A couple of weeks ago, we pointed out that a report that BPA increases the risk of miscarriage in high-risk women was baseless. Now a cogent article in Forbes magazine carries the message even further.
Dr. Angela Logomasini points out several weaknesses in the attack on BPA. First, she rightly identifies the study as an abstract that has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in a reputable journal. Second, the association found between blood levels of BPA and risk was weak one that wouldn t impress most epidemiologists. In addition, the sample size of the women studied was small, increasing the likelihood that the results were due mainly to chance. Finally, she notes that BPA was measured only once and that, since BPA levels in the body can fluctuate considerably over time, one-time measures can t reveal which women really have higher exposures.
ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross said Dr. Logomasini provides clear evidence for what we should do with the data from this study ignore it. However, she makes an even more important point in her evisceration of this junk, by pointing out the lengths to which agenda-bound scientists will go to promote their pre-ordained message, the data and scientific consensus be damned.