this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
30 points (94.1% liked)

Canada

7187 readers
379 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
30
Judge says Ottawa listing plastic items as toxic was 'unreasonable and unconstitutional' (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"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.

https://www.canplastics.com/canplastics/judge-quashes-cabinet-order-underlying-canadas-single-use-plastic-ban/1003462513/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

plastic is toxic

which ones?

every one that we’ve seen

which ones specifically

we can’t pick and choose which items are killing us because it’s a mixture of them all

see! They can’t even pick one

The judge: that is very sound reasoning, if all plastic was toxic then these companies wouldn’t be making it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

if all plastic was toxic then these companies wouldn’t be making it

New to the planet, eh? I wonder if we can get her to bring back asbestos and leaded gasoline, you know for the economy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That sounds preferable to letting it all through

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I thought the warning label was because they were letting the stuff through. If they were stopping it, the warning label would be unnecessary.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

The problem with Prop 65 is everything has a warning label now, which kind of defeats the purpose.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Remember cigarette companies?