VZCZCXRO1958
PP RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #0538/01 1091450
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 181450Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7714
INFO RUEAUSA/DEPT OF HHS WASHDC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEAEPA/EPA WASHDC
RUEHPS/USMISSION OECD PARIS
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 1807
RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000538 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN, EEB, OES 
 
DHHS FOR OFFICE OF GLOBAL HEALTH AFFAIRS 
 
EPA FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
STATE PASS FDA INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 
 
COMMERCE FOR 4310/MAC/ONA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD TBIO SENV EAGR EIND CA
SUBJECT: Canada Likely to Label Plastic Ingredient 'Toxic' 
Sensitive but Unclassified, please protect accordingly. Not for 
internet distribution 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary - As early as April 18 Canada may declare the 
chemical bisphenol A (BPA), widely used in plastics, toxic under the 
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.  This is likely to 
precipitate additional widespread public concern in both Canada and 
the United States.   We understand that American authorities are 
also examining the health effects of the chemical, but rapid 
developments in Canada could lead to divergence between U.S. and 
Canadian policy in managing the chemical, with significant 
implications for the massive food, beverage and products trade 
across our borders.  In anticipation of the official announcement, 
Wal-Mart Canada has pulled many plastic food containers, water 
bottles and baby products from its shelves. Embassy would appreciate 
media guidance with respect to U.S. policy on BPA. End summary and 
Action request. 
 
¶2. (U) According to knowledgeable observers in Ottawa the Canadian 
government is ready to declare as "Toxic" the chemical bisphenol A 
(BPA), widely used to make polycarbonate plastic baby bottles, 
beverage and food containers.  BPA is also used to produce epoxy 
resin linings in food and beverage cans.  The formal announcement, 
which may come as early as Friday, April 18, is based on a Canadian 
federal risk assessment of the chemical, which began in late 2006 as 
part of the government's "Chemicals Management Plan" to review 
several hundred potentially problematic chemicals in Canada.  Canada 
would be the first country to formally declare BPA a health hazard 
and sanction constraints on its use. 
 
¶3. (U) A "Toxic" designation under the Canadian Environmental 
Protection Act" (CEPA) designation does not automatically mean an 
immediate outright ban, or even restrictions, on the substance; 
although restrictions or prohibitions on the use of the chemical in 
certain products could be a likely end result.  Typically a "Toxic" 
designation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act" (CEPA) 
would be followed by a long process (several months at least) of 
public consultation involving industry, the government and the 
interested public to develop regulations, guidelines or codes of 
practice to manage the substance's life cycle from research and 
development through manufacture, use, storage, transport and 
ultimate disposal or recycling. 
 
 
¶4. (U) A sub-category of "Toxic" substances, those which are also 
bio-accumulative, persistent, and anthropogenic, may be proposed for 
"Virtual Elimination" (i.e. not allowed above detectable limits). 
However, Canada's initial characterization of BPA in 2006 suggested 
it was not considered persistent or bio-accumulative, and is 
unlikely to meet Canada's "Virtual Elimination" criteria. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Observers note that the high profile public attention 
given to this chemical over the past year may prompt the government 
to accelerate the process to develop a management plan for the 
chemical.  Indeed, the government was not scheduled to announce the 
findings of its BPA review until May, but a leak to the press about 
the "Toxics" designation on April 14 has forced the government's 
hand, and the report will now be officially released early. 
 
¶6. (SBU) One well-placed industry observer notes the leak 
Q6. (SBU) One well-placed industry observer notes the leak 
effectively means the government has ceded the political management 
and timing of the policy response to anti-BPA advocates.  In that 
observer's opinion the government will be forced to react to public 
demands, much of it fostered by self-interested advocates, for rapid 
"hard-hitting" action.  More broadly, the perceived politicization 
of the government's "Chemicals Management Plan", he said, will erode 
the industry's goodwill toward the multi-year chemical reassessment 
effort. 
 
¶7. (U) The marketplace is reacting with alacrity to the perceived 
consumer demand for action. Wal-Mart Canada cleared its store 
shelves on April 16 of all plastic food containers, water bottles, 
baby bottles, "sippy cups" and pacifiers containing BPA. 
"Irrespective of the pending science, it's an issue of trust for us, 
and our customers need to know they can shop with confidence at 
Wal-Mart, particularly in the baby aisle," said Wal-Mart Canada's 
 
OTTAWA 00000538  002 OF 002 
 
 
Director of Corporate Affairs Kevin Groh. 
 
¶8. (U) The federal finding will also likely influence the provinces 
of Ontario and Quebec who are currently engaged in their own 
assessment of BPA's health impact. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Action Request: It is worth noting that the leak of the 
Canadian position coincided with the release of the draft report on 
BPA from the United States National Toxicology Program, which in its 
preliminary draft found "some" health impact concerns.  Given rapid 
developments on the issue, and the high public profile this chemical 
has on both sides of the border, we are conscious of the potential 
for policy and regulatory divergence between Canada and the United 
States.  Embassy would appreciate internal guidance on U.S. 
government policy related to BPA and media talking points. 
 
Wilkins