The Globe and Mail has been ALL OVER the BPA story this week. Again today, they have more revelations, and more evidence that BPA is harmful.
Bisphenol A… has the ability to alter the activity of genes in normal breast cells in ways that resemble what is found in extremely dangerous breast cancers, according to a new study.
The study, conducted by researchers in California and published this month in the journal Cancer Research, found that many genes in non-cancerous breast cells exposed to trace amounts of bisphenol A began acting in a way that closely resembled the gene activity in highly aggressive breast tumours that led to an increased likelihood that women would die of the disease.
The link “is highly supportive of the concept that overexposure to BPA and/or similar compounds could be an underlying factor in the aggressiveness, if not in the causality” of breast cancers, said Shanaz Dairkee, lead author of the study and senior scientist at the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute in San Francisco, in an e-mail.[source]
With that ammunition, the Canadian government took action today to deem BPA a dangerous substance.
“Canada has been the first country in the world to conduct risk assessments on a number of chemicals of concern, as a result of a new initiative announced by the Prime Minister on December 8, 2006 known as the Chemicals Management Plan,” said Minister Clement. “We have immediately taken action on bisphenol A, because we believe it is our responsibility to ensure families, Canadians and our environment are not exposed to a potentially harmful chemical.”[source]
It’s not enough to have it banned, but enough to scare retailers across the country to get the stuff off their shelves. Some manufacturers are also getting the message.
Nalge Nunc International, a division of Waltham, Mass.-based Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., said Friday it will substitute its Nalgene Outdoor line of polycarbonate plastic containers with BPA-free alternatives. [source]
Are the Myths About Polycarbonate Bottles True? New Information Supports the Safe Use of Polycarbonate Bottles - February 5, 2008
Polycarbonate Bottles Are Still Safe For Use – In Spite of the Latest Scare Story - January 31, 2008
New Data from CDC Confirms Human Exposure to Bisphenol A in the United States is Far Below Safe Limits - November 1, 2007
Sound Science Prevails in Review of Bisphenol A - August 8, 2007
Myths? Scare tactics? Safe?
Like I said yesterday, these arguments sound a lot like those that came from big tobacco in the 80s and 90s.
I’ve been most concerned about baby bottles and soothers and dishes with this news. But sports bottles and home water coolers are also affected. Yes, home water cooler jugs. The big ones where you get home delivery? Look at the number on the bottom.
A key to whether a bottle contains BPA can be found in the recycling number at the bottom of the bottle or on a label. Most drink containers sold in stores have the number “1″, recommended for one-time use only. Containers considered toxin-free include number “2″ high-density polyethylene (HDPE), number “4″ low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and number “5″ polypropylene (PP).
However, baby bottles, many drinking cups and polycarbonate bottles marked with recycle number “7″ contain BPA. Many oversized bottles used for home and office water coolers — including those from Canadian Springs — are made of the “7″ variety.
Calls to a half-dozen water companies that deliver to B.C. homes and offices, including Canadian Springs, were not returned Thursday. [source]
If you’re not willing to take chances with your life, or the life of your children, have a read of this earlier posting to find out companies that produce BPA free products and other steps you can take to be safe.
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
I started to think this morning, as I did more research on BPA and who says it’s okay, and who says it’s bad, that the manufacturers were behaving like big tobacco back in the day.
You know, throwing out studies saying their products were just fine, thank you very much, while governments took steps to ban them.
Polycarbonates are used in thousands of consumer products such as reusable food containers, lifesaving medical devices and sport safety equipment. Manufacturers of such products, including baby bottles use polycarbonate because it prevents cracking, shattering and other hazards that can lead to injuries. The key concern for parents is whether BPA can get into their child’s food through leaching from polycarbonate bottles.
That’s directly from the Avent website, one of the most popular manufacturers of baby bottles because their nipples are very representative of the human form. Jen’s friends all recommended Avent to us. This morning Jen called the company and, sure enough, they copped to the BPA and admitted their bottles have a recycle number of 7.
So Jen called the recycling depot and guess what? The bottles are NOT recyclable. They’re nasty, nasty, nasty.
The bottle manufacturers have heard the sabre rattling. They get that HBC, Canadian Tire, WalMart and others are removing BPA products from the shelves, and they’re fighting back - by saying nothing’s wrong.
Found in a wide variety of products, lightweight and shatter-resistant polycarbonate plastic has been the material of choice in baby bottles for 25 years. The potential for exposure to bisphenol A from bottles has been extensively examined and the results reviewed by government bodies worldwide that have responsibility for assessing the safety of consumer products.
“The findings in NTP’s draft report provide reassurance that consumers can continue to use products made from BPA,” said Robert Waller, Jr., CAE, president of JPMA. “Sound and respected scientific research has consistently shown there is no danger to consumers when products are used as intended.”
There is significant data available on the safety of BPA. From baby bottles and food packaging, to bicycle helmets and eyeglass lenses, as well as incubators and components of many life-saving medical devices, polycarbonate plastic makes everyday lives better and safer. [source]
It doesn’t make sense.
If it is so harmless, why is the Canadian government moving to label it a toxic substance? The use of BPA is so widespread, that to remove it from shelves will have significant impact. Why go through the hassle if it’s “no big deal” as JPMA and Avent would have us believe.
Cigarettes are killers. The tobacco company lied about it for decades before getting caught.
Now baby bottles are dangerous and the manufacturers are lying about it too? These are BABIES we’re talking about. INFANTS. Our CHILDREN.
Why are you LYING to me about the health and safety of my child?
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
Want to know why so many young girls are entering puberty around 10, when it used to be around 13 or 14? Want to know why so many teen boys can grow a full beard in Grade 10, when I could barely get peach fuzz?
Baby bottles. Specifically, plastic baby bottles laced with Bisphenol A (BPA). [wikipedia]
They’re cute, they’re convenient, and they’re poisoning our children.
Retailers are making sweeping changes today in advance of Health Canada declaring BPA as a dangerous chemical. A dangerous chemical that appears in everything from infant food containers to compact discs. [source]
It has now been linked to early onset puberty in children and breast cancer and prostate cancer in adults.
Health Canada is expected to issue a risk assessment this week that BPA is a potentially dangerous chemical, a move that could lead to some restrictions in its use, particularly for consumer applications that are likely to come into direct contact with foods or beverages.
The action by the Canadian government would be the first by any country to label the chemical used for decades in everything from baby bottles and the lacquer linings inside tin cans to dental sealants a possible health hazard. [blockquote]
Avent, a leading manufacturer of baby bottles, tows the company line when asked if their bottles contain harmful levels of BPA by only saying their products meet government standards. Well, the government standards are about to change, and those bottles, in fact, DO contain BPA.
DO YOUR BOTTLES CONTAIN BPA?
Look at the recycle number on the bottom. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are better. 3, 6 and 7 are bad. [source]
The Zrecs blog is fabulous. It has a lot more info to help you find other safe products. Back in February, they wrote the Z Report on BPA which includes this list of companies who produce BPA-free products:
Adiri | Baby Bjorn | Baby Cie | Babylife (Wee-go) | BFree | Born Free | Brita | Combi | DCI | Ezee Reach | Emily Green | Green to Grow | iPlay | Kidbasix | KidCo | Klean Kanteen | Medela | Mother’s Milkmate | Mud Pie Baby | Not Neutral | Nurture Pure | Obentec | ORE Originals | Prince Lionheart | Rivadossi Sandro (Trebimbi) | SIGG | Silikids | Skip*Hop | Steadyco | Thermos | thinkbaby [source]
ZRecs also has a text service where you can text Zrecs and the company name to 69866 and they will text back with BPA info on that company.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO?
First off, learn as much as you can about BPA. Then, go through your cupboards and get rid of everything that might be hurting you, and your family.
One of the first things we did last week was switch up Z’s water bottle. We picked up a Sigg bottle made of aluminum from Whole Foods. Expensive as hell, but safe for Z.
There have been rumblings about this chemical for years, but many disagreements between the studies. But look deeper as to why the studies disagreed.
Dozens of studies by independent researchers have linked low exposure to BPA in animal and test-tube experiments to illnesses, such as cancer, that are thought to have an origin in hormone imbalances, although industry-funded studies haven’t been able to find the same effects. [source]
Arm yourself with knowledge and make changes in your lifestyle. For your health. For the health of your children.
# Limit your use of canned goods or choose canned foods from makers who don’t use it, such as Eden Foods
# Learn how to cook your own foods that you typically buy in cans — like beans or chickpeas
# Choose soups, milk and soy milk packaged in cardboard “brick” cartons, by Tetra Pak and SIG Combibloc, with safer layers of aluminum and polyethylene (#2) that can also be recycled
# Use glass food storage containers instead of plastic
# Use glass baby bottles or plastic bag inserts made of polyethyelene, or switch to non-clear polypropylene bottles that are labeled with recycle #5
# Don’t buy canned infant formula
# Eat fresh foods in season to reduce your consumption of canned goods
# Buy or can your own foods in safe glass jars
# Stop using plastic wrap and plastic containers to heat food in microwaves. Ceramic and glass are better
# Throw out any old and scratched plastic bottles or plastic containers
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
Lots of prizes, including donuts coffee and cars will be passed out to Canadians over the next number of weeks. Canadians who will be more than willing to leave their recyclable mugs at home to boost the chances of swigging back a free double double.
Something about this smells funny in 2008.
Environmentalism isn’t a religion, so much as a way of life for many Canadians now. We bring reusable bags to the grocery store. We have 20 different compartments for recyclables with our trash. We bring our own coffee mugs to the coffee stand.
Sustainability is something not only preached by the likes of David Suzuki, but by governments. Just last week, BC Finance MinisterCarole Taylor wore green shoes to announce the BC Budget that featured a green theme throughout.
So why, in 2008, is Tim Horton’s going back to the tried and true promotion of “buy as many unrecyclable cups as you can to try and win a donut.”
Oh, you didnt know the cups weren’t recyclable? They use a lining on the cup making them unrecyclable, and during an increased consumption contest like this, Canadians go crazy.
Tim Hortons cups have no recycled content…In the meantime, the chain might print “Don’t litter” messages on its cups, but even Tim Hortons’ peeps admit that “many people, unfortunately, do not pay attention to these messages.”
[source]
Don’t think crossing the street will make a difference, Starbucks‘ cups aren’t much better, about 10% recycled material.
Questioning of this promotion isn’t new, people have been openly asking why Tim’s does it since 2005.
“I don’t think it’s socially responsible to have a promotion which creates massive waste,” said Ronald Colman, executive director of GPI Atlantic, a non-profit group that researches environmental and quality of life issues. In Nova Scotia, Mr. Colman said, Tim Hortons packaging accounted for 22% of all identifiable litter.[source]
The Tim Hortons coffee cup is recyclable where facilities exist, such as in Moncton, New Brunswick and Windsor, Ontario. The biggest challenge is that recycling capabilities, options and requirements vary significantly between municipalities. In Owen Sound, Ontario, in November 2007, Tim Hortons proudly introduced four-stream recycling stations so that customers can recycle coffee cups and polystyrene lids on site, along with cans, bottles and other recyclable materials. Tim Hortons is now working to try to replicate this innovative program across Ontario, and in other areas of Canada, however support is needed from local waste management facilities. [source]
Still, there’s still got to be a better way to get you to grab your double double of joe on the go with the hope of scoring a free donut than by rolling up unrecyclable rims. A simple scratch card, or pull tab, while not as fun to rrrrroll, would serve the same sales driven purpose as these cups, and would ease the pressures they place on landfills.
Many contests have the old “no purchase necessary” tag at the end. So if you want to play along, with your home mug, write them a note and .. get this .. they’ll send you a cup.
In Canada, obtain a FREE Tim Hortons contest cup by writing to: Tim Hortons Contest Cup, P.O. Box 9899, Saint John, New Brunswick, E2L 4P8. [source]
What’s the point?
Let’s see if you can rrrresist the urrrrge to rrrrrroll for the next little while. For the sake of the planet.
Got a problem with Tim’s doing this promo, again? Let ‘em know:
26585 Gloucester Way
Langley, BC V4W 3S8
Tel: (604) 857-5430
Fax: (604) 857-5436
Customer Service toll-free:
1-877-839-2850
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
It means giving of yourself. Donating of your time. Doing something to better the experience for others, and thereby bettering the experience for yourself.
It’s giving. Unconditional giving.
Reading to children at the hospital. Bringing meals to the elderly shut in. Walking the dogs at the shelter.
All things that are done to make our community a better place by people who just want to help.
So why then, with the Olympics coming to Vancouver in 2 years, is the government offering it’s employees the chance to take paid leave to “volunteer” for the Olympics?
As part of the plan, B.C. government employees who are accepted by the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee (VANOC) as volunteers will be able to claim part of the time as vacation time, and the other part as paid leave, said Colin Hansen, the minister responsible for the Olympics.[source]
That kind of misses the point, doesn’t it?
Coast Capital Savings offers its employees the chance to take a paid day off work, in exchange for volunteering in the community. You’ll often see the Good Karma Crew at runs and walks and big events helping out. This is great. It’s offering employees a chance to make a difference in their own personal community.
In 2006, our staff generously gave more than 25,000 hours to various charities in their local communities. We are proud to have a very special program that supports our staff in their volunteer efforts. [source]
It’s a private company, giving back to the public. They do this each and every week of the year, it’s not a special “Olympic only” program - it’s part of their corporate mandate to serve the community they do business in.
The government plan is different. It’s a one off. Gordon Campbell is trying to defend the decision by saying the government is trying to help in the same way the corporations are, but when it’s the government workers, paid by the taxpayers, going out and getting paid to “volunteer” at the Olympics, it’s a little different.
The government is already footing a huge bill for these games, they don’t need to go and foot the bill of volunteers on top of that.
25 000 people will be needed to make these games run smoothly. In the first 2 days of applications, more than 10 000 have already raised their hand and said “I’ll help.” You’d think in 2 years we wouldnt have a problem grabbing another 15 000 to join the team.
Some have voiced opinions to local radio stations:
Volunteers should be compensated for out of pocket expenses like food and gas.
Volunteers deserve some kind of a tax break but it’s unfair that only government workers will be paid to volunteer their time in 2010. [source]
Everyone’s missing the point.
We volunteer because we want to help out. We want to make our city a better place for everyone. We do it because we WANT to, not because we’re getting any other benefit than the joy in knowing we’re making a difference.
I’ve written about how style has started to gain substance and how substance needs some style.
I’ve written about Obama’s ability to inspire and Hillary’s ability to spout political bullshit laced with cliches.
I am starting to think it’s Obama’s time. Here’s the tale of two speeches.
Hillary was out in front when this whole thing started, and orchestrated Super Duper Tuesday to shut down Obama’s momentum and wrap up the race. Well, she may have won NY and California last night, but in the crazy way the DNC calculates things, she’s actually behind in delegates.
This race is not over, and the longer it goes the more people are hearing Yes We Can from Obie and blah blah blah from Hills.
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
Trust is leaning out a window on the 4th floor of a burning building, holding your toddler in your arms and … letting go.
This situation played out in Germany yesterday. A father throwing his son from a burning building to the waiting arms of rescuers below.
Is that trust? Is that love? Is that courage?
All I know is I don’t think I could have done it. Jen and I talked about it. If it had been either of us, we would have jumped holding Zacharie, hoping that our body would break the fall.
I don’t know if that would have been the right decision. We both might die.
In this case, the father made the right choice, his son survived the fall. 9 others, 5 of them children, did not.
That, my friends, is trust.
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
Want to know why more Americans don’t vote? It’s too damn complicated.
Prior to a general election, there is a selection process to determine which candidate will appear on the ballot for a given political party in the nationwide general election. Political parties generally hold national conventions at which a group of delegates collectively decide upon which candidate they will run for the presidency. The process of choosing delegates to the national convention is undertaken at the state level, which means that there are significant differences from state to state and sometimes year to year. The two methods for choosing delegates to the national convention are the caucus and the primary. [source]
Not only different by state, but different by year?
In Canada, we do it the same way, every time. We elect a local representative, an MP. The party with the most elected MP’s forms government, the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.
When political parties in Canada choose their leaders, they do so at a convention, just like in the US. But in the States, any registered voter can vote in the lead up to these elections, in Canada only registered party members vote.
Caucuses were the original method for selecting candidates but have decreased in number since the primary was introduced in the early 1900’s. In states that hold caucuses a political party announces the date, time, and location of the meeting. Generally any voter registered with the party may attend. At the caucus, delegates are chosen to represent the state’s interests at the national party convention. Prospective delegates are identified as favorable to a specific candidate or uncommitted. After discussion and debate an informal vote is taken to determine which delegates should be chosen.
There are two main types of primaries, closed or open, that determine who is eligible to vote in the primary. In a closed primary a registered voter may vote only in the election for the party with which that voter is affiliated. For example a voter registered as Democratic can vote only in the Democratic primary and a Republican can vote only in the Republican primary. In an open primary, on the other hand, a registered voter can vote in either primary regardless of party membership. The voter cannot, however, participate in more than one primary. A third less common type of primary, the blanket primary, allows registered voters to participate in all primaries. [source]
Confused yet?
The Canadian system works better because, frankly, it’s simpler. We have one election for our national assembly that also picks our PM.
In the States you have to vote in primaries, not all held concurrently, then you’re called back months later to vote again. When it comes to voting for local representatives in the national assembly, you do that at different times too. Not to mention the times you’re voting for judges, sherriffs, dog catchers, referenda and propositions.
The power may be in the hands of the American electorate, but it’s a little bit of overkill, don’t you think?
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
Since cavorting with Team Blogger at CBCs Test The Nation a few weeks back, I have added most of the team to my roll and have been impressed with the Canadian blogosphere.
Today Mighty God King tackles Super Tuesday, and I’m buying what he’s selling.
As a candidate, however, Hillary Clinton is, bluntly, terrible. It doesn’t matter how intelligent and capable and even charming she is; she comes into the presidential election with slightly less than half of the electorate utterly unwilling to vote for her. [source]
Hillary was on Letterman last night, and while she was my girl, I couldnt watch. Fake smiles, speaking in cliches, she reminded me of Chretien. A political pro. So caught up in her own campaign bullshit she can’t see what’s really going on. She’s lost. She has no charisma, just talking points.
Then there’s Obama. I’ve long lamented style over substance, but as MGK puts it, this style is starting to get some consistency.
the overwhelming feeling of all us foreigners towards America right now as regards Obama can most accurately be described as jealousy. Great statesmen are rarities in any nation… every so often a nation gets a truly amazing leader, someone all the other countries look at and wonder “why can’t our leaders be like that” - a Churchill, a de Gaulle, a Trudeau, a Mandela. [source]
If you didnt see the remix Will.I.Am did of Barack’s speech in Iowa, watch it now.
Yes, Canada’s flag may be red and white, but today you can colour us green - with envy.
The Blog According to Buzz. Spread the word, ya heard?
- Would you give up your right to vote in Canada, if you could vote in this US election? 15% of Canadians would (me included). The video below might be the reason why:
- A couple weeks back I was on CBC's Test the Nation. Recruiting for the next edition is underway, check out this list to see if you're eligible. It's a lot of fun - go for it!
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO?
It’s 
Entries (RSS)