Xref: utzoo sci.bio:2404 sci.chem:572 sci.med:12976
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.med
Path: utzoo!snell
From: snell@utzoo.uucp (snell)
Subject: Re: PAM propellant
Message-ID: <1989Oct16.145131.13913@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 89 14:51:31 GMT

In article <3446@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
#
#> >Ok.  Here is what is on a can of PAM for sale in Toronto, in the 
#> >ingredients list.  Sounds delicious ;-).
#> >| Ingredients: 
#> >| trichlorofluoromethane.... 
#>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#> Excuse me, are these statements compatible?  Trichlorofluoromethane is about
#> as prototypical a chlorofluorocarbon as there is.  Canadians have a lot of
#> nerve complaining about acid rain if they still haven't banned CFC's in
#> such products.
#
#	I am just as surprised as you are, since it is my understanding
#that Canada banned CFC's as propellants some time ago.
#

In fact, I was surprised too, when I read the label prior to posting
the list of ingredients.  As government offices had closed by then,
I could not follow it up until today.

Seems the CFC ban in Canada of 10 years ago was restricted to
"personal care products" such as deodorants, hairspray and similar items.
Apparently most aerosol food items (like cooking oil) were converted
voluntarily by industry to non-CFC propellants years ago.  From an industry
perspective, one of the trade-offs is that while CFC's are more
expensive than the alternatives, they are far less inflammable (this
ignores the environmental damage issue).
The persons I spoke to today at Environment Canada (federal) and the
Ontario Ministry of Environment (provincial) argued that the 10 yr old 
legislation covered 90% of applications.   Regardless, additional regulation
was passed (though only this past summer) at both federal and provincial 
levels extending the CFC ban to "about 90% of remaining products" 
including foodstuffs.  This was passed on July 1, and comes into effect 
December 31 of this year.  Pam can still be manufactured with CFC propellant
until then, and apparently the stock manufactured up to that point will
be sold.  Rather poor show, I would say.

As well, the CFC ban remains incomplete.  Apparently various drug and
pharmaceutical companies which use aerosol propellants in their 
products will still be allowed to use CFC's.  It was suggested to me 
by the environment office `spokespersons' that there currently 
are "no acceptable alternatives" for such products, but that "industry 
would be encouraged to develop them."

This all begs the question of whether the CFC ban in the USA is really 100%
or whether certain `special cases' continue to be allowed, as evidently
is the case here in Canada.

As well, there is the question of non\-propellant use of CFC's.  For 
instance a `correction fluid' for typists called `LIQUID PAPER'
would appear to contain such products.  In two bottles I just picked
up in our storeroom here, are slightly different labels:
     1) Contains: Chlorinated solvent(s)
and, 2) Content: 1.1.1Trichloroethane

Clearly when this stuff evaporates and dries on the page, these
solvents are released.   Can you buy LIQUID PAPER in the USA?  Do they
say what is in it?
-- 
Name: Richard Snell
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
UUCP: uunet!attcan!utzoo!snell      BITNET: snell@zoo.utoronto.ca