“Not every item within [the plastic manufactured items category] has the potential to create a reasonable apprehension of harm”
As long as we agree not to be apprehensive about the harms resulting from the use and manufacture of all plastics, they are ok. Got it, bring back the straws and stir sticks!
The challenge to the federal government’s proposed ban was brought last year by the Responsible Plastic Use Coalition (RPUC) and several chemical companies. They argued that the federal government had failed to demonstrate that it had enough scientific evidence to justify the regulations. RPUC was formed in 2021 in response to the “toxic” designation, and currently includes more than 30 processors and resin makers, including Berry Global Group Inc., CCC Plastics, Dow Inc., Ingenia Polymers, IPL, LyondellBasell Industries, and Nova Chemicals Corp.
Just like tobacco companies were (and still are) fighting to deny the harm caused by their products, there is no surprise that we see the same from plastic, chemical and oil industries. They will scream even louder every time we try to prevent them from killing us, and they will never feel a twinkle of remorse about it. They will murder millions to get at our wallets, they truly don’t care about the consequences as long as they make money.
Basically, the government chose the wrong justification for banning these items and are going to have to come up with a new one. Business as usual in the political world.
The annoying part is the judge has a masters in biochem. She knows exactly how bad plastic manufacturing and waste is but can make this ruling with a ‘clean’ conscience because technically not every plastic is toxic in the form in which it is sold.
All plastic manufacturing is horrendously toxic whether it’s casting, molding, extruding or something else they all involve dangerous precursor chemicals and/or produce dangerous gasses and particulates. At the other end of the process, all plastics have the awesome property of being extremely long lived while also eroding into a powder that is now present in 80% of people’s blood.
It’s annoying because stuff like requiring calorie labels on menus, for which there is no evidence of any kind that including that information affects consumer choices or health at a population level, is implemented as law, but “is plastic dangerous enough” is debated.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Just like tobacco companies were (and still are) fighting to deny the harm caused by their products, there is no surprise that we see the same from plastic, chemical and oil industries. They will scream even louder every time we try to prevent them from killing us, and they will never feel a twinkle of remorse about it. They will murder millions to get at our wallets, they truly don’t care about the consequences as long as they make money.
Basically, the government chose the wrong justification for banning these items and are going to have to come up with a new one. Business as usual in the political world.
The annoying part is the judge has a masters in biochem. She knows exactly how bad plastic manufacturing and waste is but can make this ruling with a ‘clean’ conscience because technically not every plastic is toxic in the form in which it is sold.
All plastic manufacturing is horrendously toxic whether it’s casting, molding, extruding or something else they all involve dangerous precursor chemicals and/or produce dangerous gasses and particulates. At the other end of the process, all plastics have the awesome property of being extremely long lived while also eroding into a powder that is now present in 80% of people’s blood.
It’s annoying because stuff like requiring calorie labels on menus, for which there is no evidence of any kind that including that information affects consumer choices or health at a population level, is implemented as law, but “is plastic dangerous enough” is debated.