Suspected of being hazardous since early part of the 1900s, and after umpteen reports issued over the years, Canada took the step of taking measures to curb the usage of the controversial Bisphenol A, after it officially became the first country to ban baby  bottles with Bisphenol A, or BPA, as it's commonly known.

BPA is used as a building block in polycarbonate plastic. It is found in a lot of food packages, it's present in the lining of most of the metal cans containing preserved food, soda cans, plastic water bottles, retail receipts, and of course, baby bottles.

The chemical has been linked to development problems in infants and reproductive problems in women.

The decision leading up to the announcement by Health Canada, however, does not sound convincing, to say the least. The 5000 pages of documents that covered the two weeks leading up to the announcement, released under the Access to Information Act, clearly showcase the indecisiveness within the Health Canada about their precautionary approach.

The documents reveal that Tony Clement, Health Minister at the time, was not even planning to announce the ban, nine days prior to the actual day of the announcing.

The documents tell further that the “baby bottles” came into picture “after a high-level meeting involving officials from the health minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s Office”. One begs the question — Why only baby bottles? They are not the only “carriers” of the controversial chemical.

A Health Canada official had recently written to a colleague that stated that the role of scientists is to recommend their findings to the minister. The decision is up to the Minister. Though in theory, it might sound right, as it really is on the discretion of the Health Minister, but when a question arises of an issue that requires a scientific knowhow, the minister should, on an ethical ground, act on the strict advice of the experts only. After all, a car mechanic cannot fix a rocket.

If the infants are exposed to the hazards of BPA in baby bottles, then would the same chemical not harm them contained in cans? This is where this decision does not make sense. The vision that this decision seeks to achieve seems too blurred to for its own good.

This issue needs clarity. A step in the right direction, at the end of the day, does not make it right — if you’ve jumbled the north-south direction to start with.