Last May I first wrote about Bisphenol A and the growing debate (more political than scientific) about the chemical’s safety. To refresh,
“BPA, in case you don’t remember, is an organic chemical compound found in many of the hard plastic containers we use on a day-to-day basis including water bottles, baby food containers (formerly now, we hope) and microwave food containers. The EPA is supposed to be regulating and reporting back to Congress on this issue, but I doubt that they have as yet done anything meaningful. Meanwhile, Laura Tarantino of the FDA released a statement contrary to the studies findings, “Right now, our tentative conclusion is that it’s safe, so we’re not recommending any change in habits.””
That was taken from my post last September, “More on Bisphenol A (BPA), related health concerns and why the FDA and EPA are not doing their job.” Well, the “debate” continues as the FDA and Congress have yet to put together anything concrete to stop the use of this potentially deadly chemical compound. Various agencies, states and industry groups have put together their own plans regarding BPA, but none of them are comprehensive or far-reaching enough. Expose has just updated the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s coverage on this issue with a 14-minute long epilogue to their original report last May. Here is the link to this video. Please watch it, as well as the original report if you haven’t seen it, which can be see in its entirety here. In addition, I have included in my prior two posts on BPA additional resources you can use to further educate yourself on the concerns regarding BPA and your health.
Well, four months later it appears the mainstream media have decided to report on the story of Bisphenol A (BPA). We questioned back in May of this year whether or not this would become noteworthy to the national media, after the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel completed a very thorough investigative report into the non-reporting and non-education surrounding BPA and possible health concerns to humans. In addition, Bill Moyers aired a great follow-up on PBS. BPA, in case you don’t remember, is an organic chemical compound found in many of the hard plastic containers we use on a day-to-day basis including water bottles, baby food containers (formerly now, we hope) and microwave food containers. The EPA is supposed to be regulating and reporting back to Congress on this issue, but I doubt that they have as yet done anything meaningful. Meanwhile, Laura Tarantino of the FDA released a statement contrary to the studies findings, “Right now, our tentative conclusion is that it’s safe, so we’re not recommending any change in habits.”
The FDA Status Summary Report can be downloaded here and the full list of materials presented at Tuesday’s hearing on the issue are available here. Also of interest, is that the FDA has been researching BPA and continually touting its safety since at least 1999, according to this report.
All of the media attention of course comes on the heels of study results published yesterday in the Journal of the American Medical Association which concluded, “Higher BPA exposure, reflected in higher urinary concentrations of BPA, may be associated with avoidable morbidity in the community-dwelling adult population.”
However, the American Chemistry Council stated something different in its press release after the announcement saying, “The findings of the report, which identified no serious human health concerns, will provide important input into safety assessments of consumer products containing Bisphenol A.” The ACC goes on to state, “…which confirms that food-contact products made from polycarbonate plastic, including products for infants and children, can continue to be used safely.””
I’m wondering which report this group of “scientists” read, but quite obviously they are putting money first and consumer well-being second; being that they are funded by plastics manufacturers, is this a surprise? And what about the FDA? What science is it referencing when it finds conflicting results?
Coverage by major media outlets is listed here and you can see for yourself how balanced the reports so far have been:
Bisphenol A (or BPA) is a chemical used in the manufacturer of plastics; everything from baby formula containers to computer keyboards and the liners to every can made in the United States. Over 150 independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies with no connection to industry or government have shown this chemical to affect the reproductive systems in lab animals. In other words, there are a lot of smart people out there who think this chemical might cause breast cancer, testicular cancer, miscarriages, diabetes and a host of other problems. The United States Congress passed a bill in the 90’s, which President Clinton signed into law, mandating that the EPA test BPA and many other chemicals used in everyday production, for possible health affects. The EPA has just barely started this process, 11 years later.
Thanks to Bill Moyers for bringing this issue to our attention, but it was first reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after months of exhaustive research, interviews and significant stonewalling by the EPA, FDA, industry titans and lobbyists.
Here is an excerpt from Moyers’ program:
These reporters and editors deserve our thanks for bringing to light this issue and hopefully changing the tide in coverage of BPA and its effects. Canada, the EU and California have recently taken steps to ban BPA in baby food containers, however that is only the first step that needs to be taken. Let’s hope the national media decides this is an important enough issue to actually report on.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s reporting can be found here.
There are many other resources available in the comments section of both stories and by simply Googling “Bisphenol A.” One of the more important ones might be pertaining to the avoidance of BPA (as much as possible, at least).
A person or entity with an obligation to report the news who instead shirks this responsibility and creates false dogmas. Aside from ignorance, reasons include financial gain and self-love.
Ignoring calls from numerous critics, the New York Times refuses to own up to mistakes in the paper's coverage of the now-famous right-wing videotapes attacking the community organizing group ACORN. Instead, the paper's public editor, Clark Hoyt, is relying on an absurd semantic justification in order to claim the paper does not need to print any c […]
PBS is reportedly in final talks with Newsweek editor Jon Meacham to be co-host of its forthcoming Need to Know program (New York Times, 3/9/10). Meacham's consideration for a show that would replace hard-hitting independent programs Now and the Bill Moyers Journal sends a clear and troubling message about PBS's priorities (Extra! Update, 6/05). […]
According to a report on the New York Times website (3/9/10), PBS is in talks with Newsweek editor Jon Meacham to be co-host of its forthcoming Need to Know program. If the report proves accurate, it gives viewers little hope for the kind of critical, uncompromising programming that public television was created to foster. Meacham's consideration for a […]
