News
BPA found in sports bras and workout leggings, many sold in Canada
|
|
Major athletic clothing brands sold worldwide, including in Canada, have been found to contain high levels of the toxic chemical BPA in their sports bras, shirts, shorts and leggings, according to a United States consumer watchdog group.
The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) on May 17 sent out legal notices to eight athletics brands after testing showed high amounts of bisphenol A (BPA) in the clothing they sold. This comes months after the group previously issued legal notices to a handful of other athletic companies and alerted consumers about the issue.
Brands that were tested included Adidas, Athleta, Champion, Fabletics, Kohl’s, New Balance, Nike, Patagonia, Pink, The North Face and Reebok. After testing the athletic clothing, CEH found BPA levels 40 times over the California limit.
Although the U.S. has not implemented a complete ban on BPA, states like California have imposed their own restrictions. Under California law, the maximum allowable level for BPA via skin exposure is three micrograms per day.
Global News reached out to the above brands for a comment on the findings, but only Adidas got back by deadline.
“We are reviewing the report,” a spokesperson for Adidas said in an emailed statement.
“Safeguarding the health and safety of our consumers and protecting the environment is of paramount importance for us as a brand. Adidas is committed to following global best practices and complying with the strictest international safety requirements.”
Jimena Diaz Leiva, the science director at CEH, told Global News that activewear shirts, sports bras, leggings and shorts are the new product categories for which the CEH served legal notice.
“But we’re ongoing in this research, so there’s certainly more to come. It’s pretty ubiquitous. This type of fabric seems to be kind of a problem across a lot of brands.”
BPA is an industrial chemical used in making polycarbonate, a type of plastic commonly found in food and beverage containers such as cans and reusable water bottles.
It has been linked to a variety of health problems, such as brain and behavioural issues in babies and children as well as high blood pressure and infertility. Some studies suggest exposure to BPA may make people more prone to obesity and even cause premature death.
The workout gear CEH tested included leggings, sports bras, athletic shorts and athletic shirts that are primarily made of polyester and also contain some spandex.
Where does Canada stand on BPA?
While Canada has previously acknowledged that BPA “may pose a risk to human life or health,” there is currently no comprehensive regulation in place similar to California’s.
However, Cassie Barker, the toxics senior program manager at Environmental Defence, an advocacy organization, said there are specific restrictions for the chemical in Canada.
For example, in 2010, the federal government formally declared BPA to be toxic and banned its use in baby bottles. Canada has set a limit on the amount of BPA that can be present in polycarbonate plastic baby food containers and in infant formula packaging.
“But that’s such a specific small use of where BPA is being used as a plasticizer,” Barker explained. “And they are in all kinds of other applications … in our cash receipts whenever we buy something, through what we consume, and then in these contact materials where we absorb BPA through our skin.”
While BPA is listed on Environment Canada’s list of toxic substances alongside arsenic, asbestos, lead and mercury, Health Canada also concludes that the current amount of BPA exposure Canadians get from food and beverage containers is low enough that it doesn’t pose a health risk when used in those products.
“It is important for Canadians to understand that just because a chemical may be detected in a consumer product or in our bodies, it does not necessarily mean it is causing harm,” a Health Canada spokesperson stated in an email to Global News.
Health Canada explained to Global News via email that instead of using a specific safety limit for chemicals (like California did with BPA), it uses margins of exposure (MOE) as a metric to assess potential risks.
The MOE is calculated by establishing a level of exposure that is not anticipated to cause harm to human health and dividing it by the estimated level of human exposure, the spokesperson said. A higher MOE means a greater margin of safety between potential health effects and exposure to a substance.
Health Canada said in 2008, it conducted a risk assessment of BPA and found human exposure can result from food packing, the environment and from use of consumer products. However, reproductive and developmental toxicity effects were evaluated and found ” there were no health concerns for the general population at current levels of exposure, but that there was a potential concern for infants.”
Although Global News asked Health Canada about BPA in clothing such as sportswear, the regulator did not mention clothing in their response.
Industry as gatekeepers
Under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, a company is not allowed to manufacture or import into the country, advertise or sell a product — such as sportswear — that is “a danger to human health or safety.”
Health Canada also says it regularly monitors the marketplace and tests products to verify that products sold in the country are safe, including performing routine compliance verification on consumer products.
“It’s often left to industry to be their own gatekeeper on these issues, which is a huge problem,” Barker said. “We really need people to believe in the fact that what’s on the shelf is safe. We need the government to actually be doing that testing to make sure that things like BPA aren’t in contact with our bodies in all these ways throughout the day.”
As a consumer, Barker said, it is challenging to determine the presence of BPA or other toxic chemicals in sports gear because such additives are often undisclosed and unlabeled in textiles that come into direct contact with our bodies.
“Ideally, companies would be phasing out all of these substances in our clothing so that we wouldn’t be trying to figure out whether there is a coating on our clothing that we wear so close to our bodies all day long,” she said.
What can consumers do?
The question of a safe threshold for BPA exposure remains debated, as conflicting studies present different conclusions, with some indicating potential health concerns even at low doses, while others suggest no significant risks.
Despite the ongoing debate, BPA has still been declared as a significant risk for cancers like breast, ovarian, cervical, prostate and lung, and has been linked to reproductive abnormalities, Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
“For consumers, what we recommend right now is trying to limit … (the time) in your activewear,” Diaz Leiva said. “One thing you can do is try and take those clothes off afterward (your workout), and as much as you can, limit the exposure.”
“It’s very disappointing that in 2023, these major companies like Nike and Adidas don’t have chemical policies where they test their products before they go to market for these very harmful substances,” she added.
The exact motives for companies including BPA in their clothing are not fully clear, she said, speculating that it could be a deliberate choice or an unintended consequence of utilizing recycled materials.
Barker believes that regardless of whether a company is aware of the presence of chemicals, it is their responsibility to know what’s in their products.
“If a plasticizer is being applied somewhere in their supply chain, that may not be easy to track,” she said. “But it is fairly easy to test that final product for the chemicals that are present and to address that before it hits the shelf.”
She added that as a consumer, she believes it’s crucial to actively voice concerns and inquire about the contents of the products from these companies.
“But I think even more important is to tell elected officials that you don’t want to have to be trying to figure out what’s in your products. You want them to make sure the rules are strong and comprehensive so that these products aren’t even coming into Canada in the first place.”
— with files from The Canadian Press
Peggys Cove now has a new bylaw to guide development and protect the iconic fishing village’s heritage, but some say the process to create those rules was unfair.
After more than two years of consultation and five different drafts, this week the province approved a new land-use bylaw that will replace one from 2003.
It aims to preserve the “authentic, traditional fishing village” spirit of the cove, while allowing commercial uses where residents can benefit financially from the thousands of tourists who flock to see the area and lighthouse.
But Paul Paruch is one of many who have voiced concerns about conflicts of interest with the Peggy’s Cove Commission, which led the process with support from Upland Planning consultants.
“[I’m] very disappointed, let down,” Paruch said Thursday.
Paruch and his wife, Claire, had hoped to see their property zoned commercial, as Claire has run a hotdog stand there for years. The couple bought a home there with plans to retire and also rent it out, Paruch said, which would also not be allowed.
The new bylaw addresses everything from dwelling size to regulations on building materials. It also has turned many residential lots along Peggys Point Road into mixed-use “core” zoning that would allow for commercial, residential and community purposes.
Vendors and buskers are no longer allowed in the cove, unless they’re accessory to a special event.
Brian Cottam said the new bylaw is a major blow for him and his wife, Kelly Westhaver. Although an early draft of the bylaw zoned their land at 173 Peggys Point Road as commercial, that changed to residential after other residents voiced concerns about having that zoning so close to the lighthouse.
A sale of $1.3 million fell through on the land because a core designation was a condition of the purchase, Cottam said.
“This sale was going to allow us the ability to relax a little and enjoy life, but that has been stripped away,” he said in an email.
Bylaw ‘effectively expropriates’ private land: lawyer
Another property owner, Eleanor McCain, will be getting the commercial zoning she pushed for to allow for new businesses.
However, a lawyer for McCain did raise concerns about how the conservation zone was applied to the rocky waterfront side of her client’s land and many others in the cove. Nancy Rubin of Stewart McKelvey said in a letter to the commission the move “effectively expropriates” private land without any evidence of why it was needed or if it was based on any scientific studies.
Paruch, Cottam and McCain have argued the commission members who run their own commercial enterprises, or are connected to businesses in the cove, are in direct conflicts of interest. The commission is made up of residents, the sitting councillor and representatives from the province to make decisions on changes in the area.
Three commission members must be from the community, but where there’s about 40 permanent residents, it is hard to avoid friendships and family ties.
The Nova Scotia ombudsman’s office is investigating the commission following recent complaints. Both Paruch and Cottam said they had hoped this independent report would lead to the province rejecting the proposed bylaw.
But John Campbell, a lifelong cove resident and owner of the Sou’wester Restaurant in the village and other properties, said the bylaw strikes the right balance.
“I think overall it’s going to be a good thing, but you know when you go through a process like this, not everybody’s going to be happy,” Campbell said.
Campbell said he’s become an “easy target” for the arguments around conflicts of interest, as his daughter Nicole Campbell is commission chair. He said he didn’t get everything he wanted in the new bylaw, pointing out that his request for land to be zoned commercial near the lighthouse was refused.
Campbell agreed that something should change with the makeup of the commission to avoid conflicts in the future, but more analysis should be done on what the fairest approach is.
“It’s a very unique place, Peggys Cove, and you know it’s good to have discussions about it,” Campbell said. “It’s my community that I grew up in, and my closest friends are in, and you know I feel like I could make a living there.”
Economic Development Minister Susan Corkum-Greek said she has faith in the commission’s process, and nothing in the draft report from the ombudsman prevents her from approving the bylaw.
She said the province is also looking at modernizing the legislation governing the commission and the area.
“I think this is an important step, but … it is a first step,” Corkum-Greek told reporters Thursday.
The bylaw will see a new development officer appointed to handle permits and variance requests, while anyone who wants to change their zoning can apply to the commission.
News
Ontario Legislature keffiyeh ban remains, though Ford and opposition leaders ask for reversal – CBC.ca
Keffiyehs remain banned in the Ontario Legislature after a unanimous consent motion that would have allowed the scarf to be worn failed to pass at Queen’s Park Thursday.
That vote, brought forth by NDP Leader Marit Stiles, failed despite Premier Doug Ford and the leaders of the province’s opposition parties all stating they want to see the ban overturned. Complete agreement from all MPPs is required for a motion like this to pass, and there were a smattering of “nos” after it was read into the record.
In an email on Wednesday, Speaker Ted Arnott said the legislature has previously restricted the wearing of clothing that is intended to make an “overt political statement” because it upholds a “standard practice of decorum.”
“The Speaker cannot be aware of the meaning of every symbol or pattern but when items are drawn to my attention, there is a responsibility to respond. After extensive research, I concluded that the wearing of keffiyehs at the present time in our Assembly is intended to be a political statement. So, as Speaker, I cannot authorize the wearing of keffiyehs based on our longstanding conventions,” Arnott said in an email.
Speaking at Queen’s Park Thursday, Arnott said he would reconsider the ban with unanimous consent from MPPs.
“If the house believes that the wearing of the keffiyeh in this house, at the present time, is not a political statement, I would certainly and unequivocally accept the express will of the house with no ifs, ands or buts,” he said.
Keffiyehs are a commonly worn scarf among Arabs, but hold special significance to Palestinian people. They have been a frequent sight among pro-Palestinian protesters calling for an end to the violence in Gaza as the Israel-Hamas� war continues.
Premier calls for reversal
Ford said Thursday he’s hopeful Arnott will reverse the ban, but he didn’t say if he would instruct his caucus to support the NDP’s motion.
In a statement issued Wednesday, Ford said the decision was made by the speaker and nobody else.
“I do not support his decision as it needlessly divides the people of our province. I call on the speaker to reverse his decision immediately,” Ford said.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford reiterated Thursday that he does not support Speaker Ted Arnott banning keffiyehs in the Ontario Legislature because they are “intended to be a political statement,” as Arnott said in an email Wednesday.
PC Party MPP Robin Martin, who represents Eglinton–Lawrence, voted against the unanimous consent motion Thursday and told reporters she believes the speaker’s initial ruling was the correct one.
“We have to follow the rules of the legislature, otherwise we politicize the entire debate inside the legislature, and that’s not what it’s about. What it’s about is we come there and use our words to persuade, not items of clothing.”
When asked if she had defied a directive from the premier, Martin said, “It has nothing to do with the premier, it’s a decision of the speaker of the legislative assembly.”
Stiles told reporters Thursday she’s happy Ford is on her side on this issue, but added she is disappointed the motion didn’t pass.
“The premier needs to talk to his people and make sure they do the right thing,” she said.
Stiles first urged Arnott to reconsider the ban in an April 12 letter. She said concerns over the directive first surfaced after being flagged by members of her staff, however they have gained prominence after Sarah Jama, Independent MPP for Hamilton Centre, posted about the issue on X, formerly Twitter.
Jama was removed from the NDP caucus for her social media comments on the Israel-Hamas war shortly after Oct. 7.
Jama has said she believes she was kicked out of the party because she called for a ceasefire in Gaza “too early” and because she called Israel an “apartheid state.”
Arnott told reporters Thursday that he began examining a ban on the Keffiyeh after one MPP made a complaint about another MPP, who he believes was Jama, who was wearing one.
Liberals also call for reversal
Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie also called for a reversal of the ban on Wednesday night.
“Here in Ontario, we are home to a diverse group of people from so many backgrounds. This is a time when leaders should be looking for ways to bring people together, not to further divide us. I urge Speaker Arnott to immediately reconsider this move to ban the keffiyeh,” Crombie said.
Keffiyehs are a common garment across the Arab world, but they hold a special meaning in the Palestinian resistance movement.
Stiles said MPPs have worn kilts, kirpans, vyshyvankas and chubas in the legislature, saying such items of clothing not only have national and cultural associations, but have also been considered at times as “political symbols in need of suppression.”
She said Indigenous and non-Indigenous members have also dressed in traditional regalia and these items cannot be separated from their historical and political significance.
“The wearing of these important cultural and national clothing items in our Assembly is something we should be proud of. It is part of the story of who we are as a province,” she said.
“Palestinians are part of that story, and the keffiyeh is a traditional clothing item that is significant not only to them but to many members of Arab and Muslim communities. That includes members of my staff who have been asked to remove their keffiyehs in order to come to work. This is unacceptable.”
Stiles added that House of Commons and other provincial legislatures allow the wearing of keffiyehs in their chambers and the ban makes Ontario an “outlier.”
Suppression of cultural symbols part of genocide: MPP
Jama said on X that the ban is “unsurprising” but “nonetheless concerning” in a country that has a legacy of colonialism. “Part of committing genocide is the forceful suppression of cultural identity and cultural symbols,” she said in part.
“Seeing those in power in this country at all levels of government, from federal all the way down to school boards, aid Israel’s colonial regime with these tactics in the oppression of Palestinian people proves that reconciliation is nothing but a word when spoken by state powers,” she said.
Amira Elghawaby, Canada’s Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, said on X that it is “deeply ironic” on that keffiyehs were banned in the Ontario legislature on the 42nd anniversary of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This is wrong and dangerous as we have already seen violence and exclusion impact Canadians, including Muslims of Palestinian descent, who choose to wear this traditional Palestinian clothing,” Elghawaby said.
Arnott said the keffiyeh was not considered a “form of protest” in the legislature prior to statements and debates that happened in the House last fall.
“These items are not absolutes and are not judged in a vacuum,” he said.
[unable to retrieve full-text content]
Best in Canada: Jets Beat Canucks to Finish Season as Top Canadian Club The Hockey News
Source link
Home buyer savings plans boost demand, not affordability – Financial Post
New Peggys Cove bylaw brought in amidst complaints of unfairness – CBC.ca
2024 Stanley Cup Playoffs 1st-round schedule – NHL.com
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
12 Bizarre Things People Did Just To Make Social Media Content
Global Media Markets, 2015-2020, 2020-2025F, 2030F – TV and Radio Broadcasting, Film and Music, Information Services, Web Content, Search Portals And Social Media, Print Media, & Cable – GlobeNewswire
-
Investment17 hours agoUK Mulls New Curbs on Outbound Investment Over Security Risks – BNN Bloomberg
-
Sports15 hours ago
Auston Matthews denied 70th goal as depleted Leafs lose last regular-season game – Toronto Sun
-
Business14 hours ago
BC short-term rental rules take effect May 1 – CityNews Vancouver
-
Art14 hours ago
Collection of First Nations art stolen from Gordon Head home – Times Colonist
-
Investment14 hours ago
Benjamin Bergen: Why would anyone invest in Canada now? – National Post
-
Tech16 hours ago
Save $700 Off This 4K Projector at Amazon While You Still Can – CNET
-
Tech15 hours ago
'Kingdom Come: Deliverance II' Revealed In Epic New Trailer And It Looks Incredible – Forbes
-
Science17 hours ago
Jeremy Hansen – The Canadian Encyclopedia
