“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/

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Nik282000@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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.

    • baconisaveg@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • jadero@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • baconisaveg@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

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