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."

28 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. But asbestos is fine! by dskoll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:But asbestos is fine! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 5, Informative

      I had gathered that asbestos is perfectly safe and fine as long as it stays out of your lungs; it's a physical contaminant, not a chemical one. (Am I wrong?) BPA contamination has the potential to be much more insidious.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:But asbestos is fine! by macraig · · Score: 4, Funny

      Political asbestos maneuverings are indeed serpentine, aren't they?

    3. Re:But asbestos is fine! by fnj · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not exactly. Asbestos particles, when inhaled chronically, lead to mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is not lung cancer; it is a cancer of the pleura which cover the lungs. Asbestos particles, because of their form and other characteristics are especially capable of piercing the alveoli and reaching the pleura. Asbestos particles are only 3,000-20,000 nm long, and only 10 nm in diameter (a human hair is 17,000-180,000 nm in diameter; a red blood cell is 8,000 nm in diameter). Only rarely does exposure to any other substance lead to mesothelioma. Smoking, and exposure to other types of particulates, preponderantly leads to forms of lung cancer rather than mesothelioma.

    4. Re:But asbestos is fine! by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Synergy - the asbestos makes it harder for the lungs to cough up the fine tobacco particles, and those particles contain traces of actinides from a-bomb tests that will continue to filter down to the ground from the stratosphere to be absorbed by broad-leafed tobacco plants for another hundred years.

      100 years ago, lung cancer was so rare that doctors would tell their students to take a good look, because they'd probably never see another case in their lifetime. People were smoking back then, but we didn't have both bomb residues and high levels of asbestos dust (asbestos brake shoes meant that pretty much everyone has bee exposed).

    5. Re:But asbestos is fine! by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how much glass is broken on any given day?
      If glass was carcinogenic when broken, it too would be illegal to use.

    6. Re:But asbestos is fine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actinides (other than uranium and plutonium) are rare in bomb fallout. You are probably thinking of polonium.

      Anyway, if biological fallout uptake were the principal driver for the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, then the dose-response relationship -- first measured in the 1950s -- should have changed by roughly a factor of two during the course of the 1960s.

      One would expect both incidence and mortality of lung cancer to be rarer in Europe and the US prior the 1930s because mortality from other causes was higher. Furthermore, cigarette smoking became much more popular in the early 1900s, perhaps corresponding with the rise of the cinema. It's not that people didn't smoke tobacco before then... but they were almost always pipe-smokers.

  2. The rest of the world needs to follow suit by janvo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Fine, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fine, Canada. We're going to declare Justin Bieber a toxic substance.

    Your move.

    1. Re:Fine, Canada by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Funny

      We wholeheartedly agree, but recycling him would require a major effort to ensure safe disposal. Would you be willing to help with that?

    2. Re:Fine, Canada by nacturation · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fine, Canada. We're going to declare Justin Bieber a toxic substance.

      Justin Bieber is living proof of the fact that BPA mimics the effects of estrogen.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  4. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by pz · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hope Brita comes out with a glass pitcher...

    I'm pretty certain they'll come out with a BPA-free plastic version instead, since that's all the rage in bottles and food containers for infants.

    Personally, I'd be happy to have a world free of BPA. Unfortunately, that's going to be very difficult as it's found in many common items. For some, there are plastics that are good alternatives, but others, it will be some time before alternates can be found. In particular, epoxy binders used wood-based sheet goods production (particle board, chip board, flooring, etc.) are bad and are going to be around for a long time since there is so much of it installed.

    My family and I have stopped eating anything that comes in a can. Not only are cans typically lined with BPA-bearing plastics, but the contents are in intimate contact for a very long time. Avoiding canned foods has been pretty easy with one exception: canned tomatoes. If anyone has a good solution for those, I'd love to hear it.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  5. Warning label is in order by poltsy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do not eat the bottle.

  6. Being a father with a paranoid mother... by Wilson+of+Waste · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Being a father with a paranoid mother... by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Informative

      And remember that most cans are lined with BPA containing plastic.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    2. Re:Being a father with a paranoid mother... by Wilson+of+Waste · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is true, I also forgot to mention that number 7 plastics may or may not contain BPA as well... As for medical grade plastics I am not sure..

  7. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by adonoman · · Score: 5, Informative

    You'd have have a bigger reduction of BPA intake by making sure you wash your hand every time you handle a thermal printed receipt.

  8. Canada bans BPA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    or was it just misheard, maybe they wanted to ban BP Eh

  9. Thermal Receipts have the most BPA by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA by baegucb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oddly enough, I usually don't eat the receipt.

    2. Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA by TermV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bisphenol A is a coating painted on thermal paper that readily comes off onto your hands and will transfer onto anything you touch. This stuff must be coating everything near the cash registers at your local supermarket. There's apparently 60-100mg of Bisphenol A on the average receipt. At least in polycarbonate it's bonded into the plastic and doesn't just come out.

    3. Re:Thermal Receipts have the most BPA by IICV · · Score: 2, Informative

      But you touch it, and then eat with your hands without washing them because hey it's just a receipt. If the concentration is high enough, this can matter.

  10. Re:Bottled water by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bring in empty bottles of bottled water so that I can fill them at the fountain once I'm in. That way I have the convenience of bottled water without having to pay for one at airport pricing. I've never had a problem with that. So there's nothing that would prevent someone from taking in their empty bottle or buying it in the airport and taking it to Canada that way.

  11. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One other major use of BPA you may not know about is as a coating on sales slips. BPA is easily absorbed from these coatings just by handling them without gloves. For shoppers, the exposure is not much, but for someone working a cash register all day, it's a problem.

    The sickest part of all this is that we guessed BPA could be trouble as far back as the 1930s! It's frightening how special interests have managed to keep these rather important safety questions from being answered for almost 80 years. BPA could be one of the reasons for the current obesity and diabetes epidemic.

    Today, we're still being just as foolish. "Doubt is our product". One wonders if we're doomed when you look around and see that far from Big Tobacco's program to sow doubt and confusion having become the canonical example of unethical, immoral, and stupid behavior, it is actually rather admired and emulated! The Climate Change deniers look to Big Tobacco's efforts for inspiration. Lately, those finance guys who needed a huge bailout from the public have been trotting out the same sort of excuses about how no one could have known. They're supposed to be the savvy sophisticated experts, but never mind that. They did know, and everyone knows it. Their claims that they couldn't know are pathetic. Yet so far, they are being allowed to get away with it, and that is in no small part because of the constant war being waged upon facts and science. And the constant diversion of our attention to other matters such as war and piracy. If I understand the bargain made with Mozilo, he will not see any jail time, and I fear he was let off way too easily.

    I don't know what reforms we can make to change all this. Shine more "light of day" on everything? But we have a huge amount of deliberately created confusion over just what is right and wrong, and what wrongs are important and what aren't. Potheads do time while so-called white collar crooks walk free. Baseball players get grilled by Congress for steroid use while big corporations slide by for much worse things, or even get a few apologies as BP did! Perhaps the problem is that too many students pass through our education system failing to really get science, so that they are easily befuddled by nonsense? Or are too sheltered and come out naive and ripe for fleecing and hustling? Or are spoiled and careless, easily diverted with bread and circuses? Or have been corrupted and made cynical, and think that there isn't an honest person in the whole world, so they might as well also cheat and steal as much as possible? Why do so many people endure the shady treatment they get from telecoms companies, for one? A huge task to begin straightening that out while calling out the perps for the liars, thieves, and murderers that they are. Throwing them into jail would be a start. And take away all their ill gotten gains. ALL of it. We also desperately need to regain control of executive pay, which has risen so high that the difference between what each executive is paid and what the President of the US is paid is enough to have bailed out the economy several times over. But all that is not enough. We don't want people cynically feeling that these hucksters were cool and smooth, admiring them for being "successful", and worst of all thinking that they were righteous.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  12. Travel to any developing country by arcite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  13. BPA declared toxic in Canada by 12WTF$ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but outsiders so seldom win office (the most recent one I can think of is Ventura in Minnesota), that I feel it's usually better to try for the lesser of the 2 evils than throw my vote away on a futile protest.

    This is exactly the mentality that prevents outsiders from ever winning office. If you vote for evil, then you will surely get evil.

  15. Re:Glass Brita Pitcher!? by sunspot42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While I think it's ridiculous when CEOs are giving hundreds of millions in bonuses or salaries, those are privately-owned companies, and they're free to (over)pay as much as they want to.

    Yes. And then their overpaid executards buy off Congress, loot their companies and run them into the ground, wreck the economy and demand trillion dollar bailouts funded by people who actually do productive work.

    So no, letting a bunch of obvious crooks and psychopaths steal all they want doesn't actually work in practice. This should hardly come as a great surprise.

    This action is favored by the Democrats and the Republicans: remember, TARP was done by a Democrat-controlled Congress under Bush, and then the GM/Chrysler bailout was done by Obama and friends.

    The Senate approved the bailout measure on Oct. 1, 2008, on a bipartisan vote of 74 to 25. The House initially rejected the proposal, but under prodding from the White House and leading members of both parties, House members ultimately voted 263 to 171 for the bill, with 91 Republicans joining 172 Democrats in backing it; 108 Republicans and 63 Democrats voted no.

    And I actually don't have a problem with TARP per se - clearly the financial system had been wrecked by 30 years of idiotic laissez-faire policy - the problem I have with it is that the perpetrators of that collapse have all walked free (adding insult to injury, plenty of them have served in both the Bush and Obama administrations), and many of them are still running the same Wall Street firms that precipitated the collapse.

    At least with the GM/Chrysler bailout, the executives who ran those companies into the ground were also forced out. Those bailouts also cost a tiny fraction of what we've spent so far bailing out Wall Street (not to mention the multi-trillion dollar impact the collapse of Wall Street's gambling spree has had on the economy as a whole).