Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Oregon Senate Committee Moves BPA Bill Forward

by: JayinPortland

Fri Feb 12, 2010 at 04:29:29 AM PST


Bookmark and Share
Two weeks into (and halfway through) the Oregon Legislative Assembly's 2010 Special Session, we now have a better idea of what should pass and what will have to wait.  The statewide plastic bag ban has been dropped for now (as expected, we'll pick it up in 2011), but the bill (SB 1032) banning the sale of BPA-containing baby bottles and sippy cups has passed the Oregon Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee -

The Senate environment committee voted 3-2, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against, to refer Senate Bill 1032 to the Senate floor.

The bill would ban bisphenol-A, or BPA, from baby bottles and sippy cups beginning July 1, 2011. Major bottle manufacturers, Walmart and other retailers are already backing away from the ubiquitous chemical when it comes to bottles and cups for young children.

Washington's Legislature easily passed bills with similar bans recently with large, bipartisan margins.

Oregon will pass the bill as well, since Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1 in both the Oregon House and the Oregon Senate.  But still, I have to wonder what Oregon Republicans are thinking by voting in favor of continuing to expose our children to BPA?  Shame on Brian Boquist and Jason Atkinson.  Someone should tell them that even WalMart has abandoned products containing the dangerous, hormone-disrupting toxicant.  Are Oregon Republicans that beholden to out-of-state chemical manufacturers?  Let's hope at least a few of their fellow Republicans show some sense in their final votes on the bill.

JayinPortland :: Oregon Senate Committee Moves BPA Bill Forward
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Republicans are no more beholden (4.00 / 1)
to chemical, or anyother business interests for that matter, than are the democrats in office or even the independants.

There's something else going on, it's never that simple, especially with something like this that, as you say, even Wal-Mart is backing away from.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


Sorry, but... (4.00 / 1)
...the entire history of the Republican Party everywhere in America, over at least the past 70 - 80 years, proves that they'll take the side of corporate interests over citizens 10 times out of 10.

The Democrats may take the corporate interest's side 9.7 times out of 10 themselves, but at least they're willing to take common sense stands against poisons like BPA every now and then.

When modern day Republicans do even one thing good for the environment or public health, I do believe the headlines the next day will read "Devil Throws Snowballs, NY Yankees Take To Icy Field"...


[ Parent ]
As far as I'm concerned (4.00 / 2)
.3% makes the Dems just as bad as the Repubs. They're all beholden to business. The only difference is which business interests the two parties are beholden to. And I don't trust the independants any further than the two major parties either.

In politics, I don't trust any single party. All I trust is the mettle of individual legislators, and even at that I question them too.

Perhaps I'm just too jaded.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
Jade (4.00 / 1)
Being "too jaded" about politicians is a difficult enterprise.

[ Parent ]
Trust... (4.00 / 1)
You don't have to trust any of them, I certainly don't.  But the fact still remains that every Democrat on the committee voted to ensure babies and toddlers are no longer exposed to BPA, and every Republican on the committee voted to continue to allow babies and toddlers to be exposed to BPA.

Some issues are black & white.  This is one of them, imo.


[ Parent ]
It was probably something in all this (4.00 / 2)
Bull Hockey that was thrown into the bill, and which makes up the bulk of the bill that the two Republicans voted against.

I would really like to know the answer to this burning question - If BPA in food containers is such a serious issue, and I do believe it is, especially in those containers meant to be used by kids, why the hell is all this crap included????

I'd have voted the damn thing down too. I'm just about up to here with all the idiotic riders on bills, which is what all this below ammounts to.

If you read the whole bill, it's really a real estate bill with a BPA sippy cup rider.

Do you know who the idiot(s) was(were) who wrote this? Not who sponsored it, but who actually put pen to paper to concoct this monstrosity?

646.608. (1) A person engages in an unlawful practice when in
the course of the person's business, vocation or occupation the
person does any of the following:
 (a) Passes off real estate, goods or services as those of
another.
 (b) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to
the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of real
estate, goods or services.
 (c) Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to
affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification
by, another.
 (d) Uses deceptive representations or designations of
geographic origin in connection with real estate, goods or
services.
 (e) Represents that real estate, goods or services have
sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses,
benefits, quantities or qualities that they do not have or that a
person has a sponsorship, approval, status, qualification,
affiliation, or connection that the person does not have.
 (f) Represents that real estate or goods are original or new if
they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used or
secondhand.
 (g) Represents that real estate, goods or services are of a
particular standard, quality, or grade, or that real estate or
goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.
 (h) Disparages the real estate, goods, services, property or
business of a customer or another by false or misleading
representations of fact.
 (i) Advertises real estate, goods or services with intent not
to provide them as advertised, or with intent not to supply
reasonably expectable public demand, unless the advertisement
discloses a limitation of quantity.
 (j) Makes false or misleading representations of fact
concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price
reductions.
 (k) Makes false or misleading representations concerning credit
availability or the nature of the transaction or obligation
incurred.
 (L) Makes false or misleading representations relating to
commissions or other compensation to be paid in exchange for
permitting real estate, goods or services to be used for model or
demonstration purposes or in exchange for submitting names of
potential customers.
 (m) Performs service on or dismantles any goods or real estate
when not authorized by the owner or apparent owner thereof.
 (n) Solicits potential customers by telephone or door to door
as a seller unless the person provides the information required
under ORS 646.611.
 (o) In a sale, rental or other disposition of real estate,
goods or services, gives or offers to give a rebate or discount
or otherwise pays or offers to pay value to the customer in
consideration of the customer giving to the person the names of
prospective purchasers, lessees, or borrowers, or otherwise
aiding the person in making a sale, lease, or loan to another
person, if earning the rebate, discount or other value is
contingent upon occurrence of an event subsequent to the time the
customer enters into the transaction.
 (p) Makes any false or misleading statement about a prize,
contest or promotion used to publicize a product, business or
service.
 (q) Promises to deliver real estate, goods or services within a
certain period of time with intent not to deliver them as
promised.
 (r) Organizes or induces or attempts to induce membership in a
pyramid club.

 (s) Makes false or misleading representations of fact
concerning the offering price of, or the person's cost for real
estate, goods or services.
 (t) Concurrent with tender or delivery of any real estate,
goods or services fails to disclose any known material defect or
material nonconformity.
 (u) Engages in any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade
or commerce.
 (v) Violates any of the provisions relating to auction sales,
auctioneers or auction marts under ORS 698.640, whether in a
commercial or noncommercial situation.
 (w) Manufactures mercury fever thermometers.
 (x) Sells or supplies mercury fever thermometers unless the
thermometer is required by federal law, or is:
 (A) Prescribed by a person licensed under ORS chapter 677; and
 (B) Supplied with instructions on the careful handling of the
thermometer to avoid breakage and on the proper cleanup of
mercury should breakage occur.
 (y) Sells a thermostat that contains mercury unless the
thermostat is labeled in a manner to inform the purchaser that
mercury is present in the thermostat and that the thermostat may
not be disposed of until the mercury is removed, reused, recycled
or otherwise managed to ensure that the mercury does not become
part of the solid waste stream or wastewater. For purposes of
this paragraph, 'thermostat' means a device commonly used to
sense and, through electrical communication with heating, cooling
or ventilation equipment, control room temperature.
 (z) Sells or offers for sale a motor vehicle manufactured after
January 1, 2006, that contains mercury light switches.
 (aa) Violates the provisions of ORS 803.375, 803.385 or 815.410
to 815.430.
 (bb) Violates ORS 646A.070 (1).
 (cc) Violates any requirement of ORS 646A.030 to 646A.040.
 (dd) Violates the provisions of ORS 128.801 to 128.898.
 (ee) Violates ORS 646.883 or 646.885.
 (ff) Violates ORS 646.569.
 (gg) Violates the provisions of ORS 646A.142.
 (hh) Violates ORS 646A.360.
 (ii) Violates ORS 646.553 or 646.557 or any rule adopted
pursuant thereto.
 (jj) Violates ORS 646.563.
 (kk) Violates ORS 759.690 or any rule adopted pursuant thereto.
 (LL) Violates the provisions of ORS 759.705, 759.710 and
759.720 or any rule adopted pursuant thereto.
 (mm) Violates ORS 646A.210 or 646A.214.
 (nn) Violates any provision of ORS 646A.124 to 646A.134.
 (oo) Violates ORS 646A.095.
 (pp) Violates ORS 822.046.
 (qq) Violates ORS 128.001.
 (rr) Violates ORS 646.649 (2) to (4).
 (ss) Violates ORS 646A.090 (2) to (4).
 (tt) Violates ORS 87.686.
 (uu) Violates ORS 646.651.
 (vv) Violates ORS 646A.362.
 (ww) Violates ORS 646A.052 or any rule adopted under ORS
646A.052 or 646A.054.
 (xx) Violates ORS 180.440 (1) or 180.486 (1).
 (yy) Commits the offense of acting as a vehicle dealer without
a certificate under ORS 822.005.
 (zz) Violates ORS 87.007 (2) or (3).
 (aaa) Violates ORS 92.405 (1), (2) or (3).
 (bbb) Engages in an unlawful practice under ORS 646.648.
 (ccc) Violates ORS 646A.365.
 (ddd) Violates ORS 98.854 or 98.858 or a rule adopted under ORS
98.864.
 (eee) Sells a gift card in violation of ORS 646A.276.
 (fff) Violates ORS 646A.102, 646A.106 or 646A.108.
 (ggg) Violates ORS 646A.430 to 646A.450.
 (hhh) Violates a provision of ORS 744.318 to 744.384, 744.991
and 744.992.
 (iii) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.702 to 646A.720.
 (jjj) Violates ORS 646A.530 30 or more days after a recall
notice, warning or declaration described in ORS 646A.530 is
issued for the children's product, as defined in ORS 646A.525,
that is the subject of the violation.
 (kkk) Violates a provision of ORS 697.612, 697.642, 697.652,
697.662, 697.682, 697.692 or 697.707.
 (LLL) Violates the consumer protection provisions of the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 501 et seq., as
in effect on January 1, 2010.
 (mmm) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.480 to 646A.495.
 (nnn) Violates ORS 646A.082.
 (ooo) Violates ORS 646.647.
 (ppp) Violates ORS 646A.115.
 (qqq) Violates a provision of ORS 646A.405.
  { +  (rrr) Violates a provision of section 1 of this 2010
Act. + }
 (2) A representation under subsection (1) of this section or
ORS 646.607 may be any manifestation of any assertion by words or
conduct, including, but not limited to, a failure to disclose a
fact.
 (3) In order to prevail in an action or suit under ORS 646.605
to 646.652, a prosecuting attorney need not prove competition
between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding.
 (4) An action or suit may not be brought under subsection
(1)(u) of this section unless the Attorney General has first
established a rule in accordance with the provisions of ORS
chapter 183 declaring the conduct to be unfair or deceptive in
trade or commerce.
 (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of ORS 646.605 to
646.652, if an action or suit is brought under subsection (1)(xx)
of this section by a person other than a prosecuting attorney,
relief is limited to an injunction and the prevailing party may
be awarded reasonable attorney fees.
 SECTION 3.  { + Section 1 of this 2010 Act and the amendments
to ORS 646.608 by section 2 of this 2010 Act apply to a person
that operates as a manufacturer, distributor or retailer of any
liquid, food or container described in section 1 of this 2010 Act
on or after the effective date of this 2010 Act. + }
 SECTION 4.  { + This 2010 Act takes effect January 1, 2012. + }
                        ----------



Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....

And here's another nice one from the above quote - (4.00 / 2)
(z) Sells or offers for sale a motor vehicle manufactured after
January 1, 2006, that contains mercury light switches.

How the hell am I supposed to know if a vehicle has a murcury light switch if I sell it? Or if I buy it. And exactly how does this relate to sippy cups containing BPA?

Riddle me that Bat Man.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
These laws already exist... (4.00 / 1)
I have no clue why that's in there, but if you compare what you've quoted to the already existing Oregon Chapter 646 - Trade Practices and Antitrust Regulation, everything above seems to already be law?

Section 'z' you've quoted above already appears exactly this way, in my link above -

(z) Sells or offers for sale a motor vehicle manufactured after January 1, 2006, that contains mercury light switches.

Maybe it's a legal / legislative requirement to list the pertinent state code under which the new law would be placed / enforced?  If that makes any sense?


[ Parent ]
I'm gonna read through later to see what's changed... (4.00 / 1)
But a brief comparison between the new bill and the already existing code seems to indicate the wording is exactly the same in all cases I've already checked.

I don't think anything's been attached / amended, but rather this just might be the way bills are required to be written?


[ Parent ]
No riders attached... (0.00 / 0)
Okay, I read through the new bill and the existing law side by side.  And I'm bored to tears, heh.  But there's nothing at all unseemly here, they just had to update the code.

SB 1032 only added this to the already existing ORS 646.608 -

{ +  (rrr) Violates a provision of section 1 of this 2010
Act.
+ }

SECTION 3.  { + Section 1 of this 2010 Act and the amendments
to ORS 646.608 by section 2 of this 2010 Act apply to a person
that operates as a manufacturer, distributor or retailer of any
liquid, food or container described in section 1 of this 2010 Act
on or after the effective date of this 2010 Act.
+ }
 SECTION 4.  { + This 2010 Act takes effect January 1, 2012. + }

They just had to update the relevant code to reflect the new law.  Nothing at all unseemly there.


[ Parent ]
And I'm not a lawyer... (0.00 / 0)
...and I don't have a legislative staff.  I figured this out in 10 minutes all by myself, so again I'm gonna have to say the two Republicans had absolutely no excuse to vote against this.

[ Parent ]
So do you have any idea as to why (4.00 / 1)
BPA regulations have anything to do with mistrepresenting real estate or mercury switches in used cars?

I'm going to give the two legislators' offices a call on Monday and ask. Might not get an answer, but it doesn't hurt to ask.  

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
It's just the code under which a BPA ban will be enforced... (0.00 / 0)
See the title of 646.608 -

Additional unlawful business, trade practices; proof; rules


[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 1)
I see what you're saying about just reprinting the whole relevant statute of part there of along with the ammendment at the bottom. Perhaps I was jumping the gun here.

I'm still going to give 'em a call on Monday. What they hey.

Regarding locavores as elitists - explain to me how supporting local business is elitist....


[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox