Thursday, March 26, 2009

Why Isn't Canada Banning Canned Soft Drinks?

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.