For all those concerned about the presence of toxic flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs for short) in all kinds of products (e.g., furniture, textiles, electronics), know that Canada is committing to banning all of them in everything. Currently only some are.
While not all PBDEs are banned in all products yet and won’t be for a few more years, the commitment of the federal government to do so is certainly noteworthy. Ecojustice, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and Environmental Defence welcomed this news since we collectively filed a formal Notice of Objection to the original regulations. This was because the original regulations only banned some PBDEs in all products – they did not ban the import and use of the PBDEs that makeup the most widely used mixture. The expanded regulations the government is committing to introducing, however, will.
For more information, check out the recent media release and backgrounder (pdf). Also be sure to visit Health Canada’s webpage about PBDEs.
Showing posts with label Toxic Nation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toxic Nation. Show all posts
Friday, September 3, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
3rd Time’s the Charm (We Hope): Proposed Consumer Product Safety Act Back Again
It’s happened – the proposed Canada Consumer Product Safety Act was reintroduced into the House of Commons for the 3rd time on June 9, 2010. It was first known as Bill C-52 (which was dropped when the federal election was called in 2008) and then Bill C-6 (which was dropped when Parliament prorogued in March 2010), but is currently known as Bill C-36.
This proposed Act is an update to the 40 year old Hazardous Products Act and would finally bring Canada in line with Europe and the United States. As per this CBC article, the Bill has support from industry and environmental groups.
Although the House of Commons is currently not in session, we’re hoping for swift passage in the fall when the MPs return.
Learn about the new proposed Act by visiting this Health Canada website.
Keep up-to-date on this law in the fall and other toxics happenings throughout the year by signing up for our monthly Toxic Nation Enews.
This proposed Act is an update to the 40 year old Hazardous Products Act and would finally bring Canada in line with Europe and the United States. As per this CBC article, the Bill has support from industry and environmental groups.
Although the House of Commons is currently not in session, we’re hoping for swift passage in the fall when the MPs return.
Learn about the new proposed Act by visiting this Health Canada website.
Keep up-to-date on this law in the fall and other toxics happenings throughout the year by signing up for our monthly Toxic Nation Enews.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Dragon's Den: View from Down Under
Hello from Down Under, where I’m speaking about my book at the Sydney Writers’ Festival and jet-laggedly watching the sun rise over Sydney Harbour.
There’s a great assortment of environmental thinkers at this year’s Festival. My co-author Bruce Lourie and I are doing a panel later today with Bill McKibben who is here to talk about his new book “Eaarth” (an unusual title that he suggested to the crowd last night should be pronounced with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-style Austrian drawl). I had dinner with Tim Flannery last night, who chaired a great session on climate change politics post-Copenhagen. Raj Patel is also here, whose book “The Value of Nothing” is a trenchant critique of the unsustainability of our current economic model.
What’s really struck me being here in Australia – and I knew this already but it’s different seeing it close up – is the eery similarity between the environmental debate in Canada and Australia. As in Canada, the Australian federal government is paralyzed by the issue at the moment and whatever progress is occurring is happening at a State (or in Canada’s case, provincial) and municipal level.
As in Canada, where the companies running Alberta’s tar sands get whatever they want from the federal government, the coal lobby in Australia remains retrograde and extremely powerful.
And in the morning newspaper’s, there are even striking similarities between the kneejerk backlash to wind energy in both countries. In Ontario, the province’s Medical Officer of Health’s definitive ruling that there are no demonstrated links between wind turbines and health concerns has failed to satisfy the more strident wind energy opponents. And near Melbourne, a particular case study illustrates the danger of an ad hoc approach to siting new wind developments (which, thankfully, we’ve moved beyond in favour of a single, objective, provincial regulation in Ontario).
What does all this underline? That the environmental challenges we face, and the solutions we need, are truly global in nature. What’s true in the Great White North, is true Down Under. We have to find our way together.
There’s a great assortment of environmental thinkers at this year’s Festival. My co-author Bruce Lourie and I are doing a panel later today with Bill McKibben who is here to talk about his new book “Eaarth” (an unusual title that he suggested to the crowd last night should be pronounced with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-style Austrian drawl). I had dinner with Tim Flannery last night, who chaired a great session on climate change politics post-Copenhagen. Raj Patel is also here, whose book “The Value of Nothing” is a trenchant critique of the unsustainability of our current economic model.
What’s really struck me being here in Australia – and I knew this already but it’s different seeing it close up – is the eery similarity between the environmental debate in Canada and Australia. As in Canada, the Australian federal government is paralyzed by the issue at the moment and whatever progress is occurring is happening at a State (or in Canada’s case, provincial) and municipal level.
As in Canada, where the companies running Alberta’s tar sands get whatever they want from the federal government, the coal lobby in Australia remains retrograde and extremely powerful.
And in the morning newspaper’s, there are even striking similarities between the kneejerk backlash to wind energy in both countries. In Ontario, the province’s Medical Officer of Health’s definitive ruling that there are no demonstrated links between wind turbines and health concerns has failed to satisfy the more strident wind energy opponents. And near Melbourne, a particular case study illustrates the danger of an ad hoc approach to siting new wind developments (which, thankfully, we’ve moved beyond in favour of a single, objective, provincial regulation in Ontario).
What does all this underline? That the environmental challenges we face, and the solutions we need, are truly global in nature. What’s true in the Great White North, is true Down Under. We have to find our way together.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Is the Tide Turning on Triclosan?
Triclosan – a man-made antibacterial found in many soaps and sanitizers – has, perhaps, seen more encouraging days. While its use in all kinds of antibacterial consumer products continues to grow (think toothpastes, cutting boards, socks), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) questioning of the substance also seems to be expanding. That is to say that according to an article in last week’s Washington Post , the FDA responded to an inquiry about the chemical from U.S. Congressman Edward J. Markey by saying that recent research raises "valid concerns" about triclosan’s health effects (hormone-system disruption, bacterial resistance) and that the chemical is getting a renewed look.
On the day the above article was published, the FDA also posted a new Consumer Update titled “Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know”. Within this, it was noted that the “FDA does not have evidence that triclosan added to antibacterial soaps and body washes provides extra health benefits over soap and water”. The FDA’s review is slated to become public next spring.
Did you know? Triclosan has been found in 76% of liquid soaps and 29% of bar soaps in the U.S. according to this American Journal of Infection Control article by Perencevich, Wong, and Harris.
Did you also know? Triclosan has been found in almost 75% of the 2,517 Americans tested by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 2003-2004 according to this CDC webpage.
On the day the above article was published, the FDA also posted a new Consumer Update titled “Triclosan: What Consumers Should Know”. Within this, it was noted that the “FDA does not have evidence that triclosan added to antibacterial soaps and body washes provides extra health benefits over soap and water”. The FDA’s review is slated to become public next spring.
Did you know? Triclosan has been found in 76% of liquid soaps and 29% of bar soaps in the U.S. according to this American Journal of Infection Control article by Perencevich, Wong, and Harris.
Did you also know? Triclosan has been found in almost 75% of the 2,517 Americans tested by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 2003-2004 according to this CDC webpage.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Dragon's Den: The Importance of Being Earnest
Blog #2 in a series for CBC's Dragon's Den:
When selling anything, it’s important that consumers trust your product. Witness the recent Toyota mishap for a lesson in what happens when consumer confidence in a product, or in this instance an entire brand, goes south.
In a confusing market crowded with competing claims of “green-ness”, it’s doubly important that your customers believe your claim of “green” to be accurate. If this isn’t the case, at best your product won’t derive any measurable benefit from the “green” claim, at worst consumers will hold your perceived lack of transparency against you. Big time.
Take the example of Sigg bottles as a case in point.
For much of the last three years, the hormone-disrupting toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has been in the news. My organization, Environmental Defence, has made it a signature campaign. Linked to breast and prostate cancer and a host of other human diseases, mounting scientific evidence convinced Canada in 2008 to become the first jurisdiction in the world to ban the chemical from baby bottles.
Since then, a variety of other jurisdictions have also moved. Some of these bans include restrictions on the chemical’s use in food can linings (likely the most significant source of exposure for people). As concerns about BPA gathered momentum starting in about 2006, Sigg, the Swiss-based maker of funky aluminum bottles, positioned their product as a “green” alternative to then-common, BPA-containing, plastic sports bottles. The company enjoyed substantial increases in sales in the process. At the time, Sigg categorically stated that their products were BPA-free. But then, lo and behold, late last year the company had to issue an embarrassing public apology admitting that right up until August 2008 their bottle linings did indeed contain the chemical.
To say the least, this really caused the BPA to hit the fan. If you plug “sigg” and “bpa” into Google, you get over 85,000 hits.
After the company admitted misleading its consumers the Web lit up like a Christmas tree with angry people denouncing their former-favourite metal bottle. In summing up the Sigg episode, Advertising Age wrote that the company had moved from a ”badge of consumer eco-consciousness and all-around cool” to being “in danger of becoming a poster child for brand deception and corporate dishonesty.”
The lesson of Sigg is that, first and foremost, claims that a product is “green” have to be sincere. Before making such claims a company better be darn sure that they are true. In this age of email, Twitter and by-the-minute Facebook updates, the moment a customer sniffs out a corporate untruth it will be broadcast far and wide before the hour is out. Sincerity isn’t the only important consideration in evaluating the relative “green-ness” of a product, but more about that next week.
When selling anything, it’s important that consumers trust your product. Witness the recent Toyota mishap for a lesson in what happens when consumer confidence in a product, or in this instance an entire brand, goes south.
In a confusing market crowded with competing claims of “green-ness”, it’s doubly important that your customers believe your claim of “green” to be accurate. If this isn’t the case, at best your product won’t derive any measurable benefit from the “green” claim, at worst consumers will hold your perceived lack of transparency against you. Big time.
Take the example of Sigg bottles as a case in point.
For much of the last three years, the hormone-disrupting toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) has been in the news. My organization, Environmental Defence, has made it a signature campaign. Linked to breast and prostate cancer and a host of other human diseases, mounting scientific evidence convinced Canada in 2008 to become the first jurisdiction in the world to ban the chemical from baby bottles.
Since then, a variety of other jurisdictions have also moved. Some of these bans include restrictions on the chemical’s use in food can linings (likely the most significant source of exposure for people). As concerns about BPA gathered momentum starting in about 2006, Sigg, the Swiss-based maker of funky aluminum bottles, positioned their product as a “green” alternative to then-common, BPA-containing, plastic sports bottles. The company enjoyed substantial increases in sales in the process. At the time, Sigg categorically stated that their products were BPA-free. But then, lo and behold, late last year the company had to issue an embarrassing public apology admitting that right up until August 2008 their bottle linings did indeed contain the chemical.
To say the least, this really caused the BPA to hit the fan. If you plug “sigg” and “bpa” into Google, you get over 85,000 hits.
After the company admitted misleading its consumers the Web lit up like a Christmas tree with angry people denouncing their former-favourite metal bottle. In summing up the Sigg episode, Advertising Age wrote that the company had moved from a ”badge of consumer eco-consciousness and all-around cool” to being “in danger of becoming a poster child for brand deception and corporate dishonesty.”
The lesson of Sigg is that, first and foremost, claims that a product is “green” have to be sincere. Before making such claims a company better be darn sure that they are true. In this age of email, Twitter and by-the-minute Facebook updates, the moment a customer sniffs out a corporate untruth it will be broadcast far and wide before the hour is out. Sincerity isn’t the only important consideration in evaluating the relative “green-ness” of a product, but more about that next week.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Not outside enjoying the weather and looking for something to do?
Well, then perhaps consider doing a survey on people's daily exposures to chemicals! This survey being conducted by the National Network on Environments and Women's Health (NNEWH), in collaboration with the Canadian Women's Health Network, is trying to gather information from as broad a range of people in Canada as possible, with a particular interest in responses from women. Please fill it in by March 24th and encourage others to do so as well. The results will be published on NNEWH’s website sometime this spring, and made known to Health Canada. Click here for the English version and here for the French version of the survey.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Wall St. Journal Takes On The Duck
The Wall St. Journal attacked parents' concerns over toxic chemicals in consumer products in a Saturday, January 30, lead editorial. Dismissing studies about the dangers of the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in products such as baby bottles, the Journal editors said "In their book ‘Slow Death by Rubber Duck,’ Canadian activists Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie chronicle how they used the media to terrify soccer moms who then petitioned the government to ban BPA."
Bruce and I issued the following response late yesterday:
"The Wall St. Journal insults the intelligence of concerned parents and scientists who know it is dangerous for children's health to use products such as baby bottles and sippy cups made from plastic containing BPA. Hundreds of recent studies have linked BPA to human ailments as varied as prostate and breast cancer and heart disease. In our tests, documented in the book, our BPA levels rose 7.5 times over 48 hours after eating and drinking from microwaveable BPA plastic containers. The chemical reached levels in our urine that many recent studies have found to have a biological effect. And infants, who are often exposed to BPA leaching from both the plastic in their baby bottles and the lining of infant formula cans, have far greater exposure to chemicals relative to their body weight and nutritional intake.
The Wall St. Journal is putting powerful vested interests above children's safety on toxic chemical issues. Its editorial rejects the basic purpose of scientific research saying 'Environmentalists hope that if researchers run more tests, they'll come up with more links...Thus, they ask for tests unto eternity.' In fact, it was the lack of studies that prompted us to use ourselves as lab rats. Our families would have certainly preferred it if studies had been conducted in modern laboratories, instead of us pioneering them in our homes.
We welcome the opportunity for dialogue and invite the Wall St. Journal editors and any of their friends in the chemical industry to have an honest on-air discussion about the safety of these chemicals for our children. We will even offer them a chair on stage throughout our book tour.
We agree, however, with the Wall St. Journal's comment that 'BPA is everywhere in our lives'. It was this frightening fact which inspired us to write the book."
Bruce and I issued the following response late yesterday:
"The Wall St. Journal insults the intelligence of concerned parents and scientists who know it is dangerous for children's health to use products such as baby bottles and sippy cups made from plastic containing BPA. Hundreds of recent studies have linked BPA to human ailments as varied as prostate and breast cancer and heart disease. In our tests, documented in the book, our BPA levels rose 7.5 times over 48 hours after eating and drinking from microwaveable BPA plastic containers. The chemical reached levels in our urine that many recent studies have found to have a biological effect. And infants, who are often exposed to BPA leaching from both the plastic in their baby bottles and the lining of infant formula cans, have far greater exposure to chemicals relative to their body weight and nutritional intake.
The Wall St. Journal is putting powerful vested interests above children's safety on toxic chemical issues. Its editorial rejects the basic purpose of scientific research saying 'Environmentalists hope that if researchers run more tests, they'll come up with more links...Thus, they ask for tests unto eternity.' In fact, it was the lack of studies that prompted us to use ourselves as lab rats. Our families would have certainly preferred it if studies had been conducted in modern laboratories, instead of us pioneering them in our homes.
We welcome the opportunity for dialogue and invite the Wall St. Journal editors and any of their friends in the chemical industry to have an honest on-air discussion about the safety of these chemicals for our children. We will even offer them a chair on stage throughout our book tour.
We agree, however, with the Wall St. Journal's comment that 'BPA is everywhere in our lives'. It was this frightening fact which inspired us to write the book."
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Take Metal Jewelry Away From Children Who Will Swallow, Suck or Chew On It
Yesterday, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Chairman Inez Tenenbaum advised parents to take metal jewelry away from “children who will swallow, suck or chew on it” and that parents should “not allow young children to be given or to play with cheap metal jewelry, especially when they are unsupervised”.
This guidance follows a very recent Associated Press investigation showing cadmium in a piece of children’s jewelry at 91% its weight and in some other pieces of children’s jewelry at more than 80% their weight. You can also read about the story on the CBC.
Cadmium is a heavy metal known to cause lung and prostate cancer. It is also toxic to the gastrointestinal tract, the kidneys, and the respiratory, cardiovascular, and hormonal systems. Unfortunately for parents, there is no easy way to tell whether something contains harmful levels of cadmium or other hazardous metals such a lead. For this reason, watch for recalls listed on the U.S. CPSC website and the Health Canada website.
Click here to read the U.S. CPSC guidance directly.
Janelle WitzelToxic Nation Coordinator
Rubber Duck is US-Bound
As Bruce Lourie and I get ready to launch Slow Death by Rubber Duck in the United States next week, so far so good! The review in last weekend's Washington Post was great and the chemical industry's flunkies are already frothing at the mouth about it.
We'll be in New York City on Jan. 19th talking to Time Magazine and in Washington DC on January 20th appearing on the Diane Rehm Show (on NPR). "O" Magazine has a book review that should be out any day and we did a pre-taped interview with the Dr. Oz show this week. Our first US launch event will be in DC at Busboys and Poets on Wednesday, Jan. 20th, from 6:30-8:00PM, at their 14th St. location. Come on out if you're in the neighbourhood.
And if you have any friends or acquaintances or long-lost cousins in the DC area, by all means let them know we'd love to see them! I'll keep you posted as our US-wanderings develop. We won't rest until Leno or Conan or both (!) have succumbed to the Duck.
We'll be in New York City on Jan. 19th talking to Time Magazine and in Washington DC on January 20th appearing on the Diane Rehm Show (on NPR). "O" Magazine has a book review that should be out any day and we did a pre-taped interview with the Dr. Oz show this week. Our first US launch event will be in DC at Busboys and Poets on Wednesday, Jan. 20th, from 6:30-8:00PM, at their 14th St. location. Come on out if you're in the neighbourhood.
And if you have any friends or acquaintances or long-lost cousins in the DC area, by all means let them know we'd love to see them! I'll keep you posted as our US-wanderings develop. We won't rest until Leno or Conan or both (!) have succumbed to the Duck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
