Canada Officially Labels BPA as toxic

Canada Officially Labels BPA as toxic

www.theprovince.com

A Statistics Canada study released in August reported that nearly all Canadians — 91 per cent of those aged six to 79 — have BPA in their urine, and that children and teenagers have higher levels of the estrogen-mimicking chemical than adults.

The federal agency's findings in its first-ever national survey on the exposure of chemicals determined the national overall average concentration to be 1.16 parts per billion, which it said were consistent with other international studies.

It is believed that people ingest the chemical when it leaches into food from polycarbonate plastic food

(visit the link for the full news article)

In 2008 Canada banned the use of BPA in products due to findings that it effected humans after being leeching in to their bodies via plastic containers.

The delay between the banning and it officially being labelled toxic was due to the American Chemistry Council filing an objection in 2009 claiming the chemical safe for humans.

Our first born came right after we banned the chemical in childrens bottles. At first it was very tough to find good bottles but it was totally worth it in the end now.

I'm glad this has finally fully gone through and hope this is a step towards other countries taking a closer look at this.


Read more: www.theprovince.com...



www.theprovince.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by monke675
Most likely the ones trying to get in the way of this product being banned are in one way or another making money of the sales of the compound.
Or for the real conspiracy nut, those whom get in the way are part of the global movement to tame humans, more estrogen= more docile

Glad to hear that BPA is banned in Canada, this is timely in that my daughter is going to have her first baby in April, she is 37 well educated and well informed about toxics, she mentioned to me the other day that she will be using glass baby bottles, when I asked her why she said she did some research and read about BPA in baby bottles, she said whether it's true or not she will take no chances. I will forward to article to her as I am sure she will be interested in reading it.

Great find OP.

S&F

Originally posted by Aquarius1
Glad to hear that BPA is banned in Canada, this is timely in that my daughter is going to have her first baby in April, she is 37 well educated and well informed about toxics, she mentioned to me the other day that she will be using glass baby bottles, when I asked her why she said she did some research and read about BPA in baby bottles, she said whether it's true or not she will take no chances. I will forward to article to her as I am sure she will be interested in reading it.

Great find OP.

S&F

Well we just bought some BPA free baby bottles.... Im very happy....

That is such great news! I have banned it from our house too

I think it almost impossible for the US to ever ban BPA. Big business can buy whatever legislation and research findings they desire. Their bottom line will always be their priority over any health concerns for the masses.

Yeah for the smart ones to the north!!

BPA!?!?!?

Dude... I'm probably so sick! :/

This is a start, maybe.

But did you know that thermal paper (receipts, fax etc) contains loads of it?

You go to the store, buy some crap, pop the thermal paper receipt into your pocket, handle it etc. On the way home, you rub your eye blah blah blah. Not the nicest stuff that's for sure.

"The delay between the banning and it officially being labelled toxic was due to the American Chemistry Council filing an objection in 2009 claiming the chemical safe for humans. "

It's quite apparent The American Chemistry Council is either run by complete idiots, or by big pharma/ big corporations... The two are actually one in the same if you think about it. We need to abolish The American Chemistry Council immediately, before they inflict harm on more people with their psychotic objections.

reply to post by Atlantican


Here is a quick Chicago Tribune article about some hidden sources of BPA. I'm curious just how far reaching the ban in Canada will be as it seems there are quite a number of common sources.

BPA Article : Tribune

Sometimes I wonder about these corporations claiming there product is safe. Are they themselves using their own allegedly safe product on a day to day basis?

"The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents leading manufacturers of plastic resins."

So yes they do benefit from BPA.

Originally posted by monke675
reply to post by Atlantican

 

Here is a quick Chicago Tribune article about some hidden sources of BPA. I'm curious just how far reaching the ban in Canada will be as it seems there are quite a number of common sources.

BPA Article : Tribune

edit on 14-10-2010 by monke675 because: Replaced half remembered 'fact' with something a touch more solid

From that source it says

Blue-tinted hard plastic 5-gallon drinking water bottles. (Some water filters that store filtered water in polycarbonate containers.)

Well I can simply tell you that about 300million people in Indonesia drink out of those water bottles every single day since they have ever been produced (because there is no drinkable tap water here) - are the health effects not really that serious for this type of daily long term exposure??

You'd think that there would be a more serious epidemic with massive health problems all over the world after reading some of the medical articles on BPA but I just don't see that around me. What does it mean?

Originally posted by tempesillest
Sometimes I wonder about these corporations claiming there product is safe. Are they themselves using their own allegedly safe product on a day to day basis?

"The Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents leading manufacturers of plastic resins."

So yes they do benefit from BPA.

Nobody is claiming anything is safe at any exposure level. If you drink enough water it will kill you.

www.bisphenol-a.org...

Researchers from government agencies, academia, and industry worldwide have studied the potential for bisphenol A (BPA) to migrate from polycarbonate products into foods and beverages. These studies consistently show that the potential migration of BPA into food is extremely low, generally less than 5 parts per billion under conditions typical for uses of polycarbonate products. At this level, a consumer would have to ingest more than 1,300 pounds of food and beverages in contact with polycarbonate every day for an entire lifetime to exceed the safe level of BPA set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

So they freely admit you will get an unsafe exposure if you eat and drink 1300 pounds of polycarbonate packaged foods a day for an entire lifetime.

No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to consume more than 1200 pounds a day! And most of that isn't even packaged in polycarbonate.

On the list of things I worry about, this is near the bottom of the list.

I actually use PET water bottles instead of polycarbonate, since the PET doesn't have BPA in it, but I don't really think the BPA is all that dangerous if you're eating less than 100 pounds a day of food and drink and most of it isn't packaged in polycarbonate.

Actually, after a bit more thinking...maybe there IS an Epidemic here but no one can see it because so many people are affected by it.

Indonesians are notorious for being very skinny people, perhaps this is because BPA affects thyroid functions and has been known to cause lower bodyweight in lab rats (sourced from the wikipedia article).

I'm guessing that BPA is the real cause of these skinny Indonesians rather than their size being a purely genetic dysfunction (just look over to Papua New Guinea a close neighbor as an example)

Originally posted by Nick_X
(just look over to Papua New Guinea a close neighbor as an example)

So the people in Papua New Guinea don't use the 5 gallon drinking water bottles like the Indonesians do?

reply to post by Nick_X


As I understand it, these various chemicals, not only BPA basically makes men more feminine through lower testerone count and women mature faster. If the young male population is determined as being 'less masculine' or smaller, more lightweight frame, perhaps less body hair, than their grandfathers and it is not caused by evolution through living on small islands which does happen, then there is a problem.

If you drink liquids that came from plastic bottles then you have a problem, your neighbours have a problem.

Fortunately our children's childrens bodies should be able to repair the damage once it is banned.

The big question is: Are these chemicals affecting us on the genetic level which may be one of the reasons they are selling their products in plastic bottles: They want to see what it does to us, or it's just an awful mistake from a 'miracle product' that ends up being potentially more harmful but they don't or are too lazy to come up with a safer product.

Why can't the plastics industry spend money developing plastics that are safe to use as food storage and easily recycled safely instead of fighting to keep the current plastics recipe?

reply to post by monke675

The delay between the banning and it officially being labelled toxic was due to the American Chemistry Council filing an objection in 2009 claiming the chemical safe for humans.

I'd like to know how come the American Chemistry council gets any kind of say into this. I thought we had our own Country called Canada (which rocks , by the way). Why can't we just ban something if we want to. I'll tell you why , cause our Gov't gots no cajones. Wouldn't want to do something that might piss off the Americans. Seems to me Canada also has our share of smart scientists.

reply to post by star in a jar
Well I do remember that this banning crossed Obamas desk early last year.
And he was against the banning of the product,. just another reason why I dislike him