August 20, 2008
(Updated below)
Less than one week prior to a California legislature vote on a potential ban of BPA in some children's products the FDA has declared BPA to be safe for human consumption.
But is it really safe and was the FDA announcement a political ploy designed to influence a potentially landmark California vote?
Which is it...safe or not?
Perhaps the most overlooked point in this whole controversy is that no one is saying, not even the chemical industry, that BPA is safe. Too much BPA is toxic...period.
The only argument is at what dose BPA becomes harmful. The chemical industry claims that low-dose BPA, as what you'd get drinking from plastic bottles, falls far below that which is considered dangerous. Critics, many of whom are scientists, disagree, claiming that even low-dose BPA can be harmful. The science strongly suggests they are right.
As reported in the Washington Post,
"...more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound [BPA] that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group." [1]
As is typically the case in such scenarios one needs to examine the vested interests of the two sides. In the case of industry the motive is clearly profit (which there is nothing wrong with, per se). In the case of government scientists and independent labs, which is where the preponderance of evidence lies, one has to wonder why so many unaffiliated scientists, with no particular axe to grind, would come to the conclusions they do (that BPA is harmful even in low doses). Could it be they are simply seeking the truth through good science?
The FDA has a mixed track record and past FDA decisions have declared cloned food, Olestra, food irradiation, Vioxx and genetically engineered foods safe.
Then What's Up With The FDA?
Do we think the FDA is evil and always on the wrong side of the issues? Absolutely not. We're sure the goal of the vast majority of career professionals at FDA is to arrive at the truth as best they can determine. After all, National Institutes of Health studies (a sister agency of the FDA residing within the US Department of Health and Human Services) are among those pointing to the dangers of BPA.
Where the FDA has gone wrong is not at the career level, but at the top, where high-level bureaucrats are swapped out every four to eight years.
Take this statement by Mitchell Cheeseman, an FDA deputy director...
"The fact is, it's industry's responsibility to demonstrate the safety of their products," he said. "The fact that industry generated data to support the safety I don't think is an unusual thing."
Now, lets parse that statement.
According to the Environmental Working Group,
"Current law does not force chemical companies to prove a chemical is safe before it ends up in children's toys and products." [2]
As for the second part of that statement - that industry generated data supporting the safety [of a given chemical] is not unusual - we wholeheartedly agree! In fact, you're making our case. Thank you very much!
Sept. 5, 2008 Update:
Since we wrote this late last month government scientists from the National Toxicology Program have reiterated their findings about BPA saying they have "some concern" (midway on a one to five scale). [3] It seems like someone doesn't like their work being ignored.
|
