As managing editor of Canada's news media is reporting today that the federal government there is set to add bisphenol A to its list of "toxic substances" tomorrow. According to this Toronto Globe and Mail report, the move will make Canada " the first country in the world to take such aggressive action against the controversial chemical."
What will this mean? According to the story, "Declaring the synthetic chemical toxic opens the way for regulatory action, and the government has already announced that it wants to ban plastic baby bottles made from the chemical and work with food and packing companies to reduce the amounts leaching out of tin cans into infant formula."
The decision isn't a surprise -- Health Canada and Environment Canada revealed the draft proposal back in April, which touched off a flurry of activiity. Big retailers in Canada have already stopped selling polycarbonate baby bottles. But we can expect to see another barrage of news stories this weekend as a result of the move, and increasing pressure on other governments to adopt the same strict policy.
Comments (2)
Does that mean the Canadian Government will ban all beer and soft drink cans! I hope that the government will determine if bisphenol A is a key element for the interior coating technology for aluminium cans? Let's hope the scientist verify the facts prior to jumping in to the pool head first at the shallow end! That hurts, EH!
Posted by Anthony Georges | October 18, 2008 11:43 AM
Posted on October 18, 2008 11:43
It is very unfortunate that our FDA no longer operates as a federal watchdog to protect the American consumer in regards to foods and drugs as well as materials that come in to contact with foods and drugs consumed by the American people. When funding to the agency is by and from corporations and companies who want their products tested by the agency, any information/report that manages to surface from the agency staff may never see the light of day in order to protect the American people.
As an administrator, you most certainly have to weigh operating funds,salaries, and year end bonuses against a "bad press" negative report from an underling on a company's dangerous material,product,food or drug. Rationalization by the administrator will side with the funder...the corporations and companies. Not good!!!
Posted by Joseph A. decker, Jr. | October 20, 2008 12:48 PM
Posted on October 20, 2008 12:48