This “human achievement of the day” is a true example of why we at CEI and many others around the world choose to celebrate the ingenuity expressed when individuals can exploit resources. Apart from increasing personal wealth and improving the quality of life for humans around the globe, it is technology, not “conservation,” that results in more “environmentally friendly” technologies. The machine that turns plastic waste into oil is just one example of this.
The miracle of plastics: The invention of plastic is arguable one of the most important contributions to the improving quality of human life. Plastics are used in medicine, aeronautics, travel, construction, and electronics. In fact, if it wasn’t for plastic materials, one wonders if we’d have the satellites used to track the changes in Earth’s environment.
The problem with plastic: While plastics make much of modern human life possible, there are some who see the downsides of plastics. Making these synthetic materials accounts for 7 percent of the world’s annual petroleum usage, which increases demand and the price of oil. At the same time, disposing of plastic is environmentally tricky: it takes a while for plastics to biodegrade naturally — some say it takes between 500 and 1,000 years – and there is a fear that these materials will fill our oceans and landfills. Several cities have banned or taxed the use of plastic bags, which some believe are polluting rivers, streams, and oceans.
[click to continue…]
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.
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!)
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.
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.
Check out Andrew Langer’s excellent piece in today’s Roll Call addressing challenges for the potential new chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). CEI has pointed out in the past how misguided CPSC regulations are often counter-productive, and we have commented before the agency about its misuse of science.
Today, Andrew, who heads the Institute for Liberty, highlights how Congress is making the problem even worse with more misguided mandates for CPSC to enforce, particularly regulations on phthalates. This is an issue that CEI has covered in studies and op-eds over the years. But misguided regulations continue. Langer explains: “The law includes an interim ban on certain phthalates, a class of chemicals used safely as a softener in children’s plastic toys for over 40 years. Even though the government’s own research says this product is safe, the ban remains in place until yet more testing is done. Nothing wrong with that — except that the replacements used in the meantime haven’t been tested at all. Congress responded to political pressure but made no attempt to evaluate comparative risks. In this provision, the CPSIA has succeeded in increasing risk for the very kids Congress congratulated itself for protecting.”
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 