NOTE: As with many of my posts, this one started life as a Letter to the Editor. It might or might not have made it all the way to the Letters page of my local rag.  This one was written several weeks after there was a nation-wide (in Canada) flurry of concern over the chemical Bisphenol A, which is used as a hardener in some plastics, notably the polycarbonate that is used in Nalgene drinking bottles, in baby formula bottles, and other places. It seems that, in some circumstances (such as when exposed to boiling water) the plastic can leach traces of the Bisphenol A (BPA) into the container contents, and thus into whoever drinks it. The BPA could possibly have health consequences for the person ingesting it. The quantities are so small that most adults couldn’t drink enough  to have an effect, but we do like to protect our babies, because their little systems are still developing. Thus the concern. Many retailers reacted to the furor by pulling hard plastic bottles from the shelves. Suppliers scrambled to find alternate materials, like good old fashioned glass bottles for baby, and Sigg aluminum bottles for style/status-conscious hikers and bikers. Only after this whole thing had mostly sorted itself out did Canada’s public health minister Tony Clement stand up on his hind legs and brag that he was going to ban BPA.  So, here’s my letter:

Editor,

I happened to bump into the Global-TV/Canada.com website while they were featuring a one-question poll: “Do you agree with the governments’ announcement to ban the import, sale and advertising of baby bottles with the controversial chemical bisphenol A.” After I did the obvious and voted “No”, I was shown the results-to-date.

Apparently, 93.17 percent of respondents are perfect fodder for opportunistic, unethical politicians, while only 6.83 percent of us are capable of (or willing to exercise) a moment of critical thought.

Once the furor about bisphenol A became public, retailers and other businesses were falling all over themselves taking BPA-containing plastics off the market. In fact the kafuffle and the reaction went on long enough that the backwash was beginning to kick in and some retailers were resuming carrying the plastic items for use by adults (for whom risk is absurdly small) while keeping the baby items out of circulation. The problem was solved, without need for government action. It solved itself within weeks. Only the terminally-behind-the-times were still upset or worried about anything.

So what does our beloved government do? They scramble for a way to get out in front of a trend that has already sorted itself, for no earthly reason than to pander to the defective voters who can’t quite muster the wherewithal to … think. Dear Tony says (paraphrasing) “Because a good number of you folks can’t or won’t acquire a clue, but you do have the vote, we’re going to exercise force against some of the population for no more good and useful purpose than to secure your gullible votes. We are going to place yet another workload onto bureaucrats and inspectors who are already desperately behind and spread too thin to monitor and enforce all our other silly and not-so-silly bans. Rejoice and vote for us!”

And he did. And they will. Oh my head. Oh my wallet. Oh my devalued vote.

That’s the way I see it, anyway.

Copyright 2008