“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.
In a ruling released Thursday, Justice Angela Furlanetto wrote that the category of plastic manufactured items was too broad to be given a blanket toxicity label under federal law.
Those regulations will prohibit the sale of plastic checkout bags, cutlery, food service ware, stir sticks and straws in Canada after December 20.
“We know that plastic pollution is one of the major environmental crises of our time and this [ruling] really hampers the federal government’s ability to come to grips with this crisis,” Beck told CBC News.
The judge also wrote that Ottawa’s decision “poses a threat to the balance of federalism” because it didn’t restrict its regulations to those plastics that have “potential to cause harm to the environment.”
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said Ottawa’s initial decision to add plastics to the toxic substance list was an example of “federal overreach.”
But Beck said that by quashing the order-in-council, the judge effectively struck down the government’s reasoning for adding plastics to the toxic substance list under S-5.
The original article contains 512 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Yes, but we’ve also seen governments get really stupid with blanket product regulations.
Warning: California Proposition 65. This post can expose you to chemicals which are known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
Yes, but currently (post court case) nothing can be done at all. A warning label is better than that, also we would have single use banned and then a label on everything else
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.
RPUC […] 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.
A real who’s who of good people who I trust have everyone’s best interests at heart.
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
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a ruling released Thursday, Justice Angela Furlanetto wrote that the category of plastic manufactured items was too broad to be given a blanket toxicity label under federal law.
Those regulations will prohibit the sale of plastic checkout bags, cutlery, food service ware, stir sticks and straws in Canada after December 20.
“We know that plastic pollution is one of the major environmental crises of our time and this [ruling] really hampers the federal government’s ability to come to grips with this crisis,” Beck told CBC News.
The judge also wrote that Ottawa’s decision “poses a threat to the balance of federalism” because it didn’t restrict its regulations to those plastics that have “potential to cause harm to the environment.”
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said Ottawa’s initial decision to add plastics to the toxic substance list was an example of “federal overreach.”
But Beck said that by quashing the order-in-council, the judge effectively struck down the government’s reasoning for adding plastics to the toxic substance list under S-5.
The original article contains 512 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The judge: that is very sound reasoning, if all plastic was toxic then these companies wouldn’t be making it.
Yes, but we’ve also seen governments get really stupid with blanket product regulations.
That sounds preferable to letting it all through
I thought the warning label was because they were letting the stuff through. If they were stopping it, the warning label would be unnecessary.
Yes, but currently (post court case) nothing can be done at all. A warning label is better than that, also we would have single use banned and then a label on everything else
Both are better than nothing
The problem with Prop 65 is everything has a warning label now, which kind of defeats the purpose.
New to the planet, eh? I wonder if we can get her to bring back asbestos and leaded gasoline, you know for the economy.
Remember cigarette companies?
But having micro plastics found in everything we eat and drink, is reasonable and constitutional??
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.
A real who’s who of good people who I trust have everyone’s best interests at heart.