Hypocrisy on the Hill continues.
In April of last year the Canadian government banned the sale of bisphenol-A containing baby bottles.
Their rationale was despite agreeing that the levels were below those which scientists generally worry about BPA,
"due to the uncertainty raised in some studies relating to the potential effects of low levels of bisphenol A, the Government of Canada is taking action to enhance the protection of infants and young children."My blog post at the time pointed out the unbelievable hypocrisy of a government that banned BPA with admitted "uncertainty" as to its risk yet was quite comfortable giving trans-fats a two year free pass despite the head of the government's own task force in 2007 labeling trans-fats,
"a "toxic" killer that need to be removed from the food chain as soon as possible"Well the hypocrisy continues as a few weeks ago a report from Health Canada came out that found BPA in 69 of the 72 cans of pop they tested - a sample that was representative of 84% of the market share of soft drinks sold in the country.
Of course there's not been so much as a governmental peep about banning them. Shouldn't they? Nursing mothers drink canned pop. So do pregnant women and unfortunately so too do far too many children. If indeed they felt taking action on the baby bottles was in order, why isn't it in order here?
The answer of course is simple.
Banning canned drinks (or trans fat) would be decidedly bad for Canadian industry, whereas banning BPA containing baby bottles only affects a small market share and certainly gives warm fuzzies to the electorate.
Just goes to show you - Health Canada's is as much (or more) a political and industry pandering body than one that serves the public's or science's best interests.
Posts
Great post. Is it Health Canada who panders to industry, or parliament? From your post it sounds like Health Canada called it like it is on this one, and its the MP's who failed to take action. Let me know if I'm misreading that.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question Travis.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly great researchers working in Health Canada and indeed the report on BPA in canned drinks originated from Health Canada.
In terms of who's in charge of what, the simple answer is, "I don't know" - though one might expect that if Health Canada felt strongly about something, if it didn't cater to the politicians (or industry), they'd come out with some very forceful statements that I imagine would be difficult for politicians to ignore.
In terms of Health Canada and its specific ties to industry, I submit our Food Guide as proof for direct industry focused pandering.
Great post, just wondering though, why are trans-fats considered such a toxic killer? I mean there are worse things in food than trans-fats.
ReplyDeleteTake care, Julie
It wouldn't be the first time health canada put the interests of business ahead of their mandate - our health
ReplyDeleteAnyone remember Dr. Shiv Chopra - http://shivchopra.com/?page_id=100
I don't think they should ban them.
ReplyDeleteShould the government just be advertising the fact that lactating or pregnant or conceiving women get no realistic benefit from consuming soft drinks, no matter the container, or alcohol? (Assuming the ad budget has something left in it once they've finished saturating the country with the knowledge that tax credits are blue, and are plucked from the sky.)
There is a plausible hypothesis that PBA leached from soft drink cans would be able to act as a hormone disruptor in humans. The plastic milk bottle decision by Health Canada was controversial, but the potential risks were greater in that case compared to soft drinks: milk bottles are heated, increasing the amount of BPA leaching, and milk in bottles is given to babies, who make no choice about what goes into their bodies, and are at a stage of life where exposures to hormone mimics could affect their development. Milk bottles also have a replacement: a glass bottle, or non-BPA containing plastic bottle. Banning plastic-lined cans is more difficult: they are ubiquitous.