A/HRC/45/12/Add.1 fulfilment of this right.81 From visiting communities in Canada such as Sarnia, where children are born “pre-polluted” and are exposed to toxic substances during crucial periods of development, before they can voice their views, it is clear that more efforts need to be made by the Government to ensure that every child is afforded the opportunity to fully enjoy his or her rights. D. Gender 54. Discrimination based on gender is a crucial consideration in discussions on protection from toxic exposure. An improved focus on gender analyses of adverse health impacts is necessary for a gendered approach to addressing toxic exposure. 55. Environmental health policies in Canada inadequately address the root causes of the differential impacts on men and women, including the physical, biological, social and environmental factors, thereby running the risk of exacerbating inequality and discrimination. 82 Government programmes have identified the need for enhanced communication efforts focusing on women of childbearing age, including in the more northern areas of Saskatchewan, as well as in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Such recognition is a positive step towards addressing the gender inequalities that persist and aggravate the impacts of toxic exposure across Canada. 56. Varying gender roles contribute to the differentiated burdens and impacts of toxic exposure.83 Yet, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act inadequately factors this in, as male models for toxics exposure dominate research and various chemicals inordinately affecting women, including many endocrine-disrupting chemicals, are not classified as toxic.84 57. The intrinsic hazards of toxic chemicals pose gendered risks, such as miscarriages and reduced sperm count, as well as various cancers. For example, the neurotoxic effects on children of heavy metals such as lead and mercury can differ by gender. 85 In addition, consideration of the different levels of exposure between genders is necessary. For example, in Canada, men are more exposed to toxics such as asbestos (in the construction industry)86 and women to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in plastics, raising their relative risk to developing cancer and other health conditions.87 The exposure of female consumers to toxic chemicals in cosmetic products and the intense exposure, predominantly of female workers, at beauty salons offer further examples.88 Indigenous women endure some of the highest levels of exposure in Canada.89 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 12 A/HRC/33/41. http://bccewh.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2013_RethinkingWomenandHealthyLiving.pdf. Sarah Lewis and Dayna Nadine Scott, “Regulating toxics: sex and gender in Canada’s chemicals management plan”, Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper Series (2014). See http://acsqc.ca/sites/default/files/feminist_statement_on_cepa.pdf; Sarah Lewis and Dayna Nadine Scott, “Regulating toxics”. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16996054. www.carexcanada.ca/profile/asbestos-occupational-exposures; www.inspq.qc.ca/en/publications/ 1374. See www.saicm.org/Portals/12/documents/meetings/IP1/Beyond-2020-Women-and-chemical-safety24-Jan-2017.pdf. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16996054; Ami R. Zota and Bhavna Shamasunder, “The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern”, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 217, No. 4 (October 2017); Jessica S. Helm and others, “Measurement of endocrine disrupting and asthma-associated chemicals in hair products used by Black women”, Environmental Research, vol. 165 (August 2018), pp. 448–458. www.afn.ca/uploads/files/rp-enviro_health_and_women.pdf; www.fnfnes.ca/docs/FNFNES_draft_technical_report_Nov_2__2019.pdf.