Do you remember doing the limbo as a kid? The idea was to see how low you could bend your body to get under a stick that got increasingly close to the floor. Today’s regulatory process is the modern version of the limbo. The problem is that science can’t even measure how low they want the limbo stick to go.
It is impossible to estimate how much time, money, and effort has been wasted trying to find a real health issue with bisphenol A (BPA). Yet, JAMA published a study that is so obviously amateurish that it makes you wonder if the reviewers were comatose. Of course, "BPA increases deaths" made for great headlines, even though it does nothing of the sort.
The anti-chemical Silent Spring Institute has commissioned a ridiculous study, one that reaches a conclusion akin to pointing out that a circle is round. It's a bunch of nonsense. Here's why.
Bisphenol A – a long-used component of polycarbonate plastics, is one of the most studied chemicals in the world. Even the ultra-cautious FDA has declared it safe for people as used. But some scientists have built a career by screaming about how dangerous it is, so we have another paper. Enough already.
Too many journalists are experts in nothing and behave like partisans and activists. That's how a journalist can go on social media and celebrate that her poor reporting caused a company to lose hundreds of millions in market capitalization.
People want to do what makes them feel good and – perhaps more importantly – makes them look righteous in the eyes of others. Going organic and avoiding straws accomplishes that moral grandstanding, and companies are happy to oblige in order to make a buck. And, in the process, the companies also look good. It's a win-win for everyone, except Mother Earth.
An astounding amount of time and money have been wasted studying bisphenol A, a plastic component, which has been used for 60 years. Now the FDA has issued a report confirming what we already know: The stuff is not hazardous. But some academics cannot let it go, and their reasoning for further studies just doesn't cut it.
NYT's Nicholas Kristof sure knows how to live harder, not smarter. He's been avoiding chemicals and living clean — as he puts it — for several years. And yet, the results from an at-home detox kit that tested his urine for chemical exposure came back less than stellar.
While BPA hysteria has been going on for many years, for just as long we've been writing that the chemical is safe. As it turns out, we've been right all along (while, as usual, the Joe Mercolas and NRDCs of the world were not).
Now that I'm in the second trimester, I'm starting to think about baby bottles, sippy cups, and all that fun stuff. But all the options online leave me thinking I don't have much choice when it comes to BPA-free bottles. And I don't mean lack there of.
Dental sealants provide an effective means of preventing tooth decay — but they're underutilized. Perhaps one reason is the fear promoted by scaremongers of the plastic component BPA. But like most of the scares perpetrated by activist groups, this one is absurd.
Something is rotten in Denmark. Researchers there published a ridiculous study on all the things that BPA doesn't do. But if you believe it — and you shouldn't — there could be some utility. You see, BPA might make female rats swim faster, perhaps one of the most critical problems facing the world today. Science thanks you.