|
In July, I wrote a blog on TownHall.com about Bisphenol A (BPA) in which I brought to your attention the behavior of many major media outlets with regard to their accusations against BPA, which is a chemical used to make lightweight, versatile, durable, high-performance plastics. In that piece I identified that contrary to those that claim that BPA is dangerous and hazardous to all, new research was telling an opposite story: … After years of hand-wringing, biased media reports and witch hunts about BPA -- a new Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) report out of George Mason University (a non profit, non partisan group) has found that the risks were misleading and caused unnecessary public anxiety. As the report noted, "A handful of scientists and environmental activist groups claim that bisphenol A is the biological equivalent of global warming, and its presence in plastic bottles and can linings is endangering “millions of babies.” Their message – and their accusation that the Food and Drug Administration has been swayed by industry-sponsored studies and has ignored vital scientific evidence – has led Congress to ask the agency to re-examine the safety of the chemical. A decision is expected by the end of the summer." ... Of course, if someone claims your product harms babies, they don't really need to prove it. The accusation is so incendiary that the mere suggestion could bankrupt most companies -- which, of course, is the point if you are trying to sell a "safer" plastic product. In short, it's a "scare racket"… And yet, many popular media outlets continue to baselessly attack BPA as a dangerous and unsafe chemical.
On October 29, 2009 the Washington Post wrote: The federal government is giving $30 million to researchers across the country over the next two years to try to advance scientific knowledge about the possible health effects of bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical in thousands of consumer products. "We know that many people are concerned about bisphenol A, and we want to support the best science we can to provide the answers," said Linda Birnbaum, the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. In the past 10 years, animal studies have linked BPA to infertility, weight gain, behavioral changes, early onset puberty, cancer and diabetes. In my pursuit to continue to refute such claims against BPA, I bring to your attention the following independently funded study that was published on October 30th by the EPA and the folks over at George Mason University. In it BPA is vindicated by independent research professionals despite the onslaught of much of the popular media. Environmental activists and a small number of scientists have long protested that small amounts of BPA ingested through food and drink are the biological equivalent of global warming or akin to giving a baby a contraceptive pill. Activists have charged that risk assessments by the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies have relied exclusively on flawed industry-funded studies to cover up the risk to the public, while “independent” studies have demonstrated these risks. But regulatory agencies around the world have rejected many of these independent studies, noting that they are either methodologically flawed or irrelevant for the purposes of assessing risks in humans. Multigenerational studies with large samples, high statistical rigor, and strong experimental design have failed to confirm any risk, and these studies have been either independent, or funded by industry but designed and supervised by independent scientists (such as those employed by the European Union). Now, a second independent study by the Environmental Protection Agency, published in the leading toxicological journal, Toxicological Sciences, has failed to find evidence of the low-dose hypothesis claimed by environmental activists and widely reported in the media. Unfortunately, but as is to be expected, few if any of the major media outlets are reporting this… but they should.
|