements and providing leadership in developing effective domestic programs and legislation.
5. Urges the government to continue to support international efforts to manage chemical pollution. In particular CMA urges the government to fully support the principles of the Rotterdam Convention and support the listing of Asbestos as an Annex III toxic chemical.
6. Supports government legislation and regulation which reduces dangerous chemical pollution, detects and monitors harmful chemicals in both humans and the environment, mitigates the health effects of toxic exposures, and requires an environmental and health impact assessment prior to the introduction of a new chemical. Regulatory frameworks should be favoured over voluntary frameworks in order to ensure a level playing field for all manufacturers and to secure rapid and equitable health protection for all Canadians. CMA encourages the government to advocate for similar legislation internationally.
Physicians can participate in the monitoring of patients for potential health effects from chemical exposure. Additionally, physicians can be leaders in encouraging greener health care practices. Finally, physicians can support national medical organizations in developing clinical tools to assess patient risk to chemical exposure.
7. Supports the phase out of mercury and other persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic chemicals in health care devices and products.
8. Supports the development of effective and safe systems to collect and dispose of pharmaceuticals that are not consumed.
9. Supports the development of clinical tools for physicians to help assess their patients' risk from chemical exposures.
Education and Professional Development
Physicians have a role to play in educating their patients, the public, and current and future colleagues about the potential human health consequences of chemical contamination. Medical education and continuing professional development in this area could have a significant impact on human health.
10. Should assist in building professional and public awareness of the impact of the environment and global chemical pollutants on personal health.
11. Supports the development of locally appropriate continuing medical education on the clinical signs, diagnosis and treatment of diseases that are introduced into communities as a result of chemical pollution.
12. Encourages physicians to inform patients about the importance of safe disposal of pharmaceuticals that are not consumed.
National and International initiatives have substantially reduced the incidence of harmful chemical contamination, but more work is needed. Evidence of health effects (or lack thereof) may be strong for certain chemicals, but for others it remains incomplete. Given the dangers of chemicals such as dioxin, which can cause severe effects with small doses, more comprehensive research is warranted. To ensure human health consequences are identified and risks are minimized, improved surveillance is essential.
Further policies and regulations are needed to ensure that chemicals utilized are as safe as possible. The Canadian BPA ban demonstrates the use of the precautionary principle in the presence of convincing if not complete evidence. While there are clear benefits associated with the use of chemicals, it is necessary to ensure that potential harmful effects are considered.'
Finally, public and health care provider information is sorely lacking. Physicians can play a role in correcting some of these deficiencies through their actions to support research and surveillance, advocacy, leadership, education, and professional development.
1 Ongley, Edwin D. (1996) Control of water pollution from agriculture- FAO irrigation and drainage paper 55.Chapter 1: Introduction to agricultural water pollution Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w2598e/w2598e00.HTM
2 Peters, Ruud J.B. (2006) Man-Made Chemicals in Food Products. TNO Built Environment and Geosciences. Available at: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/tno_report.pdf
3 Reuben, Suzanne H. (2010) Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now: 2008-2009 Annual Report. President's Cancer Panel. Available at: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf
4 Reuben, Suzanne H. (2010) Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk...; Shah, Binod P. & Bhupendra Devkota (2009) "Obsolete Pesticides: Their Environmental and Human Health Hazards." The Journal of Agriculture and Environment. Vol:10 June 2009. Available at: http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AEJ/article/view/2130/1961 ; Kjellstrom, Tord et.al. (2006) Chapter 43: Air and Water Pollution: Burden and Strategies for Control in Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. Disease Control Priorities Project. Available at: http://files.dcp2.org/pdf/DCP/DCP43.pdf
5 California Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Environmental Protection Indicators for California: Chapter 3: Environmental Exposure Impacts Upon Human Health. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/2002reptpdf/Chapter3-7of8-HumanHealth.pdf
6 United States Food and Drug Administration (2010) Update on Bisphenol A for Use in Food Contact Applications. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm064437.htm
7 CBC News (October 13, 2010) BPA declared toxic by Canada. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/10/13/bpa-toxic.html
8 States Food and Drug Administration (2010) Update on Bisphenol A...
9 Health Canada (2008) Government of Canada Protects Families with Bisphenol A Regulations Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/_2008/2008_167-eng.php
10 CBC News (October 13, 2010) BPA declared toxic by Canada...
11 Kjellstrom, Tord et.al. (2006) Chapter 43: Air and Water Pollution...
12 Cassady, Alison & Alex Fidis (2007) Toxic Pollution and Health: An Analysis of Toxic Chemicals Released in Communities across the United States. U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Available at: http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/KTfes5EXnCLOgG9eWTKU6g/ToxicPollutionandHealth2007.pdf
13 World Health Organization (2010) Dioxins and their effects on human health. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs225/en/index.html
14 Woolford, Julian & Noemi Cano Ed. (2006) Killing them softly...
15 Cassady, Alison & Alex Fidis (2007) Toxic Pollution and Health...
17 Natural Resources Defense Council (2010) Dosed Without Prescription: Preventing Pharmaceutical Contamination of Our Nation's Drinking Water. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/health/files/dosed4pgr.pdf
18 Wright-Walters, Maxine & Conrad Volz (2009) Municipal Wastewater Concentrations of Pharmaceutical and Xeno-Estrogens: Wildlife and Human Health Implications. Available at: http://www.chec.pitt.edu/Exposure_concentration_of_Xenoestrogen_in_pharmaceutical_and_Municipal_Wastewater__Final8-28-07%5B1%5D.pdf; Daughton, Christian G. (N.D.) Pharmaceuticals and the Environment. Available at: www.epa.gov/osp/regions/emerpoll/daughton.ppt; Nikolaou, Anastasia; Meric, Sureyya & Despo Fatta (2007) "Occurrence patterns of pharmaceuticals in water and wastewater environments." Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. 387: 1225-1234; Natural Resources Defense Council (2010) Dosed Without Prescription...
19 Daughton, Christian G. (N.D.) Pharmaceuticals and the Environment...
20 Environment Canada. (N.D.)Mercury and the Environment. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/sm-mcp.cfm#MD
21 Health Care Without Harm (2007) The Global Movement for Mercury Free Health Care. Available at: http://www.noharm.org/lib/downloads/mercury/Global_Mvmt_Mercury-Free.pdf; World Health Organization (2005) Mercury in Health Care: Policy Paper. Available at: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf
22 Environmental Working Group (N.D.) Chemical Pollution: The Toll on America's Health. Available at: http://www.ewg.org/files/EWG-kid-safe-toll-on-health.pdf
23 California Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Environmental Protection Indicators...
24 Reuben, Suzanne H. (2010) Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk...
25 World Health Organization (N.D.) International Programme on Chemical Safety: About us. Available at: http://www.who.int/ipcs/en/; World Health Organization (N.D.) Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals. Available at: http://www.who.int/iomc/brochure/brochure_english.pdf; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (N.D.) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). Available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs_welcome_e.html; Weinberg, Jack (2008) An NGO Guide to SAICM: The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management. Available at: http://www.ipen.org/ipenweb/documents/book/saicm%20introduction%20english.pdf
26 Eskenazi, Brenda et.al. (2009) "The Pine River Statement: Human Health Consequences of DDT Use." Environmental Health Perspectives. 117:1359-1367 Available at: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Human_Health_Consequences_of_DDT_Use#gen4; World Health Organization (N.D.) Rotterdam Convention: Share Responsibility. Available at: http://www.pic.int/home.php?type=t&id=5&sid=16
27 Kazan-Allen, Laurie (2007) Rotterdam Treaty Killed by Chrysotile Asbestos! International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. Available at: http://www.ibasecretariat.org/lka_rott_meet_geneva_oct_06.php
28 Government of Canada (2007) The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999). Available at: http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/about-apropos/cepa-lcpe-eng.php
29 Government of Canada (2010) Chemicals Management Plan. Available at: http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/plan/index-eng.php