Slashdot Mirror
Plastic Chemical BPA Declared Toxic In Canada
Julie188 writes "The Canadian government has formally declared bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical widely used to create clear, hard plastics, as well as food can liners, to be a toxic substance. Does this mean that you'll be tackled by the Canadian Mounties if you stroll around with some bottled water? Not exactly. Being a toxic chemical doesn't mean you can't get a little love. The government will at first try and set limits on how much BPA can be released into the air or water by factories that use the compound."
So, our wonderful government declares BPA toxic, while at the same time continuing to deny asbestos's toxicity and exporting asbestos to the rest of the world.
It's all domestic politics. Banning asbestos would annoy Quebec, the major producer...
This is definitely a step in the right direction. BPA is a risk to the entire population and it's use is very widespread. It disrupts our hormonal system and has now been linked to different types of breast cancer, heart disease and endocrine disorders. It also affects our reproductive systems. People really need to be aware that the use of plastics containing BPA is harmful and that use of this substance is currently ubiquitous throughout the world.
I hope Brita comes out with a glass pitcher...
You already can't bring bottled water into an airport anyway; this won't make any difference. :P
Fine, Canada. We're going to declare Justin Bieber a toxic substance.
Your move.
lol, I understand what you're saying and I completely agree with you that there are very few corporations (state owned or not) that will act on their own accord for the 'world's' benefit. The power here though is really with the consumer. I for example do not purchase any plastics that have BPA in them, if i have a choice. There are more and more private enterprises that are manufacturing BPA free plastics as they see demand increasing. I hope the trend continues.
(note inside of cans is lined with BPA and prices WILL GO UP if it is changed. go up as in, consumers will stop buying it because the main point of buying it is low price and speed of preparation)
Non-BPA cans are barely more expensive. If consumers don't buy canned food because it's a cent more expensive then good riddance, it's mostly crap anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Do not eat the bottle.
It has been known and banned in many other parts of the world. I don't even think the USA has done anything about it though. If you avoid number 3 plastics you have no BPA worries. That means number 1, 2, 4, 5, and six are BPA free. Just thought everyone would like to know
What criteria is Canada using for "toxic"? Because anything in large amounts is sufficiently toxic to human beings (water is toxic if drunk in large amounts over a short period of time). Most medications are toxic to small children because their bodies can't handle the concentrations. Normally the LD50 is used as a criteria of how toxic a substance is. Bisphenol A is now known to be an endocrine disruptor (like PCBs and DDT). Is that the criteria?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
or was it just misheard, maybe they wanted to ban BP Eh
Oddly enough Thermal Receipts have the most BPA. Something like a 1000 x as much as you would get from a water bottle.
If you get a receipt and then eat your burger is the receipt a food product regulated in the same way you might regulate a plastic fork?
In Canada regulation will all depend on if the receipt paper is made in Quebec or near Ottawa.
Does anyone out there know what kinds of concentrations of BPA start causing (significant) harm to humans and how it compares to what you get from plastic bottles? Whenever I hear about the horrors of BPA, my inner cynic tells me that it's the new secondhand smoke.
I guess I should get rid of my asbestos mattress eh? Oh well, I'm sorry.
and you will find their sewage ducts, waterways, roadsides, well...everywhere actually choked with BPA plastic bags and food containers. Standard practice is to just burn the stuff, but it usually causes localized flooding disease first. Oh yea, the ocean is full of the stuff too. Aren't we humans a wonderful species?
but the vast oceans of residue from tar sands mining has now been proven both nutritious and delicious, eh!
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
Do not eat the bottle.
All plastics, including BPA-free varities, leach into liquids stored into them, even though they are often made of multiple layers of plastic with different properties designed to prevent this. Period, the end.
As a wise man who was once a physics professor at UCLA said to me, I don't trust plastics. They look a little too much like hormones.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wait, I heard #7s have BPA.
Those statements *aren't* contradictory.
Many (most?) medicines are poisons when taken improperly, which usually means excessively. Actually, many are even poisons when taken at the proper dose. It's just that the poison does less damage than that which it is medicating.
That said, it's pretty clear that BPA is a estrogen mimic that is damaging especially to children, but also to adults. It doesn't appear to have any redeeming biochemical effects. I *think* that it's also been linked to cancer, and is thus illegal in the US. This, however, has not been officially recognized. If I understand correctly the law didn't say that the government had to acknowledge that the chemical promoted cancer for it to become illegal to sell it, but that's the way the laws have been interpreted. (For obvious reasons, both good and bad.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.