CTV News | Major retailers pull bottles containing bisphenol A

Health -   

Major retailers pull bottles containing bisphenol A

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Roger Smith looks at the dangers of BPA
CTV Toronto: Monica Matys has the details
CTV Edmonton: Marni Kuhlmann on how to avoid exposure
Canada AM: Aaron Freeman, Environmental Def.

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(43)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Tue. Apr. 15 2008 9:43 PM ET

Major retailers including the Hudson's Bay Company announced Tuesday they're pulling products containing bisphenol A from their shelves, ahead of a possible announcement from Health Canada that the chemical is "dangerous."

Health Canada has not confirmed whether it will make such an announcement, but a report in The Globe and Mail claims the agency could make a decision on the chemical's safety as early as Wednesday.

Hudson's Bay, which includes both the Bay and Zellers stores, announced it will no longer sell products like baby bottles that contain bisphenol A.

Canadian Tire Corporation has said it will do the same, along with Forzani Group, which operates Sport Chek, Athlete's World and Coast Mountain Sports.

Other major retailers like Lululemon Athletica and Mountain Equipment Co-op had already removed the products.

Health Canada spokesman Paul Duchesne confirmed to CTV.ca that bisphenol A is being reviewed by the federal government's Chemicals Management Plan, which, among other mandates, is reviewing chemicals that have been identified as possible hazards to both humans and the environment.

He said that, according to a timetable set for the investigation into potentially hazardous chemicals, an announcement about the findings for bisphenol A was not scheduled to occur until either late spring or mid summer, depending on what the investigation finds.

If researchers don't like what they find out about bisphenol A, it could pave the way for it to be labelled as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

This would lead to strict regulations governing the chemical's use.

Bisphenol A, or BPA as it's commonly known, is a synthetic chemical that is the main component in polycarbonate, the common, shatter-proof plastic that is used in food and drink containers. It is also used in everyday household items, from CDs to electronic products to baby bottles.

According to The Globe, Health Canada would be the first government agency from anywhere in the world to attempt to regulate BPA.

"I think if the government proceeds that's certainly a very important development and I think it would be an international precedent," Aaron Freeman, a policy director at Environmental Defence, told CTV's Canada AM. "

"This would place Canada as the first country to regulate bisphenol A. So it would really be a huge step in protecting human health from what we're seeing is a very risky, toxic chemical."

The move comes on the heels of growing public concern about the chemical's health risks. American studies have shown that most people test positive for trace amounts of BPA, which mimics the hormone estrogen.

Environmental Defence, an environmental advocacy group, has lobbied for the regulation of bisphenol A. Freeman said that the chemical has been linked to a variety of health problems.

"There are over 150 peer-reviewed studies that show that bisphenol A is linked to breast cancer, to attention deficit disorder, to obesity and a whole host of developmental problems," Freeman said.

"And what that means is because it's an endocrine disruptor, it interferes with the natural developmental processes in the human body."

The chemical can leach out of food containers when they are heated or put in the dishwasher.

In the meantime, Freeman said that consumers can take some steps to avoid bisphenol A.

Consumers can opt for baby bottles that don't contain bisphenol A, including glass bottles. And there are plenty of metal water bottles, including stainless-steel versions, on the market.

Comments are now closed for this story

Rene
said

About time.


Concerned parent
said

Finally Health Canada is leading the way. Maybe late but it shows the seriousness of this chemical.


Doug Cottrell
said

This could be huge. The whole plastic bottle/soft drink/health drink industry is at risk. It may force the industry back to reusable glass bottles. If it can be shown that the companies knew (and they did) that a carcinogyn and defect causing chemical was leaching into soft drinks, and water, and baby milk, and canned foods - and let it keep going on and on, there could be a huge legal impact.


Eileen25
said

Is this the same material that lines the insides of some food cans?


John
said

Companies have a common tendancy to rush a product to market without thoroughly analyzing the quality of their product. The government should ask to see thorough documentation of lab analyses PROVING the product is safe WHEN USED AS DIRECTED.


Ann
said

Now we know it is dangerous for sure let's not wait for the government...just don't use any plastic container made with BPA..if we don't use it they wont make it. Period


PBW
said

I have for years decried the move away from re-usable glass bottles.

Glass is now, and was, eminently recyclable. Given the improvement in optical inspection machines since the 1960's, we should no longer see glass bottles exploding because of a minor bump, as weak bottles would be more easily removed from production lines.

Let's face it, the move to plastic was simply because it was "more convenient", ie, more convenient for the manufacturers, as they no longer had to be concerned about bottle returns, sterilization etc. In other words, it was a way of boosting the bottom line.

Canadians should look at the history books and find out how those in occupied Europe reduced, re-used and recycled during the Second World War. There are many examples that could be used to reduce our dependency on single-use items like polycarbonate water bottles. Who needs bottled water anyway? In most cases it is municipal water that has had impurities and the bacteria-fighting chlorine - removed and then sold at ridiculously high prices. Even the old saw about "eight eight ounce glasses per day" no longer seems to be true.

Kudos to the government for seeing the problem and acting on it. My only concern is that the sixty days will be taken up with manufacturers buying votes from MP's and civil servants in an effort to keep a known carcinogen in the food chain.


Sue Comstock
said

Under what condition are any of these containers and bottles safe to use ? How safe are infant bottles and sippy cups to use if sterilized or washed in dishwashers?


Stephanie
said

I for one am putting my name on the first class-action suit I see on this. Baby bottles, breast pumps, sippy cups — I can't count the number of times I've disinfected them by boiling, as per instruction. All that time I was wondering about potential adverse effects, and all that time the plastic companies said they're safe.


KTG
said

Hi Eileen25 - yes, bpa is found in the liners of many canned foods, drink concentrates, and many other grocery store products. It's recyclable #7.

I find Canada's parental approach to our health and safety extremely patronizing, and I believe it puts our health at greater risk. I would certainly appreciate the regulation of bpa, but think it is unfortunate that Canada doesn't give it's citizens the information they need and deserve to make their own informed choices. We are kept in the dark rather than communicated to like adults. Most Canadians understand probability and can compute the risks, and then decide if they are worth it. Bungee jumping is still a sport, after all. These findings on bpa aren't suddenly 'new' - this information has been around for many years, but only recently picked up by the mainstream. Now paternal Canada thinks everyone would be a little bit safer if bpa was regulated?? Sure! You bet it'll make Health Canada look progressive! And guaranteeeeed they will permit some level of tolerance. There are so many other chemicals like bpa that Canadian regulators feel are not 'worth' mentioning or regulating, or only regulate 'optimally' (read: most benefits with least deaths). But you just can't regulate all the hazards out there - it wouldn't be safe to leave the house and it wouldn't be safe to sit there either! If 'new' information or public outcry is the only way Canada will take affirmative action or openly discuss a hazardous product, then I believe to wait for the regulators decisions will be putting our health in jeopardy. We can't expect full disclosure, and we can't expect 100% compliance. Canadians need to be proactive, do their research, and pressure the government to make information about hazardous products common knowledge - more available and accessible. Really, all it takes is a label, and all you have to do is read it. The governments responsibility is to let its' people know, not to live our lives and make our decisions for us!
(and I am in support of these regulations, it's just the principle of the thing...)


Jon
said

Eileen25: Yes, I believe it is the same material.


Anubis114
said

From what I understand any plastic not marked as 'Foofdsafe' should not be used for food. period.
Water bottles, pop bottles, tupperware, etc is not food safe! When anything hot is put in them, or they are heated up, say in a microwave, then the toxins leech out into the food/drink.
This is long overdue.


Seter Povern
said

Should chemicals not be considered dangerous until proven safe ?

Rather than what we are doing today...

But Hurray for health Canada, it only took them 10 years after initial studies pointed that BPA is dangerous!


Michele
said

This chemical is also in sealants put on children's teeth.


Kelly Keen
said

So how will the Canadian Goverment get the word out to the public. There are many parents out there using the problematic baby bottles that will need to know this new information.

Maybe the Feds should send out a public awareness flyer. These flyers would likely be better use of Canadian funds than the flyers sent out promoting the federal Conservatives, and paid with Canadian public funds.


DP
said

Are they suggesting we get rid of all plastic in our household? If water bottles are washed in warm water in the sink, are they safe?
How about the items that say "microwave safe". As opposed to older itmes that will warp in the microwave or dishwasher.


Tori
said

I hope this one does not get shoved under the carpet by the opposition parties when the debate happens. I doubt the Liberal and NDP would want the Conservatives to have the credit to this on their resume.

Health Canada needs a huge pat on the back, I hope they don't back down and have this label in effect immediately.

That all being said, how do we know, from what has been in our cupboards probably for years, what needs to be thrown away and what does not?

Maybe this is why there are so many cases of Cancer right now. Close to 200,000 Canadians will be diagnosed in 2008. That is scary.


Chris L
said

I'd like to know these things: First, under EXACTLY what circumstances will BPA be released from plastic; second, EXACTLY what plastics have BPA in them; third, what levels will cause problems in humans?

Secondary questions might be... Does the age of the plastic affect it? What about colour, UV exposure, additives, food types, method of heating, the body's ability to remove BPA through kidneys and liver, et cetera.

If polycarbonate plastic is the only affected plastic, then acrylic plastic is safe. At least, it's safe until the next leaching chemical is discovered.


Mario
said

Please let's not lump all plastics as dangerous. Bisphenol A is only present in polycarbonate. Most Tupperware or Rubbermaid food containers are made from polypropylene or high density and low density polyethylene. These plastics are labeled as 'PP', 'HDPE' and 'LDPE' on the bottom of food containers.They are perfectly safe to use.


amcd
said

The public thinks that it is only bottles that we need to be concerned with and that unfortunatley is not true. It means tossing all of your tupperware, ziploc bags, sippy cups and bottles, water bottles, canned food, makeup containers etc. It is a huge deal and will not happen overnight unfortunately.


Paul
said

Hurray! It's a step in the right direction. I don't think politics will interfere with this process, but industry lobby may!

There is also so much remaining to do. I took a long list of known carcinogenic chemicals (available on various cancer websites) with me at a store and looked at various products from shampoo to food. It was almost impossible to find one which did not have at least one of the carcinogenic products present on the label! Really scary! And why not make compulsory to display on the labels when products contain transgenic grains so that we have a buying choice? Mighty $ at work!

I am quite conscious about all this as my 21 year old daughter has an agressive form of cancer.


foley
said

This is really only the tip of the iceberg. Plastics contain a number of nasty toxins that can affect us in ways we may not even think of. Do a google search on plastics' composition and the effect the various components have on the body. Many toys that small children put in their mouth, like rubber duckies are actually banned in many countries because of their hightly toxic nature. Single-wrapped cheese slices, when eaten, cause a child to exceed their maximum daily intake of these toxins. Oils and fats in particular leech toxins out of plastics. It has been clear that the government's stand in general is not to guarentee the safety of products on the shelf. Moreover, just look at what plastics have done for industry in general. Use of plastics has made products rapidly and inexpensively manufacturable. This means more production, more jobs, more taxes collected by the government. So what if people get sick and die! It is up to us as individuals to question and investigate what we buy and make educated decisions based on this information. Plastics are a bad idea for any food containment or toys. We had gotten along well without plastics for millenia, why can we not live without it now? Food for thought...


SN
said

About time!

For anyone worried about baby bottles and sippy cups, I found some that are Recyclable #5 (the number on the bottom of the product inside a triangle). Fives are safe to use and are BPA-free. But it's probably a good idea to avoid prolonged exposure to high heat (as it would be with most any plastic product anyway).







JennS.
said

Not every plastic contains BPA. Only those with recycling # 7 contain this toxic chemical. Others, such as # 5, are known to be safe and do not contain BPA. My personal opinion is that plastics should not be microwaved period. I tend to stick to glass in the microwave.

further, there are many suitable alternatives to BPA - Born Free baby bottles, and Camel Back's new water bottle line are both BPA free. As are all the bottles that come with the Mendela Breast Pumps. As a consumer we need to do the research and make the choice that is best for us.


Feeling Guilty
said

This is absolutely terrifying! I have a 10 year old who was diagnosed with ADHD and Type 1 diabetes several years ago. I had a terrible time weaning my daughter off a bottle (plastic) which I used to warm up her milk in. Makes me wonder if this has contributed to her conditions. Does anyone know if there is a blood test that can determine the level of this toxin in her blood?


Mike
said

To wait 1 year for new regulations is too long of a wait. The government has to take an aggressive approach by banning products that contain BPA.
Manufacturers should take responsibility and halt all shipments of affected products. First it was lead paint on our children's toys, now this!!


M
said

You would wonder why the statistics in breast cancer or other types of diseases rapidly increased from the 80's. Plastic containers came out more during that time.


Anthony
said

With all due respect Foley you don't know what you're talking about. Several individuals who have no knowledge of what plastics are blatantly condemn all of them. The fact of the matter is that there are many different materials with very different chemical structures that are classified as plastics. The class of resins known as polyolefins for example (mainly polypropylene and polyethylene) have been used for years in food containers without any hint whatsoever of a health hazard. These are numbers 2, 4 and 5. I'd be more worried about the residual pesticides found in most of your food than I would be about the health risks of certain plastics.


Ihidaya
said

For years I have been telling people about bisphenol A, and how it is unbelievable that people would buy food from plastic containers and cans. I just sent this article with an "I told you so" to about 50 of my closest friends. Simple answer here folks - consumer driven market. Don't buy plastic if you don't want to ingest carcinogens.


Laly
said

I think it's about time that something was done regarding the toxic materials that we have believed to be safe for years. What scares me is the fact that my children all had baby bottles that were washed in the dishwasher, microwaved, and used to store milk for periods of time. Why could we have been warned about this all those years ago?


Nancy
said

So what about TV dinners? Are they safe and what about the microvale roasts???


Science Geek
said

PEOPLE. STOP FREAKING OUT. This again is the omg a STUDY showed this syndrome. Health Canada needed these years to make sure that it was in fact dangerous. We all say companies should do this and rush products but we fail to realize for health Canada to take it off they must prove this first. For all of you who have no idea about any chemistry that pertains to the topic you should really inform yourselves before criticizing our government.
It takes a lot of time and money to determine if something is good or not and its great that health Canada has done this.
So for the people who are thinking that this has led to ADHD, Diabetes, and other various diseases, SHUT UP. Learn what it is. If it is truly dangerous than it is a carcinogen. Which means it will cause cancer, and will take a LONG time to develop symptoms. That is why this investigation took so long. Cancer just doesn't appear it starts slowly and then when it finally gets big enough people notice.
People, please don't assume anything when it comes to studies. Investigate yourself and inform yourself before you come to absurd conclusions. I know everyone in the science world hates when this happens and is for sure a huge pet peeve. I know its one of my largest ones.


FYI
said

Mis-information is a major issue around plastic, and as usual the hysteria prevails over accuarate information. Previous writers have eroniously lumped all plastics together, as though all plastic is created equally...this is simply NOT true, and to imply such is similar to saying that all wood products are the same - lumber and paper...the same...how ridiculous!

What is important as consumers is to read labels, and use products as they were intended to be used. Dishwashersafe and foodsafe products have an international symbol stamped on them (a cup and fork logo) to indicate they are safe to clean in high temp dishwahsers...all others should be hand washed, and plastic packaging (yogurt containers...etc) used single use only for food that they originally packaged. Plastics that can be safely reheated/heated in a microwave have an international symbol on them (stacked wavey lines) or instructions for use in a micorwave stamped on them...any other plastic should not be used in a microwave.

Please don't jump on the hysteria bandwagon...get informed.


Susan Patteri
said

Just about 1 year ago, I went through my house and put everything in the garbage that was #7 recycle code, for fear of bisphenol a. This has been a chemical that has been in question for risks since the 70's. About time.


Roger T
said

Pretty soon, we'll be eating and drinking out off our hands. Maybe that's the safest way no a days!

If it's not banned it's boycott, if it's not boycott always another issue.




foley
said

Actually, Anthony, I do know what I'm talking about. I have had to defend the safety of specific plastics in toys a number times for foreign markets, and had not been able to do so. The fact is that the effect of several of these components are well understood, and known to be hazardous. The other "safe" options are only safe until a link is made between them and health issue, if indeed there is one. My point is, if there are safe options available, such as glass, why not use them?


Sembree
said

Right on M

And to Science Geek
This isn't an all of a sudden outcry against the science. Hemlock was used medicinally for hundreds of years. Science of the time said it was safe in some uses. Well Science proved it wasn't good at all. Scientists of today of course will say not to panic its only bad in some cases. What will the Scientists of tomorrow say?

Sorry Geek, I don't want any of it. And this isn't a band wagon. Many of us do not need a degree to see whats happening or put two and two together. Say what you want about the science, the outcry speaks for itself.


Sandra
said

Way to go Health Canada!!!! It's high time Canadians were protected! Glad you are setting a standard!




sash
said

finally
we need to move in the same directions the EU has.. with the the move to resinate all chemical harmfull until proven safe..

and not this method we use now, safe until proven otherwise..

I would prefer to use glass container. and back to wax sprayed cans and cartons.. then the use of plastics.. If we can taste the plastic in the food and fluids we drink, it certainly not healthy for us no matter what someone tell you, that just common sense.. especial when to take in consideration the rising rates of cancer asthma and other allergies.. since all of these are caused mostly due to environmental factors


L from PEI
said

Hard to believe that just as our province is moving away from reusable glass bottles that health canada would anounce that the plastic bottles we are going to get are going to make us sick.


Annoyed
said

I really wish that people would take the extra 5 minutes to educate themselves so that they would know what they were talking about. Saying that #7 plastics all contain BPA is as true as my saying that I have a pet pig who can fly. #7 is the recycling code used to identify the MISCELLANEOUS category of plastics. Acrylic is categorized as #7 and in no way contains any BPA. The numbers mean nothing about the content, they simply identify if and where they can be recycled. A better way to tell is if it says #7 PC (as all polycarbonates are labelled with PC). If it says #7 AC, for example, that means it is acrylic and therefore contains no BPA. I find it so frustrating to see how many people THINK they are right.


Daniel
said

I went to Wikipedia and read about some of the effects of this material. I was shocked to find that some of the health problems that this material can cause I have. Maybe I'm destined to an early grave from exposure.


Trudy Godreau
said

I'm wondering if they are going to reimburse us. The Advent bottles aren't cheap. It's not my fault I chose that kind. I would have not bought that kind if I was putting my daughter at risk.
They should let us return our bottles for BPA free ones. It's not fair we have to spend MORE MONEY on new ones.






























Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz