baby bottles

WHO Study on BPA: No Measurable Risks

by Angela Logomasini on November 11, 2010

in Environment, Precaution & Risk

The American Council on Science and Health has a great post on bisphenol A (BPA), noting yet another study that exonerates the chemical, which is used to make hard, clear plastics and resins used in a wide range of valuable applications. Released by the World Health Organization, this study conforms with many others that have found: No significant evidence of any health problems. It also points out that non-food exposures to BPA from such things as receipts are of of “minor relevance,” despite the fact that activists hype these very minor BPA exposures to garner lots of news coverage and generate fear among the public.

But of course government bureaucrats around the world will continue to study and re-study the issue — as long taxpayer dollars continue to flow into government research budgets thanks in good measure to activists hype. We can expect greens to march into statehouses — such as California and Oregon — when they open legislative sessions next year to  push yet more government bans of BPA. At least a half dozen states have already banned some uses such as for baby bottles.

Rent Seekers Keep it Phony

by Angela Logomasini on April 8, 2010 · 1 comment

in Environment, Nanny State

Why does industry sometimes (all too often) support government regulation? You would think they would prize their freedom. But think again. Many businesses are willing to use the government to get a competitive advantage, an activity economists call rent seeking. And, unfortunately, some will even work in tandem with unscrupulous activists to spread misinformation about a competitor’s product and then call for government bans.

Consider the the website “Keep it Organic.” Its stated purpose is to “provide you with important facts about organic foods and beverages, information about current trends in the organic industry and we hope, an objective look at the organic market as it relates to consumer interests.” The posts on the site all attack the use of bisphenol A in food packaging, claiming it taints food and deprives it of the label “organic.” Headlines include: “Plastic Chemicals Make their Way from Oceans to Food Chain to Humans,” “‘TIME’ reports on ‘The Perils of Plastic,’” and “Chemicals Found in Water Can Make you Fat.” Yes, it sounds like the same old hype we get from many green activists.

But “Keep it Organic” is an industry website. If you scroll down to the bottom it reads: “Copyright © 2006 GPI.” Follow the link to GPI and it brings you to the Glass Packaging Institute. Wow. They didn’t simply employ activists to sully their competitors–aluminum and steel can producers whose containers are lined with BPA–they were willing to get their own hands dirty. But their apparent ownership of the Keep it Organic site is oh, so subtle. They even list themselves under the “Recommended Links” section along with a bunch of outside groups that include environmental activists.

The GPI website is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to phony campaigns and claims about BPA. My colleagues Iain Murray and Michael Fumento have highlighted other political forces that are moving this issue, despite science to the contrary. A study on the topic published by Jon Entine at the American Enterprise Institute does a wonderful job documenting the crazy extent that activists–including some scientist-activists who were recently awarded federal grants to do research for NIH–have gone to push forward BPA bans. It is a must read for anyone with an interest in this topic.

Unfortunately, such hype is having considerable influence on policymakers. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) has a bill that may come to the senate floor next week–S. 593–that could ban BPA uses for food containers. This is a dangerous policy because BPA resins line steel and aluminum cans to protect our food supply from deadly pathogens. True, we could switch many products to glass packaging, as GPI wants–but breakage and resulting food waste is an obvious drawback. The smarter approach is to stick with the science, and the science weighs heavily in BPA’s favor as a safe and effective product for use in food packaging, as documented in our CEI-Casscade Policy Institute study.

Reason Prevails in Oregon

by Angela Logomasini on February 16, 2010

in Environment, Nanny State

Oregon Senators this week have voted down regulations that could have led consumers to less safe, glass baby bottles. Three Democrats in the Senate joined the Republicans to defeat a ban on baby bottles, sippy, cups, and other products made with the chemical Bisphenol A. CEI’s friends at the Cascade Policy Institute provided educational materials (in partnership with CEI) on the science and apparently legislators decided that reason and the facts should prevail over all the hype. And the hype has been significant, as noted here on Open Market: See here, here, and here. This is a tremendously important victory for reason and freedom. Unfortunately, most states are moving in the opposite direction.

Bisphenol baloney takes another hit

by Michael Fumento on February 15, 2010

in Health and Illness, Nanny State, Stimulus to Nowhere

In a provocatively entitled paper in the current issue of the prestigious journal Toxicological Sciences, Richard M. Sharpe asks “Is It Time to End Concerns over the Estrogenic Effects of Bisphenol A?”

In a word, “yes.” Bisphenol A, or BPA, is an incredibly valuable chemical added to plastics like baby bottles to make them harder and stronger. It’s been in use for many decades. And the greens want to get rid of it because they say it’s dangerous.

Yet as I wrote recently in Investor’s Business Daily,”Countries that have evaluated BPA in the last three years, as Trevor Butterworth of the STATS think tank has documented, include Norway, France, Germany (twice), Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Add to that a World Health Organization collaborative center. Each has found BPA safe.”

(CEI’s Angela Logomasini also recently wrote an excellent paper on BPA safety.)

But:

The lynch mob is after BPA because it’s a weak synthetic estrogen. These chemicals have been under fire since the publication of the 1996 book “Our Stolen Future,” which one review aptly described as “an alarmist tract with a polemical style clearly crafted for its political, not scientific, impact.” (With a foreword by Al Gore, no less.)

Never mind that over 150 plants produce chemicals that also mimic estrogen, many of them foods that contain so much that they’re often recommended as natural hormone replacement therapy. The overall estrogenic effect of natural chemicals, according to Texas A&M University toxicologist Stephen Safe, is 40 million times that of the synthetics. Yes, it’s just the environmentalist saw: “Man-made bad; natural good.”

And so we keep throwing massive amounts of money to scientists to study it more and study it more and study it more.

Recently National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Director Linda Birnbaum announced $30 million in grants for two more years of BPA research, using money from the stimulus act, to “address many of the research gaps” regarding the chemical. Yet over 5,400 medical journal articles have already been published on BPA safety. How many gaps can that leave?

Sharpe comments on poorly done initial studies by an environmental aspect that I described, then writes:

Fundamental, repetitive work on bisphenol A has sucked in tens, probably hundreds, of millions of dollars from government bodies and industry which, at a time when research money is thin on the ground, looks increasingly like an investment with a nil return. All it has done is to show that there is a huge price to pay when initial studies are adhered to as being correct when the second phase of scientific peer review, namely, the inability of other laboratories to repeat the initial studies, says otherwise.

At some point it’s time to say “Enough!” and we passed that point with BPA a long time ago.

“Killer Cans And Toxic Baby Bottles,” my piece in Investor’s Business Daily

by Michael Fumento on February 4, 2010 · 1 comment

in Environment, Health and Illness, Nanny State, Odds & Ends, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Should we worry about a common chemical almost all of us carry in our bodies that activists claim causes a list of diseases longer than you’ll find in a major medical center?

Having for decades labeled the plastic ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) safe, the Food and Drug Administration has just announced it’s not so sure anymore.

Some U.S. jurisdictions have already restricted BPA use, and entire states like New York are considering bans.

Yet aside from Canada, which is banning BPA baby bottles, nobody else in the world seems worried. What’s our problem?

Partly it reflects media adoration for a single homegrown scientist. And strangely enough, it’s also a consequence of President Obama’s economic stimulus package.

Read the rest here!

And for an excellent longer treatment, my colleague Angela Logomasini has just completed an excellent report on “The Nanny State Attack on BPA: Oregon and Beyond.

Baby Bottle Politics Trumps Science at FDA

by Angela Logomasini on January 19, 2010 · 1 comment

in Environment

The greens are rejoicing today because the Food and Drug Administration has softened its stance on the safety of Bisphenol A, a chemical used in the production food packaging and containers, such as baby bottles. Humans consume trace amounts of BPA in food products, but there is no direct evidence of any human health problems after decades of use.

For years, FDA has reported that BPA levels were too low to pose any significant health problems to humans. Scientific reviews around the (EU, Japan, Canada) world have drawn the same conclusion. Now FDA says it wants more study and might want to regulate in the future. But the science hasn’t changed–just the politics. Unfortunately, in today’s world, fear mongering and hype is more powerful than science.

So exactly what did FDA report this week? They “reviewed the research” and are suddenly more wary about the substance because of conclusions drawn in a 2008 National Toxicology Program report about BPA impacts on rodents. The agency notes that it could not find any direct evidence of problems among humans. It expressed minimal to negligible concern for almost all potential BPA risk factors. It expressed “some concern” in one area because some studies showed associations indicating that bisphenol A “can cause changes in the brain and behavior” and have “effects on the prostate gland” of laboratory animals. The NTP expressed “some concern” that associations between BPA and rodent development may indicate possible impacts on the development of children and human fetuses. NTP called for more research before such concerns could be dismissed.

Yet those concerns are drawn from rodent studies that have largely been dismissed around the world (as well as by FDA) as not particularly relevant or adequate for drawing conclusions. The NTP report noted: “These studies in laboratory animals provide only limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health.”

It is difficult to believe that FDA has suddenly found these studies compelling on scientific grounds. Instead, it appears the studies’ limitations are now being overlooked to justify a political agenda. FDA will now likely spend millions of taxpayer dollars to study this issue, but it is unlikely to find anything new. But whatever they find, you can be sure they will use it as an excuse to expand their regulatory power.