Metals and Human Health: What Business Are We IN?

If you ask the chief executive of a large Canadian mining company what business he is in, he is likely to give you a funny look before replying, “Why, the mining business, of course.” If you ask him to reconsider for a moment, he’ll say, “Well, maybe you mean the metals business?” Wrong. Viewed from the perspective of the regulator, whether in Canada, the U.S., or Europe, we are in the chemicals business. For the purposes of health and environmental regulation, metals and their compounds are simply another group of chemicals. And most of them are considered toxic.

The products of the worldwide metals industry are subject to the same scrutiny as the products of the chemicals industry. They are regulated in the same way as PCBs, pesticides, or other high-profile toxins.

Thus, when Environment Canada served notice in the “Green Plan” consultation document that its objective was to limit or eliminate persistent toxic chemicals in the environment, it was not just talking about DDT, it was talking about certain metals as well.

The realization that we are in the chemicals business struck me while I was participating in an international workshop on metals and human health last month in Brussels. About 150 people attended the workshop.

It was organized by the European association of nonferrous metal producers (Eurometaux), co- sponsored by The Mining Association of Canada, and held under the auspices of the Canada/EC Working Group on Metals and Minerals. Participants included industry managers, regulators, health professionals and researchers, academics and a few labor representatives.

The theme of the workshop was risk management. There are several distinct steps involved in rational risk management: First, a hazard is identified, that is, the potential for a material to cause health effects. Second, the risk is assessed, not only in relation to the potency of the toxic material, but also in relation to the likely exposure, the number of people at risk, the occupational or other groups involved, and any related factors such as the economic or other benefit derived from using the material. Risk assessment also includes the evaluation of alternative control options. The final step in risk management is the actual regulation of the material by setting exposure limits, emission standards, etc.

The industry believes that the full 3-step process is appropriate for managing the use of materials that may be inherently toxic. By prudent risk management procedures, the risks associated with the use of metals and minerals can be reduced to insignificant or acceptable levels while gaining the obvious economic benefits from their use.

Unfortunately, it appears that many regulators, particularly in Europe, are bypassing the risk assessment step and jumping straight from hazard identification to control measure.

Based on the simplistic “less is better” theory, Denmark, for example, proposes to minimize the possible exposure to lead by prohibiting all non-essential uses of the metal and promoting substitutes.

The world metals industry must follow the lead of the chemicals industry and promote rational risk management policies in all countries. We have no option. George Miller is the president of The Mining Association of Canada.