It seems like the leftist activists don’t want anyone to enjoy life. They’d rather we be fraught with worry. During the weeks and days leading up to Thanksgiving Day, they’ve issued bogus reports on why Americans should fear their holiday feast.
“Study finds chemical BPA in popular Thanksgiving canned foods,” says the Los Angeles Times. The story cites a study released by anti-chemical activists at the Breast Cancer Fund. “The organization tested four cans of each of the following: Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup, Campbell’s Turkey Gravy, Carnation Evaporated Milk, Green Giant Cut Green Beans, Libby’s Pumpkin and Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style,” reports the Los Angeles Times.
You might expect such sensationalism from the Los Angeles Times, but what about the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)? JAMA also appears all too willing to take advantage of the holiday news hook to promote its publication of a study on BPA in canned goods. The new study appears in JAMA’s print magazine dated November 23/30, 2011 — Thanksgiving Day! the Thanksgiving issue. An abstract of the story is already posted on their website, which has garnered media attention for the publication by linking the study to turkey day.
[click to continue…]
Today, CEI releases the first of a series of studies on chemicals and the precautionary principle. Activist groups around the nation have been calling for greater regulation of chemicals, which they say would protect the public from the scourge of such things as cancer. In reality, their claims are based on junk science and their prescriptions threaten to undermine public health.
CEI’s first paper addresses activist hype related to cosmetics. Author Dana Joel Gattuso explains why consumers should not fall for the activist hype attacking cosmetics and other personal care products. In particular, she points out that if lawmakers followed consumer advice and removed certain chemicals from cosmetics, public health would suffer: “Present in quantities so small—typically, less than 1 percent of a product’s total weight—they are added to prevent contamination and to protect consumers from the buildup of dangerous bacteria that can cause eye infections, skin rashes, and even deadly infections such as E. coli and Salmonella,” Gattuso notes. She explains further:
In spite of the lack of scientific evidence of health risks from these ingredients, the anti-chemical groups have been successful in creating a climate of fear among many consumers—and lawmakers. The legislation they are promoting, the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011, would ban any cosmetic and skin care ingredients that exceed a one in a million risk of an adverse health impact—which is to say it would ban most ingredients since almost everything carries risk greater than one in a million. While the risks from products not containing these additives would be much higher, those risks would not be considered. In effect, the bill would ban the very chemicals that protect consumers.
Activists at the Breast Cancer Fund are scheduled to release a new scaremongering “study” on the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) tomorrow, suggesting that children are at risk from Campbell’s Soup. As part of their “Cans Not Cancer” campaign, the group measured BPA levels in a handful of canned goods and concluded: “There is a toxic chemical lurking in your child’s Campbell’s Disney Princess soup,” and other food products.
Why is the Breast Cancer Fund issuing a report about risk to children? What does that have to do with the cause of fighting breast cancer? Nothing at all. Instead it is part of an irrational anti-chemical campaign to rid the world of a very valuable chemical.
BPA makes transparent, polycarbonate plastics exceptionally strong and resistant to breakage and to relatively high heat. It is remarkably durable and easily sterilized, making it well suited for reuse and recycling and medical applications. BPA is also used to make resins and coatings that are suitable for application to a wide range of surfaces at a wide range of temperatures. As a result, it helps prevent corrosion and increases product durability. Its application in food packaging — lining aluminum and steel cans for example — not only reduces food waste, it prevents the development of dangerous contamination and pathogens in the food supply, providing a key public safety benefit.
[click to continue…]
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.
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.
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.
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.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 