If you follow this kind of thing, you probably heard that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared the plastic-modifying chemical, bisphenol-A, to be safe. From here in Canada, where our ideologically-conservative government recently banned its use in baby bottles, this came as a bit of a surprise. My skeptical stance did get me wondering what role lobbying might have played in rescuing the peddlers of BPA but, to be fair to me, I did withhold judgement. This article, by the generally-conservative Economist, quickly tipped me back into a more familiar, corporate-wary view. It does a good job in clearing cobwebs and uncertainly on the issue. My conclusion: avoid the stuff. A few quotes:
A bill in the California assembly, which passed the state senate in May, would have banned the use of bisphenol-A (BPA) in products used by children under the age of three. An avalanche of shameless lobbying killed it: the vote was 31 to 27 against, with 22 weaselly abstentions.
The brouhaha over BPA echoes the battle over smoking and cancer a generation ago. Sooner or later, health authorities in most developed countries will heed the scientific evidence and follow Canada’s lead in banning BPA - at least in baby bottles, if not in all household products.
...............................................................................................
. . . over 100 scientific studies have linked low doses of BPA to prostate and breast cancer, reproductive abnormalities, accelerated puberty in females, low sperm count in males, neurological effects similar to ADHD, diabetes and even obesity.
The effects have their biggest impact during early stages of development. Hence the special concern about protecting infants and young children from exposure to even the smallest doses of BPA. Altogether, more than 300 research papers have now been published on the health hazards associated with BPA.
Recent Comments