Search

An op-ed from FoodNavigator argues that BPA has become a litmus test for the FDA's leadership abilities: "Each day the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) dithers in delivering its verdict on the safety of bisphenol A (BPA) its authority is diminished and its credibility wanes."

"You may recall that the FDA pledged to release a statement about the safety of BPA in November," says ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. "Well, November came and went, and there is still no statement. This is not a complicated topic, and it's not the first time an agency has been asked to rule on the safety of BPA. In fact, the FDA itself has ruled on BPA in years past, and they gave it a clean bill of health. It is puzzling that they are taking so long to rule on it again when it's such an obvious issue...

651082_58530298Kudos to Health Canada (the Canadian equivalent of our FDA) in spite of the fact that Canada was the first country in the world to basically prohibit the use of BPA (bisphenol A) in baby bottles, they continued to do due diligence on the substance. And then in light of later research they concluded, as quoted in the journal Plastics Today:

Based on the overall weight of evidence, Health Canada continues to conclude that dietary exposure to BPA...

The New York State Legislature this week unanimously voted to ban BPA in products for use by children under the age of three. If Gov. David Patterson signs the measure, New York will become the sixth state to ban BPA in children s products. ACSH staffers are disappointed, again. ACSH's Dr. Elizabeth Whelan questions the rationality of the ban. BPA has been safely used and tested for 50 years, but by banning BPA the state is, by default, endorsing the use of new substitutes that may have less scientific review. What makes them think that these new products won t be the next target of these anti-chemical activist groups?

California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, commonly called Proposition 65, was enacted by popular vote in 1986. It was initially sold as a way to prevent cancer and birth defects due to chemicals in drinking water and therefore got an overwhelmingly favorable response. Who isn’t in favor of clean water? (1)

Yet unmentioned by most at that time was that the voter referendum turned California science over to political appointees, who have final authority to make decisions on warning labels. In the last 30 years, despite a lot of strange listings and too many nuisance lawsuits to count, few decisions have been as bizarre as their desire to label BPA as a health hazard even though every national science organization has shown otherwise.

If...

Continuing the long but not so honorable tradition of slinging anti-chemical accusations against safe consumer products, the Breast Cancer Fund, a group that targets environmental factors they claim are related to breast cancer, has reported that a variety of canned Thanksgiving foods contain concerning levels of bisphenol-A (BPA).

Just in time to scare consumers before the holidays, the Breast Cancer Fund has tested canned gravy, green beans, pumpkin, cranberry sauce, and sweet corn for the presence of BPA, a chemical used in the linings of cans to protect food from contamination. They found that almost half of the products they tested contained BPA levels that were...

Scared to Death-ChemophobiaOne of the N.Y.Times stable of scaremongers regarding common chemicals in the environment unleashed another toxic tirade last week. Hijacking Tara Parker-Pope s Well column, as she is allowed to do every so often, Deborah Blum whose expertise is in science writing, as distinct from actual science used her Poison Pen space to attack BPA (bisphenol-A). She should be given credit for courage at least, since this chemical has resisted fringe-activist attacks from many quarters of the greenosphere for a couple of decades now, and Ms. Blum s puerile nonsense can be added...

In their Journal of the American Medical Association article (1), Lang et al. conclude that their findings of an association between urinary bisphenol A (BPA) and medical disorders are consistent with studies in laboratory animals -- and that their results support the contention that exposures to low doses of BPA have adverse effects in humans. Although the study deploys sophisticated statistical analyses in exploring this association, a careful examination of the research methodology raises questions about the validity of their conclusions.

•First, and this is acknowledged by the authors of the article, the study is cross-sectional (assessing both urinary BPA concentration and health impact at only one instant in time) and is thus unable to establish cause and...

In a comprehensive review of bisphenol A (BPA) published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, the German Society of Toxicology (GST) analyzed about 5,000 studies and concluded that, “[BPA] exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.” But this report may come as some surprise to the (unfortunately) very few readers who will learn of it, considering it gained little to no media coverage. As Jon Entine, author of ACSH’s Scared to Death: How Chemophobia Threatens Public Health and a scholar with the...

Screen Shot 2014-08-06 at 1.22.55 PMOf all the garbage science topics that we routinely cover, among the worst is the concept that miniscule amounts of so-called endocrine disruptors chemicals that supposedly have an adverse impact on human sexual development do anything whatsoever. The plastic component BPA and plastic softeners, phthalates, are the two poster children of the movement, but there are many more.

It is thus especially satisfying to read that in properly conducted studies of pregnant rats, an actual sex hormone does cause changes in sexual and central nervous system development...

Politico reports that a measure to ban Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used to manufacture certain food and beverage containers, could be introduced on the Senate floor by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) as early as this week.

"I introduced my bill to ban BPA from being used in food containers because I feel very strongly that the government should protect people from harmful chemicals," Feinstein told Politico in a statement.

"I guess the key word here is, 'harmful,'" says Dr. Ross. "Because we know that any substance can be harmful in high enough doses. BPA, as used, is safe -- and when used in can liners prevents food-borne diseases. Someone should tell Senator...