PSF, standards body should be more concerned about people’s lives

Editor, Refer to the article, “500 jobs on the line as PSF and standards body disagree on packaging” (The New Times, July 8). This is total blackmail. What’s more important; lives of people or jobs? Can these companies prove that they really employ 500 people? Whatever the case, there is no reason to escape from complying with standards as far as lives of people are concerned. John **************** These jobs would be on the line if the industry would be forbidden to operate. If existing manufacturers will give up, new ones will gladly step in and create even more jobs. The prolonged storage of spirits in PET and the impact on PET containers under the African sun are the biggest contributor to potential health risks from using plastics. And yet REMA has been surprisingly quiet in this whole discussion. Lucas **************** There are various classifications of plastic and not all plastic bottles are poisonous. Why wouldn’t PSF instead help manufacturers identify where to import safe plastic bottles? Or, why not help local plastic manufacturers make their products safer in case those bottles are made locally? There are different types of plastic depending on how they were made. For instance, high density polyethylene bottles (HDPE) are safe to use and are even still in use in the most scientifically advanced countries. If you visit any liquor store in Canada and USA, you will find some alcoholic drinks such as gin, and many other alcoholic products, packaged in plastic bottles. Kelly **************** I think PSF’s behaviour implies that, if nothing changes, then they lack professionalism. Should we let the so-called investors dump hazardous sub-standard products in our small country? Rwanda does not have diamonds or gold but has got more than 11 million people it is proud to protect. Emma

Opinions

PSF, standards body should be more concerned about people’s lives