bpa

Conning the can makers regarding bisphenol A

by Michael Fumento on February 24, 2010

in Health and Illness

A Washington Post A1 article, “Alternatives to BPA containers not easy for U.S. foodmakers to find,” makes the case very nicely. The plastic hardening ingredient bisphenol A (BPA) in the epoxy lining of cans does a terrific job in preserving foods and it’s clear that despite the scientifically groundless attacks on the chemical, routinely parroted by the media, there will be no easy or cheap replacements.

Still, we are told, one must be found. The Post quotes a “source at a major U.S. food company who spoke on the condition of anonymity,” saying: “It doesn’t matter what FDA says. If consumers decide they don’t want BPA, you don’t want it to be in a can that consumers don’t want to buy.”

On its face, the argument is valid. In marketing, perception trumps reality. But is that the perception? I did a thorough Google search, asked other people who’ve written about BPA, asked industry representatives. There’s no evidence of any scientific survey of people’s attitudes towards BPA in products. Their opposition is simply assumed.

Is it a reasonable assumption? It has a basis in the incredible effort activists and the media have made to scare people. But scare campaigns don’t always succeed. Polls show most Americans don’t buy the global warming party line, with only 35% in an October Pew Research Center poll calling it “a serious threat.” The massive CDC-media effort to terrify everybody into getting swine flu vaccines was a complete flop. Most of the vaccine is heading for a landfill.

Indeed, when the FDA threatened to yank saccharin because it was a rodent carcinogen, the public raised hue and cry and Congress blocked the ban.

Maybe before it spends many tens of millions of dollars trying to come up with replacement products for plastics containing BPA, industry should consider what is it the public really wants?

Dangerous Green Hysteria May Impact Food Safety

by Angela Logomasini on February 23, 2010 · 1 comment

in Environment, Precaution & Risk

According to a story in today’s Washington Post, food and packaging companies are having a difficult time trying to find and employ alternatives to the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Companies use BPA to make hard clear plastics and epoxy resins used in a wide range of applications. At issue is the use plastics for food containers (i.e., baby bottles and sippy cups) and resins to line food containers. The resins are a particularly important food safety tool because they prevent food contamination related to such things as bacteria and rust.

Yet companies are now spending millions trying to rid the world of this innocuous and valuable chemical all because of green activist hype about its risks. The Cascade Policy Institute and CEI have detailed why consumers should not fear BPA, underscoring the fact that government bans (or even market-driven panic) would be expensive and dangerous.

Yet Congress is looking at legislation sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) that would not only eliminate BPA for products used to contain baby food or formula (bottles, sippy cups and other baby food containers) as many states have done, it would actually ban BPA use in all food and beverage containers. This would surely increase risks associated with bacterial and other contamination in our food supply. One industry source noted to the Washington Post: “We don’t have a safe, effective alternative, and that’s an unhappy place to be … No one wants to talk about that.” The sad reality is, we don’t even need an alternative. BPA has proven to be a valuable, safe product for about 60 years. The only risk here involves listening to the green hysteria.

Image credit: Cascade Policy Institute, artwork from The Nanny State Attack on BPA in Baby Bottles: Oregon and Beyond.

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.

Trust me, I found it on the Internet!

by Michael Fumento on January 21, 2010 · 1 comment

in Odds & Ends

It may be true that everything is on the Internet, but good researchers have to beware. Here’s a nice example. For a piece I’m writing on the plastic hardening chemical BPA I wanted to find out how much is produced annually in this country. Here’s what the top hits produced:

1. Sep 16, 2008 … BPA has been cited as a component of plastic baby bottles. Over 2.2 million tons is produced each year and resides in the majority of people …
www.injuryboard.com/…/study-confirms-human-health—bpa-plastic-link.aspx?… –

2. BPA Linked to Increased Risk of Heart Disease

Jan 13, 2010 … Manufacturers have used BPA for years to make plastics and resins. More than six millions tons of the chemical are produced each year and …
www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/01/bpa_study.html – Cached –

3. Bisphenol-A In Plastic Packaging & Products Is Highly Dangerous

US – Many studies have concluded that exposure to Bisphenol A can be fatal, … There are approximately 2-3 million tonnes of it produced each year for use …
www.blatantnews.com/…/bisphenol_a_in_plastic_packaging_and_products_is_highly_dangerous.html – Cached -

4. Numbers: Plastics, From Manufacturing to Recycling to Long Death …

Oct 21, 2009 … Four million tons of BPA are produced each year. A National Toxicology Program report (PDF) released last fall said there was “some concern” …
discovermagazine.com/…/21-numbers-plastics-manufacturing-recycling-death-landfill – Cached

So when they say it causes heart disease or “is highly dangerous” just how accurate is that?

(I think I’d better pick up the phone and call somebody!)

Why does everybody think BPA is safe but us?

by Michael Fumento on January 20, 2010

in Health and Illness, Nanny State, Precaution & Risk, Regulation

Regarding the ubiquitous plastic ingredient bisphenol A (BPA), my colleague Angela Logomasini blogged that “The greens are rejoicing today because the Food and Drug Administration has softened its stance on the safety of” the chemical and gave some reasons why it’s folly. But here’s what I find striking.

In 2006 the European Union’s Food Safety Authority conducted a risk assessment focusing on the threat to infants. It ultimately raised the Tolerable Daily Intake by a factor of five, which is to say it found BPA much safer than was first believed. Mind you, this is the same EU that has placed advisory warnings on cell phones and whose residents run in terror at the sight of a grain of genetically modified corn.

Two years later the EU conducted an update and as Trevor Butterworth of STATS has documented, since then there’s been:

• A review by Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (2007)
• An examination of claims of neurotoxicity by the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (2008)
• An evaluation by the French Food Safety Agency (2008)
• A risk assessment by NSF International, a World Health Organization collaborative center (2008)
• A review of new data by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (2008)
• A survey of canned drink products by Health Canada (2009)
• A risk assessment by Food Standards Australia/New Zealand (2009)
• A modeling study of BPA in humans by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (2009).

None of these prompted any warnings or restrictions on BPA use.

There’s only one conclusion to draw from all this folks. Apparently Americans are uniquely vulnerable to the horrors of BPA. But (pssst . . . ) don’t try telling that to a geneticist.

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.

Campaign Should Highlight Value of BPA

by Angela Logomasini on June 1, 2009

in Environment

According to the Washington Post, packaging industry representatives are looking for ways to fight off regulations of a substance used in packaging called Bisphenol A (BPA). And they certainly should be developing a plan quickly as environmental activists continue to spread misinformation about this substance and its risks. CEI has addressed these in several blog posts with links to other research, pointing out how low the risks are and high benefits are from BPA.

Industry would be wise to focus widely on all the benefits BPA provides for consumers–from packaging to medical devices to safety goggles. Our value-based communications project highlights how businesses can fight back needless and counter-productive legislation by communicating the value their products bring to individuals. Indeed, industry needs to focus on legitimizing its role in society if they are ever going to stay afloat. The American Plastics Council conducted such a campaign in the 1990s and it helped reverse an anti-plastics trend by demonstrating the value plastics bring in a variety of applications (for example see this advertisement). Unfortunately, if such efforts don’t become a routine part of business, industry becomes subject to nanny state regulations, taxes, and other red tape that hurts consumers the most by producing higher costs and fewer valuable products.

For more information check out CEI’s book on the topic, which a result of a conference we held a while back. In particular, CEI president Fred L. Smith’s chapter is particularly helpful.

Photo: NIH Image Library.

BPA Ban: Minnesota First in a Line of Fools

by Angela Logomasini on May 11, 2009

in Environment

Usually California’s cast of political characters leads the way in the passage of stupid and counterproductive consumer product regulations. Yet last week, legislative clowns in Minnesota became first in a line of fools on one issue. Minnesota is now the first state to ban baby bottles made with the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). CEI has written on this topic, here, here, here, and here, pointing out that the trace levels of BPA have never been shown to pose a human health hazard during four decades of extensive use in a wide-range of products.  It replaced glass baby bottles–which if broken pose real risks.

Such symbolic, yet expensive, bans on baby products have become the modern-day equivalent of candidates kissing babies to get votes. But such bans and regulations are not as innocuous as a cheesy photo-opportunity.

BPA is a very valuable product for making all sorts of products and packaging—providing many public health and other benefits. It makes break-proof containers (such as for baby bottles) and sanitary packaging that keeps our food from becoming exposed to truly dangerous pathogens. For example, it lines many beverage cans and food containers to prevent metals from entering the food and to reduce the potential for bacterial development.

Unfortunately, bans on baby bottles are just the beginning. If regulators phase out BPA, do they know whether the replacements will create new hazards? Surely not—all these lawmakers really know is that it makes politically beneficial press.

Enviro-Scare Artists

by Angela Logomasini on April 21, 2009

in Environment

According to a new report released by enviro-scare artists at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, most food packaging still contains the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). That is supposed to scare you, but I say, who cares? It’s there because it’s useful. BPA is one substance has proven very helpful in maintaining the integrity of the products it packages and there is scant evidence of anyone ever having a problem. The idea that food companies want to slowly poison their customers and that the Food and Drug Administration supports that strategy by issuing reports on BPA safety should be quickly dismissed as silly. But the green groups continue to make this case.

They note that the substance is found in human urine, which they say is evidence of exposure. Yes, indeed and it is also evidence to the fact that BPA quickly metabolizes and leaves the human body, like many harmless substances do. The simple fact is, the human body is exposed to trace-level chemicals on a daily bases, man-made and otherwise. This mere exposure to trace levels tells us nothing about risk. When the is risk is negligible, as FDA and others have found, there is no reason panic. Yet Greens focus on exposure and then target the chemicals they think make industry must vulnerable to attacks—because apparently for some reason, they don’t like business.

My colleague Jonathan Tolman and I have both written on the topic, highlighting the facts about the science and the risks. But these groups don’t seem to care much about the science. Apparently, the hype gets them more media attention and more power.

Next Entries →