September's Supreme Court ruling, along with keeping Vancouver's Insite clinic open, has paved the way for more safe-injection sites in Canada, including Quebec. Photo by Flickr Creative Commons user Svadilfari.

In September, an eagerly-awaited Supreme Court ruling allowed Vancouver’s Insite injection clinic to remain open indefinitely. And now, Quebec is joining the ranks of Canadian cities with safe-injection sites.

Yves Bolduc, Quebec’s Health and Social Services Minister, in October announced his support of an initiative to open injection clinics in Montreal and Quebec City. While Insite is a large facility at one location, Quebec will have a series of smaller sites in an effort to make the program more “socially acceptable” in communities.

Like Insite, Quebec’s facilities will offer a place for drug users to safely and cleanly receive injections, instead of taking drugs in public places or unsanitary conditions. There will also be services in place to monitor the health and safety of people visiting the clinic – namely, observing clients for signs of overdose post-injection – and information and encouragement provided for seeking detoxification and rehabilitation.

Chantal Gilbert, a local city counsellor, is against the project in Quebec City.

“If [this area] is targeted as a location, we’ll have to ask the opinion of [residents],” Gilbert said after a council meeting earlier this fall. “People send their children to school. There is still a neighbourhood life.”

Two organizations have already put forward proposals to open clinics in the coming months: Cactus Montreal, and Point de Repères in Quebec City.

Cactus is a non-profit organization that aims to help those who use drugs and those with potentially risky sexual behaviour to reduce the risks associated with those practices. Among other services, the organization currently offers needle-exchange programs in Montreal; in fact, when Cactus Montreal was founded in 1989, they became the first needle-exchange program in North America.

Quebec City’s Point de Repères also offers needle-exchange programs. The organization wants to set up their clinic on a commercial street near the Old Quebec district of the City. Gilbert said that the facility does not belong in this area, where there was recently a multi-million dollar improvement project.

It’s for reasons like these that Balduc says that certain conditions need to be met before Quebec’s injection centres can open. Local residents have to approve them, and as mentioned, there can’t be a large centre like Insite.

Currently, the Quebec government spends $80 million per year on programs to combat drug abuse. Bolduc says that part of this money will now be directed to setting up the injection clinics, as well as new services for drug abusers.

Critics of the clinics say that they don’t want their tax money used on opening and running the clinics, while supporters counter that the clinics will save money in other areas — namely, health-care costs and justice costs.

With September’s Supreme Court ruling instituting a permanent exception for Insite to the Controlled Drugs & Substances Act, the fight against injection clinics is getting more difficult for opponents. But for those in favour of the clinics, it’s great news—the ruling has opened the doors to more safe injection sites across Canada. The ruling also stated that exemptions must be put in place to protect drug clinic staff from prosecution for drug possession and trafficking.

“Supervised injection sites save lives and allow people who inject to have the dignity to which each person has a right,” Darlene Palmer, rep for the addiction advocacy group ADDICQ, told Canoe News.  “Approximately 10 million people who inject drugs can be infected with hepatitis C worldwide.”

While September’s ruling opened the doors to possible other safe-injection sites in Canada, it’s hard to say how soon this will become a reality. Ottawa’s mayor and police chief recently voiced their opposition to clinics in their city, and an ongoing study of the possible benefits of Toronto clinics is still not completed.

Compiled by Dylan C. Robertson & Victoria Salvas

This election means death. Not only have Ottawa scrums, filibusters, and drawn-out committees been killed, pieces of legislation making their way through parliament have all met a harsh end as politicians take to the campaign trail.

Before a bill becomes law, it is introduced in either the House of Commons or the Senate. Subsequently the bill goes through readings where it is introduced, given a number code and debated. It can be read again, amended then passed, from the House to the Senate but only becomes law if it is given Royal Assent by the Governor General.

But bills are stopped in their tracks when an election is called. We tracked down the people who pioneered five of the most important bills that died on the order paper when the writ dropped. We asked what they thought of the abrupt death of their projects and if they’ll attempt rebooting them.

While government bills (titled C- with a number under 201) can be reintroduced at an advanced phase with the consent of the House, private members’s bills and motions are entered in a lottery to determine their Order of Precedence, meaning the order in which they can be re-introduced. Only 30 members per session have their motions considered, although the list is replenished if all motions are dealt with.

Here’s a look at the five bills that may or may not rise again:

1. Cheaper HIV Drugs:

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes), was introduced by then NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis in May 2009. After she left to run for mayor of Winnipeg, the bill was adopted by another NDP MP, Paul Dewar.

The bill, which came to be known as “the AIDS drug bill” would’ve allowed generic drug makers to supply their products to developing countries, so they could fight diseases like tuberculosis and malaria, and help the world’s 15 million AIDS victims. Apotex Inc. had promised to make much-needed antiretrovirals for children, should the legislaiton pass. The bill, which was passed earlier this month by the House of Commons, was sabotaged by its review committee and then by the Conservatives’s attempt to effectively whip the senate, feeling it would hinder Big Pharma.

“It’s pretty outrageous,” said Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “This bill had a lot of potential, and we pushed really hard to get it to pass. We had a lot of support from MPs in all parties.”

Dewar said he plans to reintroduce the bill. “We have to abolish the senate though, first,” he laughed. “That’s my plan. Well I’m just joking… but not really.” Dewar noted the bill was lucky to be successfully transferred after Wasylycia-Leis’s leave, as it is not an automatic process. “It was revived when actual co-operation broke out in the House of Commons,” he said. “Through unanimous consent, I was able to pick the bill up. “I’m ready, able, and willing to carry it forward after the election,” said Dewar, who hopes it ranks high in the order or precedence. “There’s so much public support for it. I don’t think they could get away with this again.”

2. Civilizing parliament:

Private Member’s Motion M-517 proposed a reform of Question Period. Conservative MP Michael Chong’s pet project aimed to civilize parliament’s most savage — and ironically unproductive — 45 minutes each sitting day.

The motion sought to strengthen how much discipline a speaker can give, lengthen the alloted time for each question and answer, and aimed at “examining the convention that the minister questioned need not respond.”

“Parliament needs to be reformed and I think the reform of parliament should begin with the reform of Question Period,” said Chong. If passed, the motion would have also stipulated who should be asked questions, most notably dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister, and requiring ministers be present for two of the other four days. Chong noted that he was listed in the Order of Precedence for the first time in six years, and said he would re-table his motion in the rare chance he was listed for the next session. “I’m disappointed that the committee didn’t have a chance to deal with it before the election.”

Chong explained that while many members add motions and bills to the order paper solely to generate publicity for an issue, he fully intends to enact this reform. “I’ll continue to work on this issue through whatever mechanisms are available to me after the election,” said Chong. “Because this problem isn’t going away and I think Canadians want it to be addressed.”

3. Protecting trans rights:

Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression), was a private member’s bill sponsored by NDP MP Bill Siksay. Introduced in early 2009, the legislation would have make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity, and aimed to protect transgender individuals by amending the Human Rights Act.

These amendments would have also been made to the Criminal Code, rendering these acts of discrimination hate crimes. The House passed the bill in February, against Stephen Harper’s wishes. However, the fact that it received “unanimous support from the Bloc, several Conservatives, and the Liberals bodes well for the next parliament” says Siksay. The MP is confident in the future of the bill; passing it again will demonstrate the governments’ “commitment to human rights.”

4. Improving First Nations’ water:

Bill S-11 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, was introduced in May 2010 and would have developed federal regulations for governing water provision, disposal and quality standards in First Nations communities.

An issue that has received much attention recently is the issue of providing First Nations reserves with safe drinking water. An assessment from 2001-2001 found that three quarters of the drinking water systems in First Nations communities were at risk.

Despite the dire situation on many reserves, many First Nations leaders criticized the bill, feeling they were left out of the creating of the legislation and not offered funding to get it off the ground. The Assembly of First Nations felt that the bill presented lofty goals but sparse plans for financial investment and support, which in the long run, could leave reserves in worse condition.

5. Copyright reform:

Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, was the third attempt at copyright reform killed by an election call, dragging on a 14-year effort.

The bill sparked controversy for attempting to criminalize the use and promotion of software that circumvents digital locks, generating high-profile criticism, a minister’s comment that critics were “radical extremists,” and an indutry-led astroturfing campaign. But the bill also aimed at tackling online piracy, and making it legal to transfer music from CDs to iPods.

MP Tony Clement, who introduced the bill as Minister of Industry, told us he plans to reintroduce the bill if re-elected. “It’s just another example of important legislation that has now been discontinued because of the opposition parties passing a motion of non-confidence,” said Clement. “This is a very necessary piece of legislation to help regularize certain habits of consumers and also protect artists from wealth-destroying pirates. “I’m hoping that if we get a majority government, we can actually concentrate on the issues like C-32 and privacy protection and other aspects of the digital economy.”

Creative Commons photo by Flickr user Striatic

I’m not afraid of labour.

I’m not afraid of the intense pressure of my uterus contracting, tightening, pushing…

My cervix slowly dilating… Once open zero centimetres and currently stretching to a whopping 10 centimetres? Bring it!

I’m not even scared about pushing my baby into this world and the likelihood of my vagina tearing.

What I am terrified of is being induced.

There are a couple ways of inducing labour which, when applied to a healthy mother with a low-risk pregnancy, usually happens because she has gone over her “due date.” From what I can tell, more often than not, they cause problems for both the mother and baby.

The most common medical ways to induce labour is with synthetic drugs oxytocin and prostaglandin. Prostaglandin-mimicking drugs like Cervidil and Prepidil are used to thin the cervix and oxytocin-imitating drugs like Syntocinon or Pitocin are used to bring on contractions through intravenous injection.

Some of the reasons why I have no interest in being induced this way:

• While Cervidil is inserted like a tampon and Prepidil is a gel, Syntocinon and Pitocin are given intravenously. Being hooked up to an IV limits mobility making natural pain relief (bath, shower, moving around) more difficult.
• Pain relief is especially important after an induction because as if natural labour didn’t hurt enough, these drugs cause unnaturally strong contractions, often leading to what is known as the cascade of interventions.
• Induction in this way can cause fetal distress (depressed fetal heart rate patterns and decreased oxygen availability.) This often results in the use of forceps, vacuum extraction or C-section—all part of the cascade.
• The unnatural contractions means a woman is more likely to use pain medication (ie: an epidural, a common next step in yes, the cascade…)
• Having an oxytocin drip like Syntocinon or Pitocin, will usually mean continuous fetal heart monitoring. This makes going into the shower or tub for some natural pain relief (warm water) impossible.

I think when my baby’s ready to come out, she’ll come out. They predicted she’d be six pounds at birth, so I would be more than happy to give her a little more time to bake in this oven. If there is plenty of amniotic fluid left, and the baby is not under stress, there’s no need for her to be born so immediately.

It’s important for people (hello, grandparents!) to realize the due date means very little and is only an estimate. It assumes that all women run on a perfect 28-day cycle and that we all ovulate at the same point in that cycle. But that’s not the case.

Only something like three to five per cent of women deliver on their anticipated due date, and most of the time doctors will wait  between seven and 10 days before insisting on induction.

At my last appointment , I talked to my doctor about what would happen if I went over my due date (February 9 — yesterday!). She said she’d give me a week and after that, yes, she’d like to hook me up to an IV, and likely give me Syntocinon.

She was pretty responsive when I asked if there were alternatives to an intravenous intervention. We sorted out the fact that I did not want to be hooked up to an IV unless it was absolutely necessary and she said the alternative could be Cervadil. But if Cervadil’s job is to thin my cervix; at 37.5 weeks it was already 80 percent effaced, I’m not sure what the point is.

I was also surprised and hugely relieved when she told me I could, of course, decide not to have the induction so soon, bringing me closer to 42 weeks if I wanted. I would have to schedule regular non-stress tests to make sure everything was okay in there, which was fine by me.

Not every woman realizes that while the doctor might like a patient to deliver no later than a week after her due date, and if there are no medical complications that would make induction necessary to save the baby/mother’s life, whether or not to be induced really is the mother’s decision.

Luckily, sex is the best drug

There are perfectly natural ways to rustle up a little prostaglandin and oxytocin. Why not bring on labour the way this whole pregnancy thing started?

Semen is the most concentrated source of prostaglandins that exists. The synthetic Cervidil and Prepidil can’t compare. These prostaglandins that occur naturally are not associated with the host of potential problems that come along with the other stuff—won’t cause fetal distress, a ruptured uterus, unnaturally painful contractions etc. Getting some semen on your cervix will help it thin—a necessary step in labour.

Breast stimulation, which goes quite nicely with intercourse, releases oxytocin. Orgasms do the same. When oxytocin is released the uterine muscles contract! That sounds a little more fun than an IV.

In the end, the baby will usually come out when she’s good and ready. Who would want to leave the comfort of a warm, cozy womb anyways? Take your time, baby.

Sources: Ina May’s Guide to Childbirth. While this book has largely succeeded in helping me feel worse about delivering in a hospital as opposed to at home, it has been a great resource, one I relied on heavily for much of the information in this blog post.

When to cut?

Going into the delivery room, you might have decided who was going to cut the umbilical cord. Will the doc do it, or is it something Daddy wants to do?

We often think about who is going to cut the cord, but give little regard to when the best time is to do it. Many people would say “immediately” is the obvious answer. But some people never cut the cord, leaving newborn and placenta attached for the first few days of life.

On this one, I’m most comfortable somewhere in between. I vote for delayed cord clamping (waiting a few minutes until the cord has stopped pulsing before clamping it), but I have no plans to practice Placentophagy (eating the placenta for its nutritional value).

For the most part, a hospital wants to get a woman in and out as soon as possible. Not necessarily because the place is run by a bunch of jerks, but because there is only enough space. Most of the time, the preference will be to clamp the umbilical cord within a few seconds of birth.

But this might not be to baby’s advantage. More and more people are asking for delayed cord clamping, realizing the many benefits that come along with it.

Delaying the cord clamping can allow up to 50% of the baby’s blood volume to flow back into her little body, while early cord clamping results in fewer red blood cells and can cause postpartum haemorrhage, retained placenta and respiratory distress for the baby. Delayed cord clamping may help prevent anaemia later in life.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada says, “Waiting at least two minutes after the baby is born before cutting the umbilical cord may help your baby get more blood supply. This may be most helpful for premature babies. If your partner wishes to cut the cord, this can also be arranged.”

Cord Blood Donation

I was surprised to see how quick the hospital was to push for cord blood donation. It was the first thing we were told about when we went in for an appointment a few weeks pregnant.

There are two public and 10 private Health Canada-registered cord blood banks in Alberta and Quebec.

When we went to visit our hospital to check out where we would be having the baby, a big part of the presentation was spent waxing lyrical about donations. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding cord blood donations, not necessarily because of the early clamping that’s necessary to keep the blood, but because people aren’t so sure of the point of public cord blood banking.

Donating to a public bank makes a lot of sense, I think (it’s public donations that the hospital was all-for). Private donations on the other hand are mind-boggling. The chances your child will ever use his own cord blood are so slim.

And if he has certain illnesses like Leukemia (one of the most common diseases that cord-blood stem cells are used to treat) his own blood likely can’t correct the defect. Treatment would likely end up being taken from a public bank anyway.

Some people take comfort in keeping the blood in case a sibling is ill one day, but private storage of your child’s blood into teenagerdom costs thousands of dollars.

After watching the Hema-Quebec supported video at the hospital it was time for my partner and I to have a long talk about what we wanted to do. He was very touched by the video, feeling that if he had the chance to save another child’s life, he would like to take it.

Maybe I’m heartless, but my vote was for allowing our baby to keep her own blood. We sought out the advice of our doula, who never offers her opinions unless I drag them out of her.

“So,” I asked, “Hypothetically speaking, what would you do?”

She said that if she spent the entire pregnancy taking such good care of herself and the baby by making the right food choices, exercising regularly, and taking prenatal vitamins etc., why deny that baby this last bit of nutrients?

After a little more discussion we decided: Baby, you can keep your blood.

Congratulations! You’re pregnant! First thing’s first: would you consider an abortion?

If your pregnancy was planned or the surprise was a happy surprise, it may seem like a silly question. But more and more new parents are being presented with this option when they are asked if they want to have prenatal screening tests like Amniocentesis or Chorionic Villus Sampling. Based on the results of those tests, terminating the pregnancy can become something that people consider.

To be clear, this is not an argument against abortion rights: women’s sovereignty over their bodies is not in question. What I do question is making invasive procedures routine, especially when the results they produce are not definitive. And the tests also pose difficult moral questions: if the potential for abnormality is present, is that a reason to terminate a pregnancy? People obviously make their own choices for their own reasons, and I can’t stand in judgment of that. What I can tell you is why I decided that these tests were not for me.

Am I being dramatic by calling these tests invasive? Not at all. For an Amnio, done around week 15, a large needle is inserted into the amniotic sac after it passes though the woman’s abdomen and uterus. About 20 mls of fluid is extracted and tested for various disease markers and other potential abnormalities. Can this cause harm to the fetus? You bet. Can it cause a miscarriage? Yes, ma’am.

A test used mainly to screen for Down syndrome (as well as Edwards syndrome, Turner syndrome and neural tube defects like spina bifida) Amnio is standard for women over 35, as the chances of giving birth to a baby with a chromosomal abnormality greatly increase with age.

According to the The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, at the age of 27, my chances of giving birth to a baby with Down syndrome are approximately 1 in 1,111. A woman aged 42 has a 1-in-64 chance.

Author and midwife Ina May Gaskin says in her Guide to Childbirth, the reason 35 was chosen as the recommended age is  “…at this age the likelihood of having a baby with a chromosome condition is about the same or greater than the risk the test will injure the fetus or cause a miscarriage.”

Depending on whether you choose to pay for it privately ($375–$900 at one Montreal clinic) or get the free test at the hospital, you will wait between 48 hours and five weeks for results. Probably a very nerve-wrecking wait.

After a CVS, done earlier in pregnancy than Amnio (in the first trimester), you may discover that your baby could be born with Down syndrome. Either you consider this is a reason to terminate the pregnancy, or you spend a very anxious few months wondering and worrying about your baby’s health. Though maybe for some, being armed with this knowledge would be a way to mentally prepare and plan for a baby who was not born “perfect.”

At our first visit with my OBGYN, we were presented with a pamphlet for a private clinic which offers prenatal screening tests. We didn’t open the pamphlet.

I was surprised when a few friends and some family members seemed to think it was careless of us not to do go in for screening. If the test is available, why on Earth would we choose not to take it? Did we need to borrow some money?

Amnio was the first of a long list of medical interventions we would choose to bypass. Just because certain technology is available doesn’t mean we need to make use of it. I am at such a low risk for delivering a baby with a chromosomal abnormality that we felt the risks outweighed the benefits. Secondly, after a very brief discussion with my partner, we knew we would carry this baby to term and love her regardless.

We decided we would enjoy this pregnancy, assume the best, and hope she is born healthy and happy. Just like our parents did.

Yesterday Canadian economics blogger Mike Moffatt posted his thoughts about the costs of reducing the murder rate by 30 percent through water treatment. The post was based on a Big Think article that studied correlations between higher lithium amounts in public drinking water and drops in suicides and violent crime rates.

Lithium, a mood-booster, is used as psychotropic treatment against bipolar disorder. The theory, in a nutshell, is that giving the public a little bit of lithium makes us all a little more mentally stable.

The idea’s met some outcry. Aside from the ethical issues surrounding mental health, the Big Think author notes that lithium is known to be more powerful than fluoride, with greater chances of side effects.

But lithium isn’t the only substance that can be added to public drinking water. Thiamine has been proposed as a means of eradicating Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome among alcoholics. And the use of fluoride has repeatedly caused a stir.

After six decades of fluoride use in public water supplies, there is still little scientific consensus on the issue.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed fluoridation of drinking water among 10 great public health achievements of the last century. At a a price near one dollar per citizen each year, the U.S. surgeon general has lauded fluoridation for its cost-effectiveness. More than 65 percent of the population uses fluoridated water.

But WHO data shows little-to-no difference in oral hygiene between countries who chose whether to fluoridate public water. WHO only advocates fluoridation for countries with poor health infrastructure, and removal of fluoride from water sources with too much of the substance.

Most European countries, western and eastern, started fluoridating until the ’70s and ’90s, respectively. Some countries now fluoridate salt or even milk instead, and toothpaste with fluoride has been prevalent since the 1970′s.

This month, the U.S. government proposed lowering the amount of fluoride added to public water for the first time in almost 50 years over increasing rates of fluorosis among children.

Fluoridation gained prevalence in the Western world in the 1950s, decades after researches studied a lower rate of cavities in areas where water sources are naturally rich in fluoride. Under the red threat, paranoid Americans rallied against fluoridation, calling it a communist plot to undermine public health and brainwash the population. Some today even argue that fluoridation violates Nuremberg laws forbidding human experimentation.

Fluoridation has often been controversial in Canada. Anti-fluoridation activists often point to research claiming a correlation with everything from lower IQ scores to diminishing thyroid hormone levels. Communities across Canada debate fluoridation every few years, a trend that’s existed since fluoridaiton began in Canada.

In recent years, research on humans and rats has proposed a link between fluoride and childhood osteosarcoma in boys, a rare bone cancer that killed Terry Fox and often leads to amputations. The Canadian Cancer Society notes that these claims are heavily contested and require further study. Conflicting research suggests long-time exposure to fluoride may not increase the risk of osteosarcoma. When fluoride is ingested, half the substance is absorbed by the bones and accumulates over time.

In a November referendum in Waterloo, Ontario, 50.3 percent voted against continuing fluoridation. Last week, the Calgary Herald published an editorial calling for an end to fluoridation. The city is considering doing away with its aging fluoridation equipment, which would cost $6 million to replace.

A 2009 Health Canada report found that 43 percent of Canadians use fluoridated tap water. Water quality falls under provincial jursidiction and fluoride usage in Canada varies by region, with Ontario clocking in at almost 76 percent fluoridation, a number that drops to 6.4 percent in Quebec and 3.7 for British Columbians.

Health Canada recommends 0.7 parts per million fluoride to water, the same level now being proposed in the U.S. Toronto’s fluoride level was reduced from 1.2 p.p.m. to 0.8 p.p.m. In 1999, then to 0.6 p.p.m. in 2005.

[Creative Commons Water photograph by Flickr user visualpanic]

Jenn Hardy

If you’ve picked up the latest issue of This Magazine, you might have noticed Jenn Hardy’s article on Canada’s midwife shortage. (Jenn is a former This intern and now a Montreal-based freelance writer. She has written for us recently on sustainable agriculture, Montreal musician Vanessa Rodrigues, and investigated the environmental claims of the DivaCup.)

You might have noticed that we added a little note to Jenn’s story about the fact that she is, in fact, pregnant right now, and due to deliver in just about a month. She’s been chronicling the experience so far, plus her efforts to make hers a “natural” pregnancy to the greatest degree possible, from her eating choices to finding environmentally friendly baby products. You can follow her entire blog at MamaNaturale.ca, but she’ll also add a few thoughts here on the This blog over the coming weeks.

For now, we’ll simply point out a few of the notable posts from Mama Naturale, to get you started. Make sure to follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or directly through our RSS feed, so you’ll never miss new articles and blog posts. You can also follow @Mama_Naturale on Twitter for the latest.

Catch up with Mama Naturale in 5 easy posts

• Peeing on a stick
• Looking into a water birth
• Hearing the heartbeat
• Hand-Me-Down Hardy’s guide to reducing, reusing, and recycling baby gear
• Quebec’s acute midwife shortage

The Plan Canada campaign encourages potential donors to invest in girls by arguing that females will naturally work to help others and inspire social cohesion. “Because I am a girl I will take what you invest in me and uplift everyone around me,” one poster states. The kicker of the campaign is “Are you the one?” Although the appeal for donations is intended to be universal one, it capitalizes on the notion that girls passively wait for their saviours.

The campaign is cut from the same pink material as the ubiquitous movement to find a cure for breast cancer. (Like the breast cancer campaign, Plan Canada also distributes its logo on pink T-shirts to increase awareness of Because I am a Girl.) For her book Pink Ribbons Inc., Queens University professor Samantha King investigated how the campaign expunged the “stigma, secrecy and shame” associated with the disease by recasting its victims as noble survivors. The Pink Ribbon movement blasts representations and symbols of “hyperfeminity” and casts sufferers as “wife,” “mother” and so on. In so doing, King explains, the campaign has reimagined a disease that challenges a woman’s ability to breastfeed, reproduce and hold together the nuclear family into one that celebrates this ability.  The Pink Ribbons marketing strategy teaches that women will valiantly uphold their social roles in spite of the disease, and that’s a trait that corporate sponsors enthusiastically applaud.

These pseudofeminist campaigns do not demand social and economic transformation. They simply ask for a little bit more, and even that request is one they feel the need to justify. They do so by appealing to old-fashioned ideas of what constitutes femininity and depicting females as deserving and grateful.

The appeals are safe, and their targets are too. The Pink Ribbons campaign seeks a pharmaceutical “cure”; it doesn’t, of course, investigate the relationship between pharmaceutical hormones, estrogen-mimicking plastics, industrial pollution and breast cancer incidence. The Plan Canada campaign refers to early marriage and the withdrawal of girls from school, but glosses over any questions about the effects of global capitalism and the market logic that displaces communities, devalues women’s labour and education, and forces families into the kind of poverty that necessitates early marriage.

The campaigns speak to the depoliticized nature of charity, but the way they sanitize and corporatize feminism is also insidious. Movements that truly fight for females don’t reinforce gender roles—they sabotage them. From the suffragettes who, 100 years ago, launched a window-smashing campaign in response to police brutality against female activists, to the radical feminists who are mobilizing against U.S. wars today, these movements are disruptive and uncompromising. Their slogan would be something more akin to this: Because I am a girl, I am tired of asking nicely.

Computer model of a Bisphenol-A molecule.

Canadians – a bunch of walking, talking BPA vessels? Apparently so. Statistics Canada recently released results from their first nationwide look into bisphenol A, and the results aren’t pretty.

According to a Globe and Mail report on the stats, 91 per cent of Canadians tested show some sort of BPA exposure, and teenagers carry most of the brunt, with their bodies often containing up to 30 per cent more BPA than the rest of the population.

When the first round of BPA warnings surfaced years ago, it looked like Canada would take a stand that could lead to the ingredient being declared a toxic chemical. And since then, while that declaration has stalled, the levels of BPA found in our bodies continues to rise.

It can seem like fear mongering, but BPA really is in a shocking amount of everyday products. CDs, tin can liners, and plastic water bottles all contain BPA. Most people get a steady BPA diet through food packaging. The big deal is that the chemical mimics estrogen — the average level of BPA in our bodies is actually close to 1,000 times the normal level of naturally occurring estrogen.

Of course, some scientists, and those who are involved in the BPA industry, say that just because something is in our body, doesn’t mean it’s causing harm. And it’s true that while we can speculate on what this added BPA might mean for us, we don’t know for a fact if it causes health problems.

But it’s concerning the ease with which we let synthetic products become a part of our diet with very few restrictions. The argument that it’s probably not causing any harm to our bodies is ridiculous — seeing as how BPA’s not a naturally occurring ingredient in our food system, we shouldn’t be ingesting it.

It’s interesting that the media also recently wondered why puberty continues to hit our adolescents earlier and earlier. If what we’re putting into our bodies as fuel isn’t natural, our bodies won’t act that way either. (Of course it hasn’t been proved if there are any links between chemicals like BPA and early puberty, though the New York Times article linked above does mention it briefly.)

The pessimist in me wonders if it’s too little too late now. We’ve been exposed to products with BPA so long that all the studies are doing is proving that our bodies are at the whim of packaging manufacturers. This is testing that shoud have been done years ago, but it’s only now that we’ll get a peek at what’s happening to us.

People sporting the G(irls) 20 "Pangaea" T-shirt.

We’ve talked a lot about what’s going wrong so far with the G20 and G8 meetings taking place in Ontario this year. And lord knows there are plenty of problems: aside from the lack of discussion surrounding women’s health we’re now chopping down trees in an urban jungle and searching around for supposedly stolen police uniforms.

But for just a few minutes, let’s take a look at what has come out of these meetings. This week Toronto’s welcoming another delegation—a group of 21 young women who are setting out to discuss women’s rights. The G(irls) 20 Summit is going on from June 16- 25, and it’s sponsored by the Belinda Stronach Foundation. Yes, that Belinda Stronach.

According to a press release, the girls represent each of the G20 nations, as well as one member from the African Union. They’ll be discussing a number of issues that affect women around the world, but if you ask me, this is the perfect chance for these girls to tell their leaders what’s what.

Apparently it has become necessary for the world’s youngest citizens to educate their own governments on what’s important. These girls have the opportunity to speak out about adequate women’s health services and maternal rights. They have the power to talk about what they need and what they deserve. And I hope to God they’ve got megaphones.

Of course, women’s health isn’t the only important issue, but it’s one almost everyone can stand behind. It’s hard not to support a woman’s right to birth control, or abortion, or prenatal care, or even just regular pap smears. And hey, if you can’t, you’re probably invited to the big meetings anyway.

So sing it loud, girls. Now’s your chance.