Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

The anti-plastic backlash

TRALEE PEARCE

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:13 AM EDT 23/05/08

Concerns about toxins are bringing glass jars back into style ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Montgomery C. Burns from Springfield, Canada writes: Why isn't Nalgene allowing its customers to exchange their water bottles containing BPA to ones that don't? Seems like that would be the responsible thing for a manufacturer to do.
  2. Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: The article says 'Bottles labelled number 7 or 3 may leach BPA, while those marked with number 5, 4 and 2 seem safer.' Comments like that result from ignorance of what plastics are and how they're made (5, 4 and 2 are polyethylenes / polypropylenes and are a completely different type of material -- no BPA). I understand the health concerns with plastics, but assuming that all plastics have BPA in them is a weird form of 'chemophobia' that borders on hysteria. It's like leaving your entire house unpainted because some paint contains lead.
  3. K. M. from Toronto, Canada writes: Why does this article read like an ad for LifeWithoutPlastic/Klean Kanteen products? There ARE other viable BPA-free alternatives so why do all the 'going plastic-free' options offered by this article direct the reader to the websites of LifeWithoutPlastic or Klean Kanteen?
  4. Robert Wager from Canada writes: Chemophobia is rapidly pushing the affluent western world back 100 years. To suggest all plastics are dangerous is as valid as saying we can feed the world without pesticides. Both are false.

    With all the fear marketing today people seem to have lost sight of the fact we live longer today than ever before, cancer rates are dropping with few exceptions(lung cancer in women for example). These two facts argue that all is not so bad and the vast majority of chemicals are not harmful. Oh and what is inorganic food?
  5. Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes: I don't know about Nalgene, but I think a return to glass bottling would be a good idea in general. It would certainly cut down on the amount of plastic soft drink bottles out there.
  6. Ralph Shiell from Canada writes: Politicians, public servants, teachers and reporters - please note: The word safe is relative only, like the word tall - a building can only be taller and/or safer than another. There can be no such thing as a a safe bottle or a safe airplane, or a safe car. Not when all possible circumstances are considered. In our efforts to completely avoid all risks we cause unwarranted anxiety that has serious consequences for both our health and our enjoyment of life. What we should do instead is make judicious choices based on well-estimated (and realistic) probabilities.
  7. GRAEME BLAIR from Canada writes: Sounds good to me. Now point me to the milk in glass bottles at the grocery store.
  8. n m from Canada writes: GRAEME BLAIR, you don't mention where you are, but in Ontario you can purchase Harmony milk in glass jars. There are other brands in other places, easily found by those who make a small effort.

    If you freeze mason jars, make sure you buy some that are marked as being safe for freezing, unless you don't mind risking a few cracked ones. I'd be a little leery of canning with those jars afterward in case they were weakened. Something to look into with the canning safety people, anyway.
  9. Jacques Shellac from Montreal, Canada writes: It's not surprising that people are confused by the jargon, not everyone has a chemistry degree (I do, although my use of organic chemistry ended about 25 years ago for the most part, so I don't count myself as an expert). That said, I am able to make informed decisions and to read between the lines of these chemical issues.

    I have switched to glass baby bottles, and dumped most of the polycarbonate bottles from my cupboards until the issue is resolved. My last remaining polycarbonate container is my Britta water filter container. There is reason to be concerned about PCA containers that are being heated. And I am pretty angry that this information was suppressed for so long. I am sure that the manufacturers of polycarbonate plastics were well aware of the high levels of BPA in containers that were heated.

    There is no reason to dump one's polypropylene containers, but I still wouldn't recommend putting hot food in them, nor microwaving, etc. Suggesting that we dump all polypropylene drink containers may be short sighted since glass is much heavier and more expensive to transport than plastic, just as there is an argument to be made for getting rid of aluminum drink containers because of their high energy costs for recycling and production. A energy consumption life-cycle analysis is necessary to make that decision.
  10. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thanks Joe Smith. Nice to hear some factual info rather than fearmongering.
  11. shawn fraser from Canada writes: Why does the Glode refuse to interview a credible independent scientist about this? This is a classic health scare with no grounding in science. This is right up there with the aspartame health scare.
  12. J Albert from Toronto, Canada writes: One stray shard of glass in your milk bottle and you could die.
  13. i. ignatius from Mount Pleasant, Canada writes: i heard on 680News that apparently 'rubber duckies' MAY contain BPA and that some people are afraid of what that does to their wee ones in the bathtub.

    hysteria gone hysterical!
  14. Peter The Not Quite Great from Edmonton, Canada writes: People aren't using their microwaves because they don't want to heat food in plastic? That doesn't make any sense!

    Why not heat the food in a casserole dish or on a plate or in a bowl instead? Just because the food is in a certain container that doesn't mean you have to heat it in that container.

    I don't like using plastic if I can help it because of all the plastic in the garbage that will never break down. There are huge masses of tiny plastic particles floating in our oceans and entering the fish we eat. So I try to reduce my use of plastic but that certainly doesn't mean I'm giving up my microwave.
  15. B Lam from Canada writes: Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: The article says 'Bottles labelled number 7 or 3 may leach BPA, while those marked with number 5, 4 and 2 seem safer.' Comments like that result from ignorance of what plastics are and how they're made (5, 4 and 2 are polyethylenes / polypropylenes and are a completely different type of material -- no BPA).

    ________________________________________

    I don't quite understand your comments. Are 5, 4 and 2 types plastic containers safe or not?
  16. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: I never understood replacing a durable, reusable, recyclable glass container with plastic in the first place. Geez, when I was a kid I used to collect pop bottles to make money for candy. Now, plastic bottles litter the city and kids aren't allowed to touch them 'cause they're dirty. Hopefully we'll see the return of glass bottles and a deposit on bottles - heck, the beer store sees 80% recycling due to the deposit on bottles and cans.
  17. h k from Canada writes: A bit unrelated... but why don't the Ontario wineries (especially those with large retail store chains - Vincor's The Wine Rack and Andres/Peller's Vineyards stores) accept returns of their glass bottles for them to be sterilized and re-filled? In the three R's re-use comes before recycle! Re-use would certainly be better for the environment than for these bottles to be crushed up and manufactured into something else! I understand that the bottles for imported wines can't be returned to their place of origin, but that doesn't apply for local wines!
  18. Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: B Lam, 5, 4 and 2 are polyethylene or polypropylene and neither bisphenol A nor anything like it are used in their manufacture. There is no way they can leach Bisphenol A into food, but the article implies that there is some doubt about this!
  19. Jeff C from Canada writes: Peter The Not Quite Great from Edmonton - exactly what I was thinking. Even if I keep leftovers in plastic containers I just put the leftovers on a plate to heat them. Makes sense to me, although I always did it cause I hated it when lids would warp!
  20. Nickstar One from Canada writes: '....In our efforts to completely avoid all risks we cause unwarranted anxiety that has serious consequences for both our health and our enjoyment of life. What we should do instead is make judicious choices based on well-estimated (and realistic) probabilities....'
    All well and good except for the fact that we are living in the era of the 'nanny' state encompassing village, town, and city council all the way up to the Feds. Why do you suppose we have these offshoots of Health Ministers like Ministers of Health Promotion and their attendent 'cottage industry' ensconced within Health Units. Like good little shepherds they want their herds of sheep to be completely 'risk free' from the big, bad, salivating wolves out there.
    Pineing for choice, common sense, genuine fairness, and rationale and reasonable compromise has no place at all in the 'nanny state'.
  21. William J Gillies from Canada writes: Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: 'There is no way they can leach Bisphenol A into food, but the article implies that there is some doubt about this!'

    I read it as meaning there may be other dangers, but no BPA.
  22. Eric Hunter from Kingsville, Canada writes: In other words.. the media did a pretty good job creating PANIC!
  23. Brian Rowbotham from Manitoba, Canada writes: I recall a previous scare about lead leaching from some varieties of glass. Also another scare about aluminum from aluminum containers causing health problems.

    Does anyone consider the relative risks of various leachates, or is only the most recent scare considered important ? To in turn be forgotten when a new one comes along?
  24. Denis R. from Belle River, Canada writes: Just came back from the mall and watch the numerous morbidly obese people walk by and all I could think is... I hope they don't keep their chips, snacks and candy bars in plastic containers or wrap leftover burgers in plastic wrap. It could be dangerous to their health!

    There are way bigger elephants in the room. Lets not get hysterical, especially without scientific proof harm may/has caused harm.
  25. Busy Mom from Parry Sound, Canada writes: Ugh, I'm the worstest, rottenest Mom in the world. Everything my kids consumed for the first 5 years of their lives was in or on plastic (other than the breastmilk which was probably poisened with the other 10 000 toxins I ingested). Big exhale. Nice to know that it's my fault for dooming them to a cancerous life of misery.

    I think I have to quit reading the news so I can go back to my oblivious but almost happy little life. The doom and gloom reports are giving me heart disease.
  26. The Globing Male from Beantown, United States writes: Glad I don't live in Canada anymore...you're leading the march - backwards - to the eightenth century.
    Do you really think that by not sucking water out of one of these bottles, that you'll extend your miserable lives by even one second?
    Politically correct sheeple....
  27. Kay Ay from Canada writes: If you aren't heating the food in the plastic container why are they dangerous?
    I've been reading all these articles and originally the heating of the containers was the problem.
    There is little to no chance I will be sending my 5 yr old to school with glass containers in her lunch. We have enough issues from the sheer weight of the backpack she already has to carry to potential breakage issues...you can't really eat food with glass shards in it.
    But as mentioned we don't send hot meals to school...so why is it necessary to toss all the convenient plastic snack containers?

    Sure I'll make sure we heat things in glass from now on (in the microwave) but it's not a danger to freeze in plastic either (from what I've been reading) so what exactly is going on here? Has common sense gone out the window?
  28. CD W from Canada writes: What are all of the hippie moms going to do? There is nothing left to feminize their sons with except for soy juice, and leather craft class.
  29. aniphylactic shock troops from Victoria, Canada writes: Anybody tried microwaving a glass drink lately? The liquid is cold, the glass is too hot to handle. Scalding risk. Breakage risk.
  30. lotusland maritimer from Canada writes: Get rid of your FFFF ng microwave for starters. To me if my wife got oine that would be a worse cause for immediate divorce than ... you know what.
    I was driving up Chippewa road and saw a washout with what looked like clay just like decades ago on Thessalon River. I got a bucketful and am now waiting for inspiration as to how to make amphorae and teapots as the ones I have are probably made in China glazed with Pb ie containing lead. I try to avoid Pb lead Hg mercury and As arsenic and of course cela va sans dire all plastics.
    Decades ago I have stopped eating apples my favourite food up to that time due to the Alar scare.
    I am thrilled that Canadians are voting with their pocketbooks and destroyimg the chemical plastics industry.
    Now if I could get a read on clay and glazes thereof and learn how to make amphorae and teapots with only silica and other non toxic earth materials.
    Terra cotta anyone?
    What 18th Cy I am going back to ancient Greece and Rome.
  31. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Let's all remember that plastic is an OIL based product too. Don' t like the price of oil - reduce your plastic and you'll reduce your oil consumption. Something to think about...
  32. Bill Garrison from Tuttle, Oklahoma, United States writes: If you are old enough, you can remember when ALL soft drink and beer bottles were packaged in glass containers that the bottlers recycled and used over and over. They were scalded clean by the bottlers for that recycling. It made sense then, and makes even more sence today.
    Since glass is chemically inert, you would not have to worry about the packaging flavoring your Pepsi or Molson's.
    This is not a new idea, obviously, but one worth considering.
    The downside? You do have to keep track of them in order to get your deposit back at the supermarket. (You get nothing back from plastic bottles except full landfills and worry about how much of the plastic is leaching into your drink).
  33. Al MacDonald from Think GR$$N, Canada writes: It's not only that carcinogenic chemicals used in plastics, such as bisphenol A, leech into the food or beverage they contain, but once these thalates and other toxins hit our landfills, some actually breakdown further as they degrade into things called metabolites. Metabolites are 100 times more carcinogenic and end up in our drinking water.
  34. Mark H from Indy, United States writes: 'Tiu Leek from T.O, Canada writes: I don't know about Nalgene, but I think a return to glass bottling would be a good idea in general. It would certainly cut down on the amount of plastic soft drink bottles out there. '

    And increase the amount of glass bottles out there - which are more difficult to produce and recycle. How is that going to help anything?

    If you're not microwaving your nalgene or pouring boiling water into it 50 times daily, you shouldn't be too concerned. Fear sells - that company that makes stainless steel bottles has seen their sales skyrocket in recent months. Stores around here can't keep the things on the shelves.
  35. Mike G from Canada writes: The switch to plastics in our society wasn't for the benefit of consumers, it was for the financial gain of manufacturers. No more bottle recycling programs means that the cost of reclaiming old bottles was transferred from the manufacturer to the municipalities which now have to recycle this plastic waste.
    Manufacturers save money shipping plasic bottled goods instead of glass which weighs significantly more. I didn't ask for this and neither did you. Put the ownership back where it belongs. Make the manufacturers accountable again.
  36. Sarah Bee from Canada writes: Nice post, Mike G.
  37. M V from Toronto, writes: Mark H:

    'And increase the amount of glass bottles out there - which are more difficult to produce and recycle. How is that going to help anything?'

    Sorry, Mark H, but glass bottles are neither more difficult to produce nor more difficult to recyle than plastic containers.

    When the equation includes the energy used to synthesize the plastic resin, making plastic containers uses as much energy as making glass containers from virgin materials, and much more than making glass containers from recycled materials.

    Using refillables is the most energy conservative.
  38. Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: Al MacDonald, honestly, your post is pure chemophobia and betrays an ignorance of what metabolism is. What you said about poisoning by metabolites is akin to saying 'boiling water in a pot produces something called a gas, which can escape and cause severe burns.'

    The concern with plastic containers is when food is heated in them (especially polycarbonate containers made using BPA as a monomer). Under ordinary conditions, plastics are very stable. Polypropylene and polyethylene are chemically almost completely inert, which is why they are used for medical devices, non-dissolving sutures, etc.

    The stability of plastics does make them a waste-management nightmare, which is why I'm all for the reduce-reuse-recycle model (in that order) and the move toward a reduction in packaging and promoting the reuse of food containers. But saying that plastics will kill you is chemophobia pure and simple, and glosses over more serious (and proven) health risks such as obesity and (especially) smoking and second-hand smoke.
  39. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: Robert Wager from Canada writes: 'Chemophobia is rapidly pushing the affluent western world back 100 years. To suggest all plastics are dangerous is as valid as saying we can feed the world without pesticides. Both are false.' ---- All plastics outgass chemicals. The level of toxicity differs between one form of plastic and another. With most plastics, a toxicity level has not been established. This does not mean that a toxicity level does not exist. As far as feeding the world without pesticides, the world is overpopulated. It is already impossible to feed the world. Pesticides pollute ground water and do permanent harm to the environment. In parts per trillion, they are harmful to humans and animals. There is ample research concerning the harm of pesticides and herbicides to people living in farming areas. Asthma, cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity are illnesses found in high numbers in areas where there is constant use of herbicides and pesticides. I think we have to take a step back. We are causing harm to the environment that cannot be undone. When you can't drink the water, and you can't breathe the air, it's over.
  40. Imperial K from Toronto, Canada writes: Plastic was good because it was shatterproof, but more importantly it's become cheaper than glass...and as always...the cheapest most dangerous route wins!

    Thankfully glass is coming back, and why not?

    Even with the small chances of cuts etc., big deal...you'll live.
  41. Imperial K from Toronto, Canada writes: And I may not be 100% here, but don't all plastics include oil in some form or another?

    In this day and age, there is no need of a product that actually needs oil included in it's make up..not when oil is so expensive.

    They plastic was pushed because it was cheap...no bones about it.

    Listen, if we didn't watch business like hawks, they'd server you asbestos cups lined with lead...if it was free or cheap. Tongue in cheek of course, but I never leave my health in the hands of someone who just wants to sell something, they don't have my best interests in mind.
  42. John Fedup from Canada writes: Here's a quick summary:

    1. Microwaving any plastic is very questionable.
    2. Plastic ware has its place for some applications but there really is too much of this $hit being dumped around the world.
    3. Glass refillables are best, especially for beer and pop. Ontario's Beer Stores are an excellent example for returnable/refillable bottles. Real caps would be even better
    4. Mason jars stll are a pretty good way to package a product.
  43. Mr. Coffee from Victoria, Canada writes: I'll all for bringing Coca Cola back in those greenish bottles still found in many countries outside of Canada & the USA. It tastes better, anyway.

    As for banning all plastics, get real people. It ain't gonna happen any more than the suits who said we'd have a paperless society and a three day work week.
  44. John Fedup from Canada writes: Mr. Coffee from Victoria, Canada writes: I'll all for bringing Coca Cola back in those greenish bottles still found in many countries outside of Canada & the USA. It tastes better, anyway.

    Absolutely correct!! In addition, the old green coke glass bottle was about 6.5 oz which is just enough for a kid.
  45. John Purvis from Toronto, Canada writes: Plastics are made from Petroleum. Many plastics aren't recycled. In the United States only 1% of plastic bags are recycled. Some plastics are cost efficient to recycle. Recycling takes energy. Now consider the price of petroleum and the cost and energy used to recycle plastics. Add to this the health risk in using plastics. The scientific community tells that plastics not containing BPA is safe. For how many years were the public using plastic containing BPA? How long did it take the scientists to discover that BPA wasn't safe in plastic? What will be next?

    Some of us over 30 grew up with glass bottles, & glass baby bottles. We didn't have microwaves and we didn't package food in plastic. Glass is made from water and sand. Renewal materials that won't take a 1000 years to biodegrade in a land fill, neither will it leak toxic chemicals into the earth and glass is recyclable. If everyone used glass rather than plastic it would help reduce the cost of petroleum.

    The key with glass is to make a strong, good quality glass that is hard to break. We couldn't trust China with glass production. It should be made in a developed nation with standards.
  46. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: Dawn from Minnesota writes: "Asthma, cancer, and multiple chemical sensitivity are illnesses found in high numbers in areas where there is constant use of herbicides and pesticides."

    What nonsense. There is NO scientific evidence that exposure to pesticides at regular doses on food or in our environment contribute to any of the things you mentioned. Actually, living in a clean sterile environment HAS been shown scientifically to contribute to asthma and allergic sensitivities. Google "hygiene hypothesis". 95 % of cancers are caused by genetic background, smoking, poor diet and too much sun and not by pesticides. As Joe Smith rightly points out, this whole BPA chemophobia is simple fear mongering by people who have other agendas and scientific facts mean nothing to them. There are more carcinogens in your daily coffee then anything you expose yourself to by microwaving plastics. So enjoy life people and stop worrying about things that have NO effect on your health.
  47. John Fedup from Canada writes: Maybe you should ask a farmer how he or she feels about being exposed to Ag-chemicals. Thousands of new organic chemicals are created every year. The toxicity testing for these compounds is minimal and even less so for how these compounds react in the presence of other compounds. Another example of "better living through chemistry" is the problem of pharmaceuticals being dumped down the drain. Female fish with dicks is one thing but I don't like progression prospects to higher life-forms.
  48. aging oldtool from Canada writes: Interesting that some find concerns about plastic reaching levels deemed paranoic.

    Too bad Health Canada and other federal agencies with scientists, who might actually come up with the truth about these oil byproducts, are, in effect, under an ongoing gag order about virtually anything Stephen Harpers fears may undermine his popularity.

    Sad, but Canadians opted to elect a paranoid government and now most of us, who have only the media to rely on for the facts, are freaking out over the claims and counter claims.

    There could be dozens of well qualified federal scientists more than willing to help educate Canadians, but if anything they say doesn't get passed Harper's information censors, we'll have to rely on the foxes to do the chicken count.

    Perhaps a shortterm solution might be a federal election. It might not stop the poisoning immediately but we'd at least have a sense of how poisoned we are.

    Can you imagine a country that subsidizes an industry which is creating a poisoned environment for the tax payers?

  49. John Fedup from Canada writes: aging oldtool from Canada writes: Interesting that some find concerns about plastic reaching levels deemed paranoic.

    Too bad Health Canada and other federal agencies with scientists

    This problem existed before Harper became PM. Just ask the scientists if the liberals were any better.
  50. Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: I agree with much of what John Purvis says, but it's incorrect to imply that glass is biodegradable -- it is not. I can guarantee you that an empty beer bottle tossed into a dump will not have even remotely degraded back to sand by the time its plastic dump-mates have photodegraded or cracked into small bits.

    An additional point to note about glass is its weight -- glass containers weigh a lot more than plastic containers, and thus use more fuel to transport, creating more CO2 emissions and more airborne pollution. The trade-off is that glass can easily be re-used or recylced without degrading its quality (unlike paper or most plastics). This is a major plus, from a waste-management perspective.

    It's been known for a while that BPA is biologically active, but there wasn't much concern about polycarbonates made from it because no BPA could be found in leachates from these plastics. As analytical techniques have improved, we're now able to find all kinds of substances in water, soil, bodily fluids, etc. that we couldn't see before. Just because we can see them doesn't mean that they're harmful at those concentrations (part of the reason why the stunt about analyzing "chemicals" in the Prime Minister's blood is so misleading).

    The principal issues with BPA are that it interacts with the estrogen receptor at low concentrations, that it leaches out of bottles when they are in contact with hot liquids, and that the primary use of these bottles is for infants. Not using polycarbonate for hot liquids goes a long way to reducing the risk of exposure to BPA.

    I do chemistry research for a living (with an emphasis on environmentally benign chemistry) so I guess my background pre-disposes me to be skeptical and to react harshly both to quackery and to ignorance masquerading as expertise.
  51. Joe Smith from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't see the plastics issue as a political one at all. As much as I am not a fan of Stephen Harper, it's ultimately HIS government that has taken action on toxicologically questionable substances. And I can assure you that there are plenty of scientists outside of government, all over the world, who have studied BPA toxicity for years without political interference.
  52. John Fedup from Canada writes: Joe Smith from Toronto...perhaps glass doesn't degrade to sand as fast as some plastics degrade but after a few years a broken piece of glass becomes a glass pebble and is insert as well as harmless.

    As a chemist you are aware of the huge number of new organic compounds created each year. I am more concerned about these compounds than I am about plastics. Plastics may be a longterm health problem but they are more of an "ugly mess" problem in my view.
  53. Robert Wager from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Health Canada has once again after a re-evaluation found 2,4,D safe to use as directed.

    http://www.pmra-arla.gc.ca/english/pdf/infonotes/InfoNote-2,4-D-
    rvd2008-11-eng.pdf
  54. Robert Wager from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Oh and one more point. Dawn from Minniapolis states farmers are getting cancer from the pesticides and herbicides they use. In fact farmers have statistically fewer cancers than the average Joe Public. Therefore the notion (not fact) is false.
  55. L Harder from Canada writes: I heard an interview with a water quality expert a long time ago about the leachates that accumulate in water stored in plastic containers. The longer something is stored and the warmer the conditions, the worse it is. Tap water (Canada) she said was much better for you. I never did start drinking bottled water regularly and have tended to not use plastic when possible.

    I use glass and stainless steel. I have a couple plastic water bottles around that I fill with tap water, just before I use them. Left over water is dumped out before the next use.
  56. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Robert Wager: Your "observation" about the cancer rate in farmers is not supported by the statistics. As for 2,4-D being "safe" that also isn't necessarily true. The acute lethal toxicity may be relatively low, but that doesn't say anything about chronic low-level exposure. Which hasn't really been studied. Nor have the reproductive or developmental effects of chronic. low-level exposure been studied. And the question of whether or not 2,4-D has epigenic effects, as opposed to mutagentic, carcinogenic or teratogenic effects been looked into. A few years ago, I read a study that looked at the levels of 2,4-D in the semen of farmers that used a lot of it and were therefore continuously exposed to high levels. Amounts as high as 800 ppm were found in the semen of these farmers and the average level was several hundred ppm. The "acceptable" level of 2,4-D in drinking water is in the low ppb range. Note that 1 ppm is 1,000 ppb. The levels of 2,4-D found in the farmer's semen would have made that semen, legally speaking, hazardous waste. And nobody has looked at the reproductive effects of such levels of a suspected carcinogen and endocrine disruptor in human semen. But the most important question is this: How does 2,4-D end up bio-concentrated at these levels in human semen? Oh yeah, Health Canada is also responsible for approving new drugs as "safe". There have been several scandals over the last 5 years or so related to the trivial fact that senior management has not only attempted to muzzle senior scientists for questioning the approval of selected pharmaceuticals, but has gone so far as to fire the most ethical and professionally competent critics of these fast-track approvals. Some of which drugs have subsequently been recalled due to "negative health effects". See Vioxx for example. Now, why were the political appointees so keen to muzzle the professionals? It wouldn't have anything to do with political campaign contributions to assorted politicians, would it?
  57. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Robert Wager; Who do you work for? And how much are you getting paid to spread disinformation?
  58. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ Ralph Shiell: Well, risk is relative. As are costs. The real question is this: have the long-term risks and costs been correctly assesed, evaluated and determined? In the context of BPA, the assessment has NOT been done at all. Keeping in mind that BPA has been a known oestrogen analogue since the 1930s and that the consequences of the use of DES (which supplanted BPA for "medical" use) are also known, the use of BPA-based polycarbonates *should* have been questioned a long time ago. Espercially in the context of what "medicinal" use of BPS was being assessed back then. Especially given the following details. First, that the polymerization bonds of BPA to form polycarbonate plastics are weak and subject to hydrolysis even under "mild" conditions. Second, that the contractor that the EPA hired to do the initial safety studies - only for adults, mind you - was a wholly owned subsidiary lobby group of the US plastics industry. Including the principal manufacturer of BPA. Can you say "OOOPPS", boys and girls? And that the exposure levels that are considered "safe" were NOT reviewed after the EPA learned about this carefully concealed connection of the prime safety study contractor to the plastics manufacturers? Third, that recent studies are showing that exposure levels far below the current "safe" levels are showing negative effects. Including "enhancing" the growth of breast cancer cells? And that the most recent reproductive impact studies are showing serious negative impacts on adult health? As in: a tendency to obesity. Can you say Type 2, adult onset, diabetes? Your studies and experience are impressive, at first blush. But your failure to address the issues I have raised appears to indicate that you are employed by the plastics manufaturers and have a bias in favour of them. I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not.
  59. andre michaels from Leamington, Canada writes: To Orest Zarowsky: Can you please explain to me that since 99.9% of all the carcinogens that we take into our bodies every day are natural products, why aren't we dropping like flies? Why is our lifespan increasing and not decreasing? These TRACE levels of BPA, etc are not having any effect. Period. The EU commissioned a study years ago and came to the same conclusion. You mention enhancing the growth of breast cancer cells. That means nothing. These experiments were done in vitro with cells growing in a dish. You can put 1000's of compounds on these cells and see an effect. Why? Because there are no liver cells detoxifying the compounds! That is why these studies are so meaningless. Animal studies with ridiculously high levels of BPA show some minor effects but human exposure is found at 1000X lower levels. At those levels there are no effects in mice. Read the science and then post something that makes sense.
  60. Robert Wager from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Farmers have lower rates of cancer than the average person. Its a fact. I work at a university and do not spread "disinformation".

    If one goes to the link about the Health Canada news story they can see the EPA in the US and the European environmental agencies came to the same safe conclusion about 2,4,D.

    Please show me data to back up your claim I am misleading anyone.
  61. Robert Wager from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Farmers and cancer.
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/agricultural-health-study
  62. Robert Wager from Nanaimo, Canada writes: Seems my memory is not as good as it once was. The link does say farmers have overall lower cancer rates but it also states certain types of cancer and disease are elevated in agricultural workers. I do not want to mislead anyone.
  63. Marieke Rummens from Calgary, Canada writes: At the end of the article, it mentions cedar bowls as an alternative to plastics. "Cedar bowls These items are coated with a natural substance called urushi that renders them water-resistant, acid-resistant and heat-resistant." First, no wood is heat resistant. Second, I've heard of plenty of cedar siding workmen with wicked acquired allergies to cedar, then I hear that the cedar tree manufactures its own insect repellent, yum yum. Why bother? Plenty of lightweight and near-unbreakable ceramics out there. I agree with other posters that this is a poor place to be flogging specific brand names of replacement products.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top