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.

Chemistry War Zone (Epilogue) – BPA

“Science is not politics. You can’t just get two opposing viewpoints and think you’ve done due diligence. You’ve got to cover the multiple views and the relative credibility of each view.”

Dr. Stephen Schneider is an expert in climate change from both a scientific and policy perspective. Therefore, when he says something like the above quote, you should take its importance to heart. He knows what he’s talking about… Yesterday we discussed Bryan Walsh’s interview with Eric Pooley about the importance of accurate reporting and not just balanced reporting. In the podcast, Pooley gives a good idea of the situation from a journalist’s perspective. Schneider goes into greater depth about the importance of proper science writing, this time from the scientist’s point of view. Schneider spoke earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago, about the importance of proper reporting on the subject of climate change. (Thanks to the Stanford U News Service for the heads-up and the quotes.) One of the issues Schneider talked about was CNN’s recent decision to eliminate its science team. Not that CNN can be trusted anyway, knowing that it fakes its transcripts and injects false video clips into stories. But at least it was trying to report on science issues… As Schneider asked,

“The problem is CNN just fired their science team. Why didn’t they fire their economics team or their sports team? Why don’t they send their general assignment reporters out to cover the Super Bowl?”

A source in the business of reporting gave me the perfect response to Schneider’s rhetorical question,

“I think CNN and the other networks would keep their science reporters if they could find the scientific counterpart of their “money honeys” that seem to dominate all broadcast business coverage. Or the ranters and yellers on the economy that make for such compelling —- yet non-informative —- TV viewing.”

We’ve discussed the bimbos who mascarade as journalists on TV before (and a personal note to Charles Gibson from ABC: I’m not just referring to women when I use the word bimbo).

But back to the issue of reporting on climate change and the challenge both reporters and scientists face in getting this right… Schneider has coined a great term to describe what happens in reporting on climate change: Mediarology. On his website, he has written an enormous amount on Mediarology and I would encourage you to read more there, but his introduction to the subject follows.

“In reporting political, legal, or other advocacy-dominated stories, it is both natural and appropriate for honest journalists to report “both sides” of an issue. Got the Democrat? Better get the Republican!

“In science, it’s different. There are rarely just two polar opposite sides, but rather a spectrum of potential outcomes, oftentimes accompanied by a considerable history of scientific assessment of the relative credibility of these many possibilities. A climate scientist faced with a reporter locked into the “get both sides” mindset risks getting his or her views stuffed into one of two boxed storylines: “we’re worried” or “it will all be OK.” And sometimes, these two “boxes” are misrepresentative; a mainstream, well-established consensus may be “balanced” against the opposing views of a few extremists, and to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.”

This is where Schneider hits it on the head: “…to the uninformed, each position seems equally credible.” This is why accurate reporting and not just trying for a semblance of balance is so necessary. The two biggest things business and special interest groups have done to harm the environment in the public debate are:

A) They changed the term from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’ Warming is bad, change is just different.

B) By injecting doubt into the world of hard science, they have allowed the lazy reporters to merely transcribe the false drivel, instead of questioning its accuracy.

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 Bill Moyers piece can be found here.

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).