You may have noticed the news item on our home page about our new reader survey. If you missed it, you can find a bright yellow boxed link on the right side of the home page. Click on it, and you’ll be taken to an online survey that should take you only about ten minutes to fill in.

Our magazine is inviting readers to fill in what we’re calling our Great Canadian Environment Survey for a chance to win one of FOUR Amazon Kindle e-book readers.

These are the new and sought-after 6-inch Wi-Fi-enabled Kindles with E Ink Display!

Your odds of being selected as a winner from several hundred survey respondents are much higher than in similar contests, such as consumer contest prizes where you’re only one of thousands, even tens of thousands, of contest entrants.

The survey solicits reader opinion on a diverse range of issues, from waste management and pollution control to regulatory enforcement, and includes opportunities for feedback about what readers like about the magazine and suggested improvements.

The survey results will be reported in the spring edition of the magazine. Plus, everyone who completes the survey gets a copy of the survey results for free.

So, do it now!

To complete the survey, visit https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QQS8V7X

It is with an equal measure of sadness and pride that I pen my final blog as Executive Director of Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) - sadness that I will no longer represent this worthwhile and rapidly expanding organization and program, and pride as I look back not only at our past accomplishments, but also towards the many future opportunities that lie ahead.

Since OES began program operations in April 2009 in concert with our extensive network of collectors, transporters and processors, our team has worked tirelessly with Ontario's businesses and consumers to raise awareness around the importance of properly reusing and recycling end-of-life electronics. The response has been delightfully enthusiastic - with an easy-to-navigate

recycleyourelectronics.ca

website and more approved collection locations than ever, our year-over-year collection totals have drastically improved. In the first quarter of 2012, OES is poised to hit the 100,000 tonne collection mark - a truly remarkable accomplishment for such a young organization! This couldn't have happened without the breadth and depth of an experienced network of collectors, transporters, processors and other service providers.

While the success of the program ultimately stems from the efforts of all Ontarians, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the determined efforts of our capable and effective staff and senior management team. Howard Morrison, our current Director of Finance, has agreed to serve as Executive Director on an interim basis while the Board launches a search for my successor. With more than 20 years of high-level business experience and a keen interest in fulfilling the OES mandate, Howard will ensure that OES continues to be the leading voice in electronic waste recycling and reuse in this great province.

I owe a debt of gratitude to OES Board Chair Nick Aubry and the entire Board of Directors for their unwavering support. It has been a privilege to work with this group of talented professionals and witness the transition from a hands-on, operating board to a strategic thinking board.

I will also no doubt miss those who I have worked closest with. From Pierre Prim's steady oversight of our day-to-day field operations to Sandra Pakosh's pivotal role in engaging Ontarians through promotion and education that is truly resonating, and to Elaine Beames who is the glue that binds the team together, I have every confidence that OES is in great hands.

Thank you to everyone who has helped make my tenure at the Ontario Electronic Stewardship so very gratifying. Momentum is clearly on the side of OES and in the days and months ahead I will cheer it on (albeit from the sidelines) as it continues to meet (and surpass!) the high expectations of its stakeholders and all Ontarians.

With best wishes for a happy holiday season and a rewarding New Year...

Effective Jan 3rd, my new work coordinates are:

chochu@plastics.ca
905-678-7748

Carol Hochu
Executive Director, Ontario Electronic Stewardship
885 Don Mills Road, Suite 400, Toronto, ON M3C 1V9
Tel: 416-380-4545 x201 Fax: 416-380-4154

Learn more about OES:

OntarioElectronicStewardship.ca

Safely reuse and recycle your electronics:

RecycleYourElectronics.ca

Only 23% of Canadians feel comfortable speaking to their employer about their mental illness. Mental Illness represents 15% of disease in Canada. A healthy workplace is essential to an organizations economic prosperity. The economic burden of mental disorders in Canada has been estimated at $51-billion per year, with almost $20-billion of that arising from workplace mental health disorders.

In November, 2011, Workers Compensation Act BC enacted Bill 14-2011providing changes to ensure the current workers’ compensation system remains responsive to the needs of workers and employers. Specifically, the bill amendments are to:
• Broaden compensation coverage for mental stress conditions arising in the workplace.
• Adjust compensation for injured apprentices to a level that fairly represents their loss of earnings.
• Grant survivor benefits to common law couples without children after two years of cohabitation (previously three years).
• Confirm the most recent inflation adjustments for compensation and penalty amounts

The expanded coverage under Workers Compensation BC is expected to cost an additional $10 million to $18 million a year. This change brings B.C. in line with many other provinces.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada has developed a national standard for Psychological Health and Safety in Canadian Workplaces, to be launched in 2012. The CSAZ1003 - National Standard of Canada for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace focuses on improving the psychological health and safety of employees. Tools to achieve measurable improvement in workplace psychological health and safety and voluntary standards for employers to utilize in their workplaces are currently under review with a public review that closed December 31, 2011.

The advantages to the employee of a psychological standard include:
• protection from psychological harm in the workplace and
• the promotion of psychological wellbeing.

The four main parameters of the program outline the business case in favour of psychological standards for your workplace:
• enhanced cost effectiveness,
• improved risk management,
• increased organizational recruitment and retention, and
• corporate social responsibility.

This standard is voluntary, so why should you participate in the program and address mental health in your workplace – Bill C45 outlines a strong case for management of your workplace mental health – health and safety issues.

Bill C45 established new legal duties for workplace health and safety, and imposed serious penalties for violations to the Criminal Code. The Bill outlines new rules for attributing criminal liability to organizations, including corporations, their representatives and those who direct the work of others.

Bill C-45 added Section 217.1 to the Criminal Code which reads:
"217.1 Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task."
In addition, Bill C-45 added Sections 22.1 and 22.2 to the Criminal Code imposing criminal liability on organizations and its representatives for negligence (22.1) and other offences (22.2).

In order to minimize your risk under Bill-C45 and your provincial Health and Safety enforcements, develop a thorough Health and Safety Program. Start by:
• Knowing the Criminal Code and how it applies to your organization,
• Knowing your legal obligations under occupational health and safety laws and standards in your province,
• Knowing what hazards exist in your workplace,
• Knowing how to effectively reduce or eliminate the hazards in your workplace and applying controls to reduce these risks,
• Ensure employees are aware of the company's health and safety program,
• Ensure employees are informed of any risks, and
• Ensure employees receive appropriate training and protective equipment for their jobs and the environment they work in.

BE sure to find out if your province has specific disability legislation that you must comply with such as the Ontario –AODA Legislation. Developing programs to address workplace disabilities return to work strategies, health and safety best practices and programs, and Due Diligence will set you well on the path to addressing workplace injuries and mental health proactively instead of reactively. A well thought out program will create a workplace wellness culture that will reduce injuries, decrease absenteeism and ultimately reduce costs; remembering that a healthy workplace is essential to an organizations economic prosperity!

The first is out exposure to toxic chemicals through the skin, mostly from personal care products. The second is the possibility that we’re programmed from birth for obesity due to prenatal exposure to toxins, which is the subject of a forthcoming documentary on CBC’s The Nature of Things.

Responding to my recent posts about nanochemicals in food, a friend reminded me that the epidermis is the most common route of exposure to toxic chemicals.

Beyond concern about the absorption prospects and implications of infinitesimally small nano-particles, he recommended the Environmental Working Group’s “Skin Deep” website on toxic chemicals in personal care products, which is searchable by product category, brand, etc.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/training/toxmanual/pdf/module-2.pdf

The site rates about 69,000 different products and assigns risk scores from 0 to 10 depending on the product formulations. It’s not uncommon to find personal care products containing as many as four or five known carcinogens plus suspected carcinogens, irritants, allergens, mutagens, etc.

It’s amazing, my friend writes, that society is so concerned about food safety but allows the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, chemical industries carte blanche to sell dangerous products for people to bathe in and apply to their skins on a daily basis.

“Corporate ethics? Corporate responsibility? Oxymorons as far as I’m concerned,” he states.

Now that I’ve got you thinking about what you rubbed into your skin during or after your shower this morning, here’s a news release from production company Dream Film about their documentary on chemicals in the environment changing our bodies at the prenatal stage. (I’ve kept most of the original news release wording but edited it slightly to flow with this blog entry.) Now you can worry about why you and your kids struggle with weight…

PROGRAMMED TO BE FAT?

Documentary to air on CBC TV’s The Nature of Things with David Suzuki on Thursday, January 12 at 8:00 PM (8:30 NT)

Controversial new science suggests chemicals in our environment are changing our bodies – programming us to be fat – before we’re even born.

Obesity in Canada has doubled in less than 30 years. Now, almost 60 per cent of all Canadians are now either overweight or obese. Yes, we eat too much – and no, we don’t exercise enough. But what about rising obesity rates in a group you can’t blame for unhealthy lifestyles? Those who can’t chew, let alone jog?...

Infant obesity has risen more than 70 per cent in just 20 years. And some scientists suspect that, starting in the womb, man-made chemicals may be triggering changes to our metabolism that result in lifelong weight gain. Even more -- these changes can be passed along to the next generation.

PROGRAMMED TO BE FAT? tells the story of a curious doctor in Scotland, baffled by her inability to lose weight, who sets out to discover why… and explores the findings of three scientists researching endocrine-disrupting chemicals who all ended up with unusually heavy lab animals. Their overlapping research has led them all to the same conclusion: these chemicals – found all around us in plastic, in cans, in the food we eat, in the water we drink and the air we breathe – is partly to blame for obesity.

As the research shifts from lab animals to human population studies, the theory that fetal exposure to man-made chemicals is a key reason for our global obesity epidemic is under the microscope. The implications for human health are profound – and the time to act, say some, is now.

For more information on the documentary, including links to the trailer and the Facebook
page, check out the website:

www.dreamfilm.ca

http://dreamfilm.ca/film/programmed-to-be-fat/

I was in my early thirties when he told me this, at the end of some blood samples and tests the insurance company took to qualify me and me (then) business partners who needed life insurance as part of our shareholders’ agreement. It seemed very remote at that time, the idea of disease and death. I hadn’t really known anyone outside of my grandparents who had died, although my father had MS and would pass away only a couple of years later.

To be honest, I don’t know if the “dropping off like flies” comment referred to people in their fifties or sixties, but it doesn’t really matter – I have noticed more and more of my acquaintances and people I know indirectly through them succumbing to various maladies, with breast cancer being one of the most common. I know several people who have either died from or survived lung cancer, and prostate cancer.

All of this has me very focused on my own health and fitness and that of my kids, and things like healthy eating; I don’t want to wait until I get some kind of diagnosis to start getting enough vitamins and fibre, and so on. Having crossed the age 50 line, I’ve also got a colonoscopy scheduled for the spring (and please use this reminder to schedule one for yourself if you’re over age 50, or younger if cancer runs in your family). My friend Gary Gallon, the environmentalist, died of cancer that started in the colon; he was the picture of good health when he was first diagnosed, and was a champion swimmer in his age group. Feeling healthy, he neglected to get a colonoscopy and succumbed to a cancer that could have perhaps been detected at the polyp stage.

So, I’m doing the usual common sense things like buying vitamin supplements, eating more salad, whole grain cereals, avoiding a lot of fried items, cutting down on fast food, popping wild salmon fish oil capsules and so on. I still have a long way to go in eating better, but it’s a start.

However, one thing that really frustrates me is the presence of so many toxic compounds in our diet that are difficult to avoid. Last week I posted a blog entry on “seven food items that should never pass your lips” that included some items about which I’d previously been unaware (in terms of being toxic). The list included potatoes, which I eat all the time in crock pot stews and curries. Apparently one must buy organically-grown potatoes as peeling the skins is not enough – the pesticides etc. used by farmers are absorbed deep into the meat of a potato, and farmers who grow them often won’t eat their own product because they see the chemical hazard with their own eyes. (Many grow chemical-free potatoes in separate garden patches for their own families.) That item was a revelation and I felt quite angry, having served regular potatoes to my kids all of their lives. It bothers me that our government isn’t doing more to protect us from these kinds of dangers, and that through our taxes we’ll be footing the bill for a generation or longer as people contract cancer from such sources. So much for prevention.

Another example from that log post was tomatoes sold in cans, in which toxic compounds may leach from the plastic lining inside cans, which the acidity of the tomatoes dissolves more than other canned vegetables. Lesson: buy tomatoes or tomato sauce sold in glass jars, or make your own from fresh tomatoes.

With all this in mind, I direct readers to the news release that I reproduce below with only some minor stylistic and formatting edits. It’s from the shareholder activist group As You Sow (a group whose goals and methods I greatly respect) and should awaken us to a whole new threat in the food chain from nanotechnology, which is pretty much an unregulated industry at the moment. This is a topic worth pondering and one to which I will return again in the near future.

NOTE: Readers may be interested in reading a cover story from last year that Colin Isaacs wrote for HazMat Management magazine:

http://www.hazmatmag.com/news/nanomaterials/1000352803/

Nanotechnology in Food:

In the Absence of Regulations, Nonprofit Releases New Framework for Companies to Evaluate Safety

SAN FRANCISCO (December 6, 2011) -- A first-of-its-kind framework released today offers recommendations to food and food packaging companies on how to identify and evaluate nanomaterials in products. Not only is this technology unregulated and untested for its implications on public health but companies may not even be aware if they are using products made with nanomaterials.

The Sourcing Framework for Food and Food Packaging Products Containing Nanomaterials presents what companies should ask their suppliers regarding the safety of products containing nanomaterials, therefore allowing businesses to make more informed decisions.

Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating matter at the molecular scale to build structures, tools, or products. This emerging science offers many new opportunities for food industry applications, such as nutritional additives, stronger flavorings and colorings, or antibacterial ingredients for food packaging. However, these same properties have also raised safety concerns yet to be fully understood.

"Currently, most food companies do not have processes in place to identify if there are nanomaterials in their products, or to confirm the safety of those products," said Amy Galland, Research Director of As You Sow and co-author of the Framework. "We are urging the food industry to utilize the precautionary principle and stay ahead of the regulatory curve on this issue."

In consultation with food companies such as Kraft, McDonald’s (which has adopted a "no nano"
policy), Whole Foods, Yum! Brands, and Pepsi, the nonprofit organization As You Sow developed this practical tool which clearly outlines what companies should ask their suppliers regarding the safety of products containing nanomaterials.

"In the absence of federal regulations, corporations need to evaluate the risks and benefits of sourcing products that use this new technology on their own," says Michael Passoff, Senior Strategist of As You Sow and co-author of the Framework. "There is little transparency regarding safety testing or which food products contain nanomaterials. Companies need to start questioning their suppliers on whether or not their products use nanomaterials."

In June 2011, the Food and Drug Administration stated it would evaluate guidance to address nanotechnology. This guidance is not prescriptive and does not advise companies in how to protect their customers from exposure to nanomaterials.

There is also a lack of scientific research about how nanomaterials interact at the molecular and physiological levels, with unknown potential impacts on public health and the environment. Consequently, companies looking to purchase or sell nanofood products or packaging have to take specific steps to protect themselves from financial and reputational risks through a thorough evaluation of the safety of these products, and transparency to address consumer concerns.

Specifically, the Framework:

Provides an introduction to key terms and issues by outlining a definition of nanomaterials; addressing the accessibility of nanoparticles within the human body and current studies which point to potential hazards; tackling the issue of unique properties and related, under-researched toxicity threats; and assessing how federal agencies are determining nanomaterial toxicological profiles.

Describes the current regulatory status and risks including: recent developments on nanomaterials by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration; and the emerging concerns due to lack of regulation.

Presents best practices from existing scientific, industry, and governmental frameworks including questions to ask suppliers to increase transparency of their supply chain and priorities for obtaining data related to risk and toxicity factors.

Makes recommendations regarding the information companies should request and receive from suppliers who offer food products and packaging that may contain nanomaterials.

The Framework will be distributed widely throughout the food and food packaging industries and will be followed up by a survey asking these same companies to disclose what, if any, nanomaterials are being used in their supply chain.

As You Sow is a nonprofit organization that promotes corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies. For more information visit:www.asyousow.org

CONTACT:

Glenn Turner, 917-817-3396
glenn@ripplestrategies.com

OR

Shayna Samuels, 718-541-4785

shayna@ripplestrategies.com

As an aside, I don’t we have the genetically altered milk in Canada, so that item may apply more to the USA, but I could stand to be corrected. Another problem with industrial production of milk, I’m given to understand, is that the cows have to keep getting pregnant in order to produce, and what happens is their newborn calves are killed off right away and shipped to rendering plants, having sad, brutishly short lives. Again, I’d appreciate anyone with special knowledge of that writing me. I’d love to buy milk that’s produced in a humane system, and meat too.

Pass this info along to everyone you know!

1. Canned Tomatoes

Fredrick Vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A, gives us the scoop:

The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people's body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. "You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that's a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young," says vom Saal. "I won't go near canned tomatoes."

The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe's and Pomi.

Budget tip: If your recipe allows, substitute bottled pasta sauce for canned tomatoes. Look for pasta sauces with low sodium and few added ingredients, or you may have to adjust the recipe.

2. Corn-Fed Beef

Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. "We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure," says Salatin.

The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers' markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It's usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don't see it, ask your butcher.

Budget tip: Cuts on the bone are cheaper because processors charge extra for deboning. You can also buy direct from a local farmer, which can be as cheap as $5 per pound. To find a farmer near you, search eatwild.com.

3. Microwave Popcorn

Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize—and migrate into your popcorn. "They stay in your body for years and accumulate there," says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.

The solution: Pop natural kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix.

Budget tip: Popping your own popcorn is dirt cheap.

4. Nonorganic Potatoes

Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes—the nation's most popular vegetable—they're treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they're dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. " Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won't," says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). "I've talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals."

The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn't good enough if you're trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.

Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.

5. Farmed Salmon

David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and publisher of a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Nature didn't intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. "You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer," says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. "It's that bad." Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.

The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it's farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.

Budget tip: Canned salmon, almost exclusively from wild catch, can be found for as little as $3 a can.

6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones

Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. "When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract," says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. "There's not 100% proof that this is increasing cancer in humans," admits North. "However, it's banned in most industrialized countries."

The solution: Check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products.

Budget tip: Try Wal-Mart's Great Value label, which does not use rBGH.

7. Conventional Apples

Mark Kastel, former executive for agribusiness and codirector of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods, gives us the scoop:

The problem: If fall fruits held a "most doused in pesticides contest," apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don't develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it's just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. "Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers," he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson's disease.

The solution: Buy organic apples.

Budget tip: If you can't afford organic, be sure to wash and peel them. But Kastel personally refuses to compromise. "I would rather see the trade-off being that I don't buy that expensive electronic gadget," he says. "Just a few of these decisions will accommodate an organic diet for a family."

Get more tips on how to go organic without breaking the bank

http://www.prevention.com/budgetorganic

In the Ontario case - Murphy verses Carpenters 2011 - an application was made under Section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in which the applicant Gary Murphy alleges that his former employer, The Carpenters District Council of Ontario dismissed him from his employment as a reprisal for raising complaints about his immediate supervisors conduct. Despite the responding parties position that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case of a breach of the act, it has been determined that this application puts reverse onus on the employer to provide proof that the employees dismissal did not occur as a result of the employee acting in compliance with OSHA or seeking its enforcement. This case has been referred to the Registrar to list for hearing.

It will be interesting to follow this case to its conclusion. To read more about this case - http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlrb/doc/2011/2011canlii71880/2011canlii71880.html

In another reprisal case, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has made a ruling that it does not have jurisdiction to hear a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act where an employee suffers reprisal for raising a harassment complaint with his or her employer; as a result of November 18th, 2011 decision in the Harper verses Ludlow Technical Products Canada Ltd. This forces employees to deal with harassment under their internal corporate policies and not through OLRB. This does not mean employees can't take their case to Human Rights.

To read more on this case: http://www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com/bill-168-update-olrb-will-not-hear-harassment-reprisal-complaint-under-ohsa

In Nova Scotia a health and safety representative has been charged for failing to follow through with an employer on a report of asbestos found in the insulation of housing units that he presented to two supervisors employed with his employer.

The court found the safety representative guilty of failing to take reasonable precautions for the safety of persons at or near the workplace, including residents of the homes that contained the asbestos insulation. This decision came about due to his job description that identified he was responsible for promoting a safe and healthy workplace. This case resulted in a conviction and a $1000.00 fine for the safety representative and 515 compliance orders.

For more information on this case go to: http://www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com/safety-co-ordinator-who-assumed-a-passive-role-convicted-under-ohs-act

Our federal government has defended the export of this dangerous material for a long time, creating a Chrysotile Institute to tout the virtues and safety of the material, and opposing as simple a thing as safety-labeling of the product. The federal government and the local industry in Quebec continue to push the idea that the material is safe when mixed with concrete – which it may be, except one has to ask, “Is it safe when that concrete deteriorates or is demolished?” as it eventually certainly will. Industry defenders also maintain that asbestos is safe “when handled properly”; this is a farce, of course, because much of it is exported to countries that lack health & safety regulations and environmental laws, or any enforcement or oversight of these.

There’s just no way to ensure that the material is handled safely once it enters a marketplace like that of China or India or elsewhere. And, again, our government has fought any requirement to even attach warning labels to asbestos shipments, encouraging the treatment of the material by importers as benign.

Anyway, here’s the CP article:

After 130 years, Canadian asbestos production quietly suspended

by Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press

Friday, October 7, 2011

MONTREAL - Canada's once-mighty asbestos sector has ground to a halt for the first time in 130 years, as production of the controversial fibre has stalled in both of the country's mines.

A shutdown this month marked a historic milestone for the Canadian asbestos industry, which at one time dominated world production and led to the construction of entire towns in Canada.

Proponents of the industry insist it's way too early write the obituary on Canadian asbestos; they're hoping to start digging again as soon as the spring.

But for now, amid all the noisy political debates and a dramatic anti-asbestos news conference Thursday on Parliament Hill, Canadian production has quietly and suddenly stopped.

Work halted earlier this month at the Lac d'amiante du Canada operation in Thetford Mines, Que., which followed a production stoppage at Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, about 90 kilometres away.

The future of both mines is unclear.

Jeffrey Mine needs a bank-loan guarantee from the Quebec government before it can start digging a new underground mine. Lac d'amiante du Canada is apparently facing operational obstacles in accessing its mineral.

Canadian asbestos is expected to disappear from the international market altogether in the coming weeks, as the stockpiles at both operations dry up, says Jeffrey Mine president Bernard Coulombe.

Does the production standstill signal the end of Canada's embattled asbestos sector?

Not if you ask Coulombe.

"It's not closed... fibre is still being sold," said Coulombe, who explains that both mines are still selling small amounts from their limited inventories.

He predicts production to resume at Jeffrey in the spring — once the loan-guarantee is secured.

The production shutdown is the latest dip for an industry that has long been a shadow of its former self.

Canada gained a reputation as the world's top producer of a once-valuable global commodity that was hailed as the "magic mineral" for its fireproofing and insulating characteristics.

Canadian asbestos represented 85 per cent of world production in the early 1900s and the country's annual production peaked at 1.69 million metric tons in 1973, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The resource was so valuable that the U.S. military drew up plans during the 1930s to enter Quebec and defend the mines if Canada ever fell under German control, said a researcher who's studied the history of Quebec asbestos.

Jessica Van Horssen also recalled how Nazi leader Adolf Hitler bought Canadian asbestos up until the Second World War for fireproof building material, and how Winston Churchill's bunker on Downing Street was also made of asbestos cement.

"It was also something that made the world safe and we wanted to be safe, especially during war time. It was a real comfort that things had asbestos in them," said Van Horssen, a post-doctoral student from McGill University.

But the industry began its steady decline in the 1970s as science started linking asbestos exposure to serious health problems, such as lung disease and cancer.

Canada produced around five per cent of the world supply in 2010 and just 100,000 metric tons, the USGS says.

But Coulombe insists the international market for chrysotile — the type of asbestos mined in Canada — remains strong, which is great for business and the industry's future. The problem is, it also means the Jeffrey reserve will be bought up within a few weeks.

That prospect, he admits, has stirred up concern among his clients, who he says value Canadian chrysotile as the industry standard.

Instead, he says his customers will have to settle on lesser-quality chrysotile from places like Kazakhstan and Russia.

Coulombe, who says his mine has maintained a close working relationship with Lac d'amiante du Canada since 2008, had hoped its ally was going to pick up the slack until at least 2013.

"When one (mine) didn't have enough fibre, the other supplied it," he said.

"Our clients are a little unhappy with us because they say, 'We don't have any more comparable-standard fibre right now... we are in the hands of the Russians.' "

LAB Chrysotile, which operates Lac d'amiante du Canada, shuttered its operation indefinitely earlier this month. Last summer, company president Simon Dupere blamed its problem on internal challenges, including labour, production and development issues.

The company is also hoping to get permission from the provincial government to dig into a deposit under a highway in its central Quebec region.

Dupere did not return calls by The Canadian Press.

But Coulombe, and a published report, have said LAB Chrysotile's challenges are due to a massive rock slide that cut off access to the mine's economically viable chrysotile.

"They tried to remove it, more of it fell," Coulombe said of fallen rocks.

"That's why they had to stop operating because they spent and spent (money) and there's no mineral to sell."

But the future is bright for Jeffrey Mine, he says.

Coulombe's so confident in its potential that 25 workers have been busy preparing the new subterranean section, so it will be ready to open by the summer — as long as it gets support from Quebec.

Coulombe says he will only have enough money to open the underground mine if he secures a $58-million bank-loan guarantee from the Quebec government.

Once that project gets underway, he predicts Jeffrey can produce asbestos for another 25, or even 50, years.

The sector will have to continue fending off a growing group of international critics — made up of health experts and activists.

They want politicians to pemanently close the Canadian industry, which ships the bulk of its asbestos to poorer countries where they argue safety standards are too weak.

Some of those activists held a dramatic news conference Thursday on Parliament Hill. They described the impact that exposure to asbestos has had on Canadians and their families.

Eleven-year-old Cavanagh Matmor tearfully recounted how she watched her grandmother gasping for air on her deathbed.

Her grandfather had worked in a Toronto factory with asbestos from the Jeffrey Mine, and her grandmother had become ill from exposure to the fibres her husband brought into the house.

"I wonder (if) it doesn't make them feel bad inside, because they don't know how it feels, they don't know how it feels to have a grandmother and a grandfather die of asbestos," Matmor said.

"They just don't listen to others.

"They just decide to continue, and it breaks my heart. It breaks my heart knowing that they're going to continue doing that and that people in other countries will have to go through the same thing."

Matmor and her family are calling on the Charest government to reject the loan to keep the Jeffrey mine afloat — and to shut down the industry for good.

But Coulombe, like other industry supporters, insists Canadian asbestos is no longer handled in a careless manner.

He said it's perfectly safe when the mineral's tiny fibres are bonded in products like cement.

The Occupy movement has drawn its first significant blood.

Let’s start with the Occupy movement, which spread from Wall Street, New York to hundreds of towns and cities across North America and beyond this fall. Opinions about the right of protesters to camp in city parks is just a distraction from some pretty serious issues to which the so-called “ninety-nine percenters” are drawing attention.

Yes, I know it’s easy to ambush certain non-media-savvy picketers and record them making less-than-coherent statements, then use that to claim, as some media are doing, “Look, these people are idiots!”

But some very articulate voices are emerging. If you don’t know about them, read this article from Yes Magazine:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/why-were-not-afraid

And (especially) watch the first video clip from this film, which may be the most articulate explanation of what the Occupy movement is all about yet:

http://occupylove.org/

My own view of it is thus.

Over the past quarter century people have been told prosperity would come from the removal of trade tariffs, globalization of the economy and deregulation of capital markets. Unfortunately the free-trading dream turned into a nightmare for many as international companies and banks gamed the system to the advantage of a limited number of insiders; a new billionaire plutocracy emerged.

The middle class was gutted as well-paying skilled jobs in the North American manufacturing sector were exported to the developing world. Middle America became a “rust belt” of abandoned factories as companies off-shored production to places where environment and health and safety laws are virtually unknown.

Ironically, unemployed or under-employed North Americans now buy many goods from Walmart manufactured in slave labor conditions in China that used to be produced locally.

And it’s a nightmare in those countries, too. Before he died Steve Jobs was made aware of the appalling conditions in the factory in China that makes iPhones. I don’t know if that awareness led to changes, but it was a grim story. Workers sign away their rights to any constitutional freedoms when they agree to work in the plant, and then spend long hours working under the supervision of armed guards, allowed to talk to no one. The plant is really more like a concentration camp where workers sleep in barracks; the situation only came to the attention of the West when it emerged that depressed workers routinely climb to the top of the building and jump to their deaths.

While North American manufacturers joined the race to the bottom, banks and financial service companies successfully lobbied for deregulation, then turned the investment market into a rigged casino. Thanks to documentaries like Inside Job, most of us are now familiar with the details of the subprime mortgage securities fraud and subsequent 2008 housing collapse which wiped out billions in investments. Derivatives known as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps impoverished the middle class while executives at Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase made millions, even betting against the very investments they were selling to their own customers.

Though these companies are now paying hundreds of millions of dollars in “no contest” U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fines, the deals result in no jail terms for the offenders, and the fines are chump change to Wall Street banks. Some of the subprime mortgage disaster’s culprits maintained secure jobs even in the supposedly reformist Obama administration, most conspicuously Ben Bernanke who was reappointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States.

Finally, people had had enough and took to the streets: a movement was born.

Sometimes timing is everything.

In the very midst of the Occupy protests the highly politicized decision loomed over the fate of TransCanada Pipelines’ proposed Keystone Pipeline System, which would transport synthetic crude oil and diluted bitumen from the Athabasca Oil Sands in northeastern Alberta to refineries in Illinois, a distribution hub in Oklahoma, and refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Keystone has faced lawsuits from oil refineries and criticism from environmentalists and some members of the US Congress. The US Department of State extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest in 2010, and did so again recently during presidential election season after thousands of people demonstrated in front of the gates of the White House.

It wasn’t lost on Obama’s advisors in the White House that the demonstrators out front were close cousins to the Occupy protestors, and represent part of Obama’s (increasingly alienated) base.

The pipeline proponents’ cause wasn’t helped by media reports of bully tactics being brought to bear against landowners in the pipeline’s path, including threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land even before the controversial project has received federal approval. (As of mid-October the company had 34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas and 22 in South Dakota. Some of the landowners gave testimony before for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.)

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has stated that because of the US dithering, Canada will start talking to other potential customers of oil sands crude, notably China and other Asian countries. The Keystone proponents, meanwhile, are considering building the first phase of the project, and changing its route to dampen the controversy.

In the end, whatever happens to the Occupy protesters’ camps or whatever new tactics they espouse, their message is filtering upwards and we can expect a role-back of the deregulation that occurred from the 1980s until recently. And with this tide will come much greater cynicism against multinational corporations and claims that their projects are in the public interest. Many vote-seeking politicians will realign themselves with the skeptical public against the large companies as word spreads that citizens are putting the Main Street back in Wall Street.

This is a tidal change that must be taken seriously. Woe betide the company that ignores the retreating water and those foaming wave crests on the horizon.

Here’s the release:

Plastics Recycling? There's an App for That

Plastics Make it Possible® Launches the “Bin It!” App That Aims to Make Plastics Recycling an Obsession

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 14, 2011) – A new app hopes to create an obsession out of tossing plastic packaging into virtual—and real world—recycling bins.

To encourage more plastics recycling, Plastics Make it Possible, an initiative sponsored by the plastics industries of the American Chemistry Council, has launched Bin It!, a fun and addictive new game that actually challenges people to recycle. Bin It! players toss plastic bottles into various recycling bins in the face of distracting animals, flashing cameras and tricky breezes. The game then converts the player’s successful tosses into the number of recycled t-shirts, sweaters and sleeping bags that can be made from recycled plastics.

The Bin It! app was launched to coincide with America Recycles Day on November 15, the only nationally recognized day dedicated to promoting recycling in the United States.

“While the Bin It! player aims to toss plastic bottles into recycling bins, our aim is to get everybody hooked on plastics recycling,” said Steve Russell, Vice President, Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council. “We’re always looking for creative ways to increase recycling awareness and participation, not only on America Recycles Day but every day. We hope people play Bin It! and then remember to “bin it” at home, on the road, at the office, at ball games...everywhere.”

Ninety-four percent of Americans have access to a plastics recycling program. While the Bin It! app uses plastic bottles, many communities also allow residents to “bin it” with other plastic containers such as yogurt cups and butter tubs. In addition, many grocery and retail chains—more than 12,000 locations nationwide—now offer bins to collect plastic bags and wraps for recycling.

Plastics recycling is on the rise, and demand for recycled plastics is growing. Bin It! is designed not only for gaming fun but to encourage more people to recycle plastic bottles, containers and bags.

The Bin It! recycling game can be downloaded on the iPhone, iPod and iPad through the iTunes App Store. For more information on plastics recycling and America Recycles Day, visit www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/recycle

About Plastics Make it Possible:

Plastics Make it Possible highlights the many ways plastics inspire innovations that improve our lives, solve big problems and help us design a safer, more promising future. This initiative is sponsored by the plastics industries of the American Chemistry Council. For more information, visit www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com, check out ourFacebook page and follow us @plasticpossible on twitter at www.twitter.com/plasticpossible

Show Hours:

Wednesday, November 9, 2011
10:00 am to 4:00 pm

Thursday, November 10, 2011
10:00 am to 4:00 pm

Location: Palais des congrès de Montréal

Solid Waste & Recycling magazine will be at booth 1300. I’ll be on the show floor most of the time though I may pop my head into some conference sessions. So look for me there or leave a note at the booth and I’ll come find you. If you leave your cell number that will help too.

See you there!

According to the news item, girls who were exposed to the industrial chemical bisphenol A while in the womb showed more behavioral problems at age three than those whose moms had lower BPA levels. (The study was released on Monday, October 24, 2011.)

I thought readers might appreciate my reproducing the rest of the news item, with my own brief comment at the end:

Anxiety, depression and hyperactivity were seen more often in toddler girls whose mothers had high levels of the chemical in their urine while pregnant, said the research led by the Harvard School of Public Health.

“This pattern was more pronounced for girls, which suggests that they might be more vulnerable to gestational BPA exposure than boys,” said the study in the October 24 issue of the journal Pediatrics.

BPA is used in the manufacture of plastics and adhesives, and can be found in the lining of canned foods, some plastic bottles and containers, cashier receipts and dental fillings.

The analysis was done using data from 244 mothers and their children up to age three in the Cincinnati, Ohio area. The mothers’ urine samples were tested while pregnant at 16 and 26 weeks, and again at birth.

The children’s urine was tested at age one, two and three. BPA was found in 85 percent of the mothers’ urine and in 96 percent of the samples from the children.

The higher the BPA levels were while the mother was pregnant, the more likely the daughters were to experience behavioral problems by age three.

The same correlation was not seen in boys, nor was there any apparent link between behavior and levels of BPA in the children’s urine, said the data derived from questionnaires on child behavior filled out by the parents.

“None of the children had clinically abnormal behavior, but some children had more behavior problems than others,” said lead author Joe Braun, research fellow in environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The study reported that “increasing gestational BPA concentrations were associated with more hyperactive, aggressive, anxious, and depressed behavior and poorer emotional control and inhibition in the girls.”

The research appeared to support previous studies that have suggested a link between BPA exposure in the womb and child behavior, but is the first to show that in utero exposure is the critical window when altering effects may occur.

However, due to the small size of the sample, the study authors -- who also included scientists at Cincinnati Children's Hospital and Medical Center, and Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, British Columbia -- said more research is needed.

“There is considerable debate regarding the toxicity of low-level BPA exposure, and the findings presented here warrant additional research,” said the study.

Funding for the study came from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences training.

Okay, that is where the news item ends. My own thought is that, of course, further research is needed; but I’m bothered that the study is so inconclusive and is based on small sample size. I’m not disputing the conclusions, yet I really wish a really broad study would be initiated immediately, and in fact hope there’s already one under way. These reports are very disturbing and I want more information to support the news headline and the alarm it causes. I also wish that news items like this contained some detail, such as a typical amount of BPA found in the urine, or a range, especially in terms of what constitutes a high level, in the study authors’ opinions. And some commentary from toxicologists for added perspective would also help.

I have enough training and experience to read past the headlines on news items of this sort. I fear that many in the public do not.