Liberal MP wants to regulate sex toys

[Barrister]

'Urgent need' to regulate sex toys, MP says
Carolyn Bennett writes Canada's Health Minister asking her to look into the materials used to make vibrators and other adult items

From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published on Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009 9:54PM EST

Last updated on Friday, Dec. 18, 2009 3:13AM EST


When you're the young owners of a Toronto sex shop specializing in eco-friendly vibrators and other adult toys, getting the ear of a Member of Parliament can be a challenge.

So, entrepreneurs Kim and Amy Sedgwick started off slow. The self-branded "eco-sisters" wrote a letter outlining their concerns of a "dangerous" problem hidden away in Canadian bedrooms everywhere – chemicals used in the majority of Canadian sex toys that pose a potential health risk for women.

"I can't say I'd ever thought I'd be calling Parliament," shrugs Kim, 25. "But there ya go."

They sent the letter to Carolyn Bennett, a Liberal MP and physician who they knew once cared for one of the sisters' relatives. It impressed the MP.

"These unbelievably committed young women sent me this letter," recalls Dr. Bennett. "I thought, 'well I know nothing about this'...I went to meet with them at their store."

The Sedgwicks run Toronto's Red Tent Sisters feminist sexuality store and its online arm, ecosex.ca . They're well spoken and unabashed about an often giggle-inducing topic – if there was any doubt, their twitter accounts are @uteruslover and @ecosexpert – and gave Dr. Bennett the full tour.

"I frankly didn't know about international orgasm day," says Dr. Bennett. (The small, relatively unknown celebration falls this Monday, one day after the MP's birthday).

"These two young women were so compelling in terms of their environmental credibility, in terms of why they were wanting to do this ... I thought I should send the minister [of health] a letter."

Her staff weren't convinced it was a smart political move.

"You can imagine the conversation in our office, saying 'Carolyn, are you sure you want to do this?' "

But Dr. Bennett's the boss. On Tuesday, she wrote Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq about the "urgent need for responsible regulation in the adult toy industry in Canada."

The issue is over plastics such as bisphenol A, a controversial chemical in Canada, and phthalates, used to make plastic soft and flexible. Dozens of studies have shown the chemicals may cause hormonal complications at certain levels of exposure, yet both are common in sex toys, which are classified as "novelty" items in Canada and are therefore removed from almost all oversight, Ms. Sedgwick says.

So while bisphenol A can't be used in baby bottles, and phthalates can't be used in children's mouth toys, there's no rules preventing their use in a vibrator, Dr. Bennett says.

"More than anything, I would like a dialogue to be started," Ms. Sedgwick says.

At her store, she and her sister recommend their customers avoid such products, which can be identified by their squishy texture and chemical-like smell, and turn instead to silicone, metal or wooden toys.

"Wood. Yes. You'd be surprised," she says.

Dr. Bennett thinks it's an important issue as more and more Canadians purchase sex toys.

"Sex is a pretty common activity, and these sexual toys are certainly a growing market, and I really do feel at the moment we've got a bit of a double standard in terms of what we allow and don't allow," in terms of chemicals, she says.

"I wanted to help them, because they had a good cause, in spite of the fact that it is unfortunately still a topic that makes some people uncomfortable."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/urgent-need-to-regulate-sex-toys-mp-says/article1404702/

What say you languish?  Should the government regulate the sex toy industry?

[Admiral Yi]

Not not info yet to know if regulation is required.  But at the very least Canada should begin a difficult democratic conversation on the matter.

[Martinus]

I don't see why they shouldn't be regulated the same way any other appliance or substance that comes into contact with a human body is. In fact, probably regulation is more needed here than in "normal" consumer products, because there could be an extra stigma in sex toys commerce that could prevent consumers from suing the manufacturer for a defective or a harmful product.

[Jacob]

Sounds like a good thing.  If there aren't any health and safety regulations for sex toys there should be some.  You should be able to buy a vibrator or some lube or whatever and feel safe that it doesn't contain stuff that'll increase your risk of cancer or whatever.

So yeah, sounds good on the face of it.

[Caliga]

Normally the phrase "government regulation" gives me hives, but in this case it seems worth looking into.  If the government is going to regulate food and medicine, it's sensible that there should be some minimum standards here as well.

[The Brain]

Novelty items? FFS Canada.

[Neil]

You should be able to buy a vibrator or some lube or whatever and feel safe that it doesn't contain stuff that'll increase your risk of cancer or whatever.

Come now.  We all know that's both ridiculous and impossible.

[grumbler]

Should the government regulate based on a feeling that regulation is good?  No.

Should it regulate after investigation demonstrates that regulation is the only way to prevent harm?  Sure.

No way to know in this case.  I would note that the term "liberal" seems odd to apply to a politician who thinks that government regulation should be the default position.  Traditionally, liberals are as skeptical of big government as they are of big business and big church.

[Barrister]

No way to know in this case.  I would note that the term "liberal" seems odd to apply to a politician who thinks that government regulation should be the default position.  Traditionally, liberals are as skeptical of big government as they are of big business and big church.

"Liberal" is a very accurate descriptor to someone who is a member of the Liberal Party caucus.   

[Malthus]

The regulation of products in this country is not handled well, and this is a good example of how it works.

Rather than having some sort of overall approach to regulation of consumer products, it is handled purely in a piecemeal manner - that is, when a product causes some sort of controversy, it is added to that limited list of products which is regulated pursuant to the federal Hazardous Products Act or the various bits and bobs of provincial regulation.

The result is a system that is both complex and not comprehensive.

The current item is a case in point. some politician gets exited about sex toys. Perhaps some sex toy - specific legislation comes out of it; perhaps not. In either event, the issue only arises, not because of any sort of systematic review of risky products, but because some politician chooses to be interested in it. Meanwhile there could be equally risky (or more risky) products that are ignored, because they are not, so to speak, as "sexy".

The result is a sort of legislative lottery, where some manufacturers are subject to stringent regulations and others are subject to no regulations at all. 

[Valmy]

No way to know in this case.  I would note that the term "liberal" seems odd to apply to a politician who thinks that government regulation should be the default position.  Traditionally, liberals are as skeptical of big government as they are of big business and big church.

"Liberal" is a very accurate descriptor to someone who is a member of the Liberal Party caucus.  

The Liberal Party has not really been a liberal party for a long time.

[dps]

The regulation of products in this country is not handled well, and this is a good example of how it works.

Rather than having some sort of overall approach to regulation of consumer products, it is handled purely in a piecemeal manner - that is, when a product causes some sort of controversy, it is added to that limited list of products which is regulated pursuant to the federal Hazardous Products Act or the various bits and bobs of provincial regulation.

The result is a system that is both complex and not comprehensive.

The current item is a case in point. some politician gets exited about sex toys. Perhaps some sex toy - specific legislation comes out of it; perhaps not. In either event, the issue only arises, not because of any sort of systematic review of risky products, but because some politician chooses to be interested in it. Meanwhile there could be equally risky (or more risky) products that are ignored, because they are not, so to speak, as "sexy".

The result is a sort of legislative lottery, where some manufacturers are subject to stringent regulations and others are subject to no regulations at all. 

That's interesting.  I was going to post that, presumably, sex toys would be covered by the regular consumer product safety laws, and there would seem to be little evidence that they required additional regulation, but if Canada doesn't have general product safety laws, that wouldn't apply.

[grumbler]

"Liberal" is a very accurate descriptor to someone who is a member of the Liberal Party caucus.   

Is someone doubting the accuracy of the descriptor used in the story? 

[grumbler]

The Liberal Party has not really been a liberal party for a long time.

Indeed.  "Liberal Democrats" is another term I have a hard time with, as it is used to describe people who are the opposite of 'liberals."

[Barrister]

Do we really need to have the debate over the meaning of the word liberal again?