If anybody really wants to know, the absolutely correct form here is 'because of', NOT 'due to' . 'Due to' is equivalent in both meaning and in structure to the phrase 'caused by'. You can't say: I must cancel the meeting caused by an urgent issue. This makes no sense. So - strictly speaking - it is therefore equally nonsensical to use 'due to' in this sentence. Take a look at this page: http://www.dailywritingtips.com/because-of-and-due-to/ What has happened over the years is that the distinction between these phrases has become blurred. People think that 'due to' sounds posh, so it's become the standard phrase for business-speak, public transport announcements, and any situation where people feel the need to justify something in formal language. Nowadays, virtually all native speakers use them interchangeably. Language changes.

Strictly speaking, there is a difference between 'due to' and 'because of', but very few people observe this nowadays. Either phrase would be considered acceptable in the example you have given.

In a formal statement I would always use .. due to. Because of... sounds far too informal here.

There is no difference they have a similar meaning :)