tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35998993621006369702024-03-12T23:05:32.843-07:00The BPA FileA six-part, comprehensive review of current data demonstrating the safe use of BPA for more than fifty years. Permission is granted to quote in whole or part with attribution. Additional articles have been added to keep the site updated.Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-14531417253510874972015-02-12T15:10:00.002-08:002015-02-12T15:10:10.024-08:00Snoopy is Safe After All
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-outline-level: 1;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 24pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">Snoopy Is Safe After
All<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 18pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Rest easy, beagles.
Another chemical scare looks like a false alarm.</span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Feb. 11, 2015 – © The
Wall Street Journal<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The periodic scares
over chemicals in vaccines, foods and other products are typically a war on the
periodic table, and one compound that on all of the evidence deserves
exoneration is bisphenol-A, or BPA. The latest research deserves more attention
before more federal dollars are wasted.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">BPA is used in the
lining of metal cans and plastics to ensure structural integrity and keep
things like E.coli out of food. It has been widely used for more than 50 years
as a coating in everything from soup cans to bike helmets. The chemical has
undergone testing in more than 4,500 studies over three decades, and the Food
and Drug Administration has twice affirmed, most recently in November, that
human exposure to low levels of BPA isn’t dangerous.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Anti-chemical
activists have nonetheless maligned BPA as a toxic substance that might act as
an “endocrine disrupter” by mimicking hormones in the body. BPA has been
allegedly linked to cancer, obesity, impotence, you name it. Many companies
such as the water-bottle maker Nalgene have stopped using it and label their
products “BPA-free.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The latest study,
published in January by Justin Teeguarden of the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and FDA researchers, knocks down the idea that humans could be at risk
of absorbing high levels of BPA into the bloodstream. The researchers fed
people tomato soup with traceable BPA—and the body essentially neutralized 998
out of every 1,000 BPA molecules. The entire BPA sample moved through the body
in 24 hours. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The fear that BPA
might be absorbed into the bloodstream caught traction thanks in part to a 2013
study in which the authors slipped BPA solutions under the tongues of sleeping
beagles and found that the pups absorbed more BPA in their blood than other
animals had in previous studies. BPA opponents waved around the Snoopy scare as
evidence that the chemical was unsafe, calling on regulators to reconsider
their all-clear messages. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Now the question is:
How many more taxpayer-funded BPA studies are really necessary? The National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an arm of the National Institutes
of Health, has shelled out more than $100 million for research on BPA since
1997. Three prominent BPA critics have received $20 million and have failed to
turn up causation between BPA and adverse health effects. Yet the studies
always conclude that more research is needed and so the grants are renewed.
Nice work if you can get it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Scientists and
politicians claim there isn’t enough federal research funding to support all of
today’s important projects. Here’s one idea: Reallocate the money for redundant
BPA studies into something more productive. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-82716509456095650632015-01-23T07:52:00.003-08:002015-01-23T09:12:28.766-08:00European Food Safety Authority Says BPA is Safe"This opinion describes the assessment of the risks to public health associated with bisphenol A (BPA) exposure. Exposure was assessed for various groups of the human population in three different ways: (1) external (by diet, drinking water, inhalation, and dermal contact to cosmetics and thermal paper); (2) internal exposure to total BPA (absorbed dose of BPA, sum of conjugated and unconjugated BPA); and (3) aggregated (from diet, dust, cosmetics and thermal paper), expressed as oral human equivalent dose (HED) referring to unconjugated BPA only. The estimated BPA dietary intake was highest in infants and toddlers (up to 0.875 μg/kg bw per day). Women of childbearing age had dietary exposures comparable to men of the same age (up to 0.388 μg/kg bw per day). The highest aggregated exposure of 1.449 μg/kg bw per day was estimated for adolescents. Biomonitoring data were in line with estimated internal exposure to total BPA from all sources. BPA toxicity was evaluated by a weight of evidence approach. “Likely” adverse effects in animals on kidney and mammary gland underwent benchmark dose (BMDL<sub>10</sub>) response modelling. A BMDL<sub>10</sub> of 8 960 μg/kg bw per day was calculated for changes in the mean relative kidney weight in a two generation toxicity study in mice. No BMDL<sub>10</sub> could be calculated for mammary gland effects. Using data on toxicokinetics, this BMDL<sub>10</sub> was converted to an HED of 609 μg/kg bw per day. The CEF Panel applied a total uncertainty factor of 150 (for inter- and intra-species differences and uncertainty in mammary gland, reproductive, neurobehavioural, immune and metabolic system effects) to establish a temporary Tolerable Daily Intake (t-TDI) of 4 μg/kg bw per day. By comparing this t-TDI with the exposure estimates, the CEF Panel concluded that there is no health concern for any age group from dietary exposure or from aggregated exposure. The CEF Panel noted considerable uncertainty in the exposure estimates for non-dietary sources, whilst the uncertainty around dietary estimates was relatively low."<br />
<br />
© European Food Safety Authority, 2015<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/pub/3978.htm">http://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/pub/3978.htm</a>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-20191933097161851412014-05-21T15:22:00.000-07:002015-01-23T09:12:15.310-08:00FDA: No Low-Dose Dangers<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="_GoBack"></a><b><span style="color: #0d1801; font-family: LatoLight; font-size: 24pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">FDA:
No low-dose chemical dangers<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The truth remains: The right dose
makes the difference between a poison and a remedy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #505050; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">May 21, 2014 </span><br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="color: #505050; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">By <span style="color: blue;">Dennis
Avery</span></span><span style="font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><script type="text/javascript">
(function() {
var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true;
po.src = 'http://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s);
})();
</script><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Food and Drug Administration has
just loudly re-endorsed perhaps the oldest truth in science—that the dose makes
the poison. Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, told us 500 years ago, “All
substances are poison. There is none which is not a poison. The right dose
makes the difference between a poison and a remedy.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Even sunlight and water are poisons
at high doses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The FDA has just commented on a new study
which found no health impact from low doses of bisphenol-A. BPA is a
plasticizer often found at low doses in things like foods, children’s milk
bottles, and toys. Activists responded by sending out waves of demands to
parents that this useful chemical be banned from the shelves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The FDA said, “The study reported no
effects of BPA at any dose except at the very highest levels, and is consistent
with the FDA’s current position that BPA is safe at the very low amounts that
occur in some foods.” Moreover, the FDA says BPA’s “low dose” safety range is
huge: from 2.5 to 2,700 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">There’s NO case on record where low
doses of a toxic substance are more dangerous than high doses. That is
important in a human world where thousands of different chemicals play parts in
our food, water, medicines, and technologies. The activists, however, like
making us fearful of chemicals—apparently with the goal of undermining our
faith in the capitalist system that keeps finding new uses for chemicals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Take obesity. Activists have
attacked aspartame and other non-caloric sweeteners in the midst of a First
World obesity epidemic. Sugar substitutes should therefore be a no-brainer. We
struggle with obesity because we no longer do hard physical work, we eat big
meals and high-calorie snacks, and we spend long hours watching TV and texting.
The nay-sayers, however, don’t want a cheap, acceptable substitute for the
16-ounce Coke. Ergo, they attack aspartame as “dangerous.” And, good people
believe them. Just last week, a conscientious young mother warned my Rotary
meeting about the potential evils of aspartame.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Farm chemicals have also been
accused in the “low dose” campaigns. Atrazine, our most widely used farm
chemical, turns up during the spring flush in the drinking water of some
Midwest cities. This makes it a target for activists and even the EPA itself,
which would like credit for another regulatory scalp. However, a person would
have to drink thousands of gallons of “contaminated” water <i>per day</i> to
exceed the EPA’s own safety level.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Recently, the <i>New Yorker</i>
lauded a Berkeley biologist,<b> Lester Hayes</b>, for claiming that low doses
of atrazine cause sexual changes in frogs even though high doses have shown no
impact. The real joker in the deck: Hayes has never revealed his testing
regime, and no other researcher has been able to duplicate the low-dose
impacts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This is the opposite of science.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Europe has adopted the <b>Precautionary
Principle</b> that says nothing should be allowed unless it has been proven
never to cause harm to anyone or anything, ever. They will severely hamper
their lifestyles if they proceed down this road. I take rat poison every day to
prevent a recurrence of a small stroke I suffered five years ago. My warfarin,
originally developed to make rats bleed to death internally, is now used in low
doses to help millions of humans lead longer, healthier lives. The pills cost
less than a penny a day.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Another common example: Poisonous
iodine, first added to our salt in 1924 to prevent goiter, has all but
eliminated the condition that was prevalent across wide areas of the U.S.
Almost a hundred years later, the fear of goiter never crosses our mind
as we daily add a bit of salt and health to our food.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The truth remains: The right dose makes
the difference between a poison and a remedy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">-
See more at:
http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/21/fda-no-low-dose-chemical-dangers/#sthash.Dj5CDKOw.dpuf</span><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-54418844317468000862013-02-20T06:52:00.003-08:002013-02-20T06:52:32.387-08:00
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"> </v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas></v:stroke></v:shapetype></span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">February 15, 2013</span><br />
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Wall Street Journal</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">No Ill Effect Found
in Human BPA Exposure <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-outline-level: 4;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #666666; font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; font-size: 8.5pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=ROBERT+LEE+HOTZ&bylinesearch=true"><span style="color: #093d72; letter-spacing: 0.75pt; text-decoration: none; text-transform: uppercase; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: black;">ROBERT LEE HOTZ</span></span></a> </span><span lang="EN" style="color: #666666; font-family: "Helvetica","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">BOSTON—Human
exposure to a controversial ingredient in many plastic bottles and food
containers is too low to be worrisome, according to a closer look at 150
studies of an additive called bisphenol A, widely known as BPA.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A
toxicologist at the federal Pacific Northwest National Laboratory reported
Friday that he had re-examined studies covering blood levels of BPA, which in
high enough doses can mimic the sex hormone estrogen, among 30,000 people in 19
countries, including women and infants.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">He
found the exposure levels generally much too low to affect the human body.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"It
is thousands of times lower than the levels you see in animals that do cause
effects," said Justin Teeguarden, a senior research scientist who
conducted the analysis at the Department of Energy laboratory in Richland,
Wash.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Mr.
Teeguarden presented his research, which was funded by the Environmental
Protection Agency, at the annual meeting here of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
findings are the latest in a broad-ranging scientific controversy that has
continued for a decade or more over the safety of the world's food supply and
the possible role that BPA may play in a variety of public-health problems.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Among
other applications, BPA is used in bottles, soda cans, food containers and many
other consumer goods, to harden the plastics from which they are made and to
prevent the growth of germs.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Last
summer, the Food and Drug Administration banned its use in baby bottles and
infant cups but continued to stand behind its safety in other products.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
World Health Organization, the European Food Safety Authority and Japan's National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology have all discounted its
risk to human health.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Write
to Robert Lee Hotz at <a href="mailto:sciencejournal@wsj.com"><span style="color: #093d72; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">sciencejournal@wsj.com</span></a>
</span><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A version of this article appeared February 16, 2013, on
page A3 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: No
Ill Effect Found in Human BPA Exposure.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-26942303156031111692013-02-19T06:24:00.002-08:002013-02-19T06:24:23.282-08:00
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 22.5pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-outline-level: 1;">
<b><span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 19.5pt; letter-spacing: -0.75pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">BPA
is Back -- New Science Proves Safety<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b><span style="color: #666666; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 8.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; text-transform: uppercase;"><a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/"><span style="color: blue;">HEALTH &
WELLNESS</span></a></span></b><b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> on 02.18.13<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 7.5pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-no-proof: yes; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"><span style="color: blue;">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1">
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0">
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight">
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0">
</v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
<v:path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f">
<o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit">
</o:lock></v:path></v:stroke></span></v:shapetype></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="color: blue;">By Christine
Lepisto</span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">BPA is not so bad
after all. At least, there is not enough of it in our bodies to be causing
obesity, diabetes, cancer, liver disease or heart attacks -- just a few of the
modern diseases that have been correlated with the growing presence of this
plastic additive in baby and drinking bottles as well as canned food linings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The news stems from a
session at last week's conference of the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/" title="http://www.aaas.org/aboutaaas/"><span style="color: blue;">American
Association for the Advancement of Science</span></a> (AAAS) entitled: <a href="http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5771.html" title="http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5771.html"><span style="color: blue;">Can
Exposure Science Quell the Furor over Environmental Endocrine Disruption</span></a>?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 3.75pt; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<b><span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Furor Over BPA<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Concerned parents have
been inundated by studies finding <a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/study-finds-toxic-chemicals-pregnant-women-can-it-hurt-my-baby.html" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/study-finds-toxic-chemicals-pregnant-women-can-it-hurt-my-baby.html"><span style="color: blue;">toxic
chemicals in the bodies of pregnant women</span></a> and in our kids' favorite <a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/breast-cancer-fund-study-finds-bpa-kids-soups-pasta-meals-should-you-worry.html" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/breast-cancer-fund-study-finds-bpa-kids-soups-pasta-meals-should-you-worry.html"><span style="color: blue;">canned
soups and pasta</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">BPA belongs to a class
of chemicals suspected to act as endocrine disruptors. What that means in
non-scientific terms is that BPA can act like the chemical messengers our body
uses naturally. If our body gets the wrong message at the wrong time, the
result can be birth defects, neurological problems, even <a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/new-concern-toxic-chemicals-bpa-phthalates-environment-inherited-diseases.html" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/new-concern-toxic-chemicals-bpa-phthalates-environment-inherited-diseases.html"><span style="color: blue;">diseases
that might be passed on to future generations</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">No wonder<a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/healthy-child-healthy-world-how-get-away-bpa.html" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/healthy-child-healthy-world-how-get-away-bpa.html"><span style="color: blue;">
advocates for childrens' health</span></a> have suggested we look for <a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/what-best-bpa-free-baby-bottle.html" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/what-best-bpa-free-baby-bottle.html"><span style="color: blue;">alternatives
to BPA</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fueling the furor is
an overwhelming sense of loss of control: these chemicals are in our
environment, in our food, in everyday household items. Who is in charge of
keeping us safe in the face of harmful chemicals?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 3.75pt; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<b><span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Can Science Quell the
Furor?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">If this science came
from an industry-funded source, it could be ignored pending independent
confirmation. But work funded entirely by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program
certainly merits a bit of trust.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">At the AAAS
conference, six topics examined recent exposure science on BPA. Presenting a
review of BPA concentrations in humans -- representing 30,000 people, including
women and infants, in 19 countries -- the authors posed the question of whether
BPA concentrations in humans are high enough to cause endocrine disruption. The
answer is stated bluntly: "They are not."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Which raises the next
question:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 22.5pt 10pt;">
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">can this knowledge affect the public’s view of
the risks posed by BPA?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 3.75pt; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<b><span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Why Facts Don't Quell
Fear<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A scientists will keep
an open mind and look for studies that can repeat the same conclusion, just to
make sure we did not overlook some important factor or have a flaw in the
design of our study. But the information presented in this seminar gives strong
support to the idea that we do not need to fear BPA as current levels of
exposure.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But a scientist saying
so does not suffice. Especially not when fear makes better headlines. Which
brings us to a real problem: this stuff is complex.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The 'exposure science'
that was discussed amongst members of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science has math, models, and medicine underlying it that make
it virtually impossible for the average concerned parent to understand. Here is
an overview, in much simpler language:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 7.5pt 5.25pt 15pt; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The amount of BPA
found in a review of many studies was not as high as that found in some
studies, suggesting that the studies that found high levels of BPA reflect
contaminated samples or some other form of distortion. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 7.5pt 5.25pt 15pt; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The amount of BPA
found in urine is not a good indicator of how much BPA the body has in the
bloodstream, where it might confuse the body, leaning to disease. This simple
statement is, in the scientific discussion, hidden behind a lot of techno-speak
about intestines, livers, and chemical reactions required for the BPA to be
harmful in the blood. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 7.5pt 5.25pt 15pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Symbol; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The body still prefers
estrogen, the endocrine messenger our bodies are designed to understand, so it
would take a lot more BPA "screaming" its message before our bodies
would start listening. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So do you feel better
about BPA based on the simple version of the facts?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But other scientists
will continue to publish reports about BPA and other endocrine disruptors in
which they continue to find mechanisms by which these chemicals could cause
harm. Those studies are not lies: these chemicals can have harmful effects when
studied under different conditions. Just not at the levels of actual human
exposure, according to the facts above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 3.75pt; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<b><span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Important Message
for Parents<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We always look for the
take-away message that gives control back to those of us trying to do our best
for our kids in a complicated world. Which brings us to the most important
message that the sum of science on BPA delivers so far: a lifestyle rich in BPA
does correlate with disease. BPA probably cannot be blamed, at least at the
levels encountered. The scientists discussing BPA point to another insidious
hazard:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 22.5pt 10pt;">
<b><span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Diet is the main source of BPA. So an obvious
possibility is that <a href="http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Paper8733.html" title="http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Paper8733.html"><span style="color: blue;">poorer diets
are associated with higher intake of BPA</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: white; line-height: 15pt; margin: 0in 0in 11.25pt;">
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Poorer diets -- that
means processed foods high in sugars and fats -- could be the real reason why
studies show people with higher BPA levels suffer from obesity, diabetes, and
cardiovascular disease. The parent hoping to give their child a better future
will be thankful for the can linings that keep food safe to eat when offering
their kids their <a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/breast-cancer-fund-study-finds-bpa-kids-soups-pasta-meals-should-you-worry.html" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/breast-cancer-fund-study-finds-bpa-kids-soups-pasta-meals-should-you-worry.html"><span style="color: blue;">favorite
canned meals</span></a>, accepting BPA's role in reducing food-borne illnesses,
because there really is <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/18/campbells-big-fat-green-bpa-lie-and-the-sustainability-activists-that-enabled-it/" title="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/09/18/campbells-big-fat-green-bpa-lie-and-the-sustainability-activists-that-enabled-it/"><span style="color: blue;">no
BPA substitute</span></a>. Then they will balance those convenient moments with many
more meals of good, fresh home cooking. But that is not science; it's just
plain common sense. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/bpa-back-new-science-proves-safety.html" title="http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/bpa-back-new-science-proves-safety.html"><span style="color: blue;">http://parentables.howstuffworks.com/health-wellness/bpa-back-new-science-proves-safety.html</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-89466044256047242582013-02-19T06:05:00.001-08:002013-02-19T06:05:59.113-08:00
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 17.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Exposure to BPA May be Too Low to Cause Problems <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Tue, 02/19/2013 <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Pacific Northwest National Laboratory <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A
controversial component of plastic bottles and canned food linings that have
helped make the world’s food supply safer has recently come under attack: bisphenol
A. Widely known as BPA, it has the potential to mimic the sex hormone estrogen
if blood and tissue levels are high enough. Now, an analysis of almost 150 BPA
exposure studies shows that in the general population, people's exposure may be
many times too low for BPA to effectively mimic estrogen in the human body.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The analysis, presented at the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/"><span style="color: #38388c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">American Association for the Advancement of Science</span></a>'s
annual meeting by toxicologist Justin Teeguarden of the Department of Energy's <a href="http://www.pnnl.gov/"><span style="color: #38388c; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Pacific Northwest National Laboratory</span></a>, shows
that BPA in the blood of the general population is many times lower than blood
levels that consistently cause toxicity in animals. The result suggests that
animal studies might not reflect the human BPA experience appropriately.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"Looking
at all the studies together reveals a remarkably consistent picture of human
exposure to BPA with implications for how the risk of human exposure is
interpreted," says Teeguarden. "At these exposure levels, exposure to
BPA can’t be compared to giving a baby the massive dose of estrogens found in a
birth control pill, a comparison made by others.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In
addition to evaluating the likelihood of BPA mimicking estrogen in humans,
Teeguarden also analyzed another set of BPA studies that looked at the
chemical’s toxicity in animals and cells in the lab. These 130 studies are
significant as a group because they refer to the exposures as "low
dose," implying they are very relevant to human exposures.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">According
to his analysis, however, the "low doses" actually span an immense
range of concentrations, a billion-fold. In addition, only a small fraction of
the exposures in these self-described “low dose” studies are in the range of
human exposures, from 0.8 percent to 7 percent depending on the study.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"The
term low-dose cannot be understood to mean either relevant to human exposures
or in the range of human exposures. However, this is in fact what it has come
to mean to the public, as well as many in the media," says Teeguarden.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<b><span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Analysis
of 150 Exposure Studies</span></b><span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
first analysis covered 30,000 individuals, including women and infants, in 19
countries. Human blood concentrations were calculated multiple ways using many
kinds of exposure data.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Teeguarden
looked to see if BPA concentrations were sufficiently high to be a significant
source of estrogen-like activity in the blood. Researchers have long known that
BPA can bind to the same proteins that estrogen does – called estrogen
receptors – when estrogen is doing its job in the body. However, in most cases,
BPA does so much more weakly than estrogen. To trigger biological effects
through receptors, BPA concentrations have to be high enough in the blood to
overcome that weakness.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"Systematically
testing the estrogenicity, or the bioactivity of BPA at the part per trillion
concentrations we expect in human blood would seem the most scientific way to
substantiate or refute this conclusion," says Teeguarden.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Teeguarden
analyzed the data in these studies using multiple independent approaches
applied systematically to the data from thousands of individuals. The results
showed that human blood levels of BPA are expected to be too far below levels
required for significant binding to four of the five key estrogen receptors to
cause biological effects.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Teeguarden's
analysis also confirmed the findings of many academic and government scientists
that biologically active BPA is at such low concentrations in the blood that it
is beneath toxicologists' current ability to detect it, raising questions about
the role of sample contamination in studies reporting high levels of BPA.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<b><span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Analysis
of 130 Toxicity Studies</span></b><span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In
this analysis, Teeguarden compiled all the BPA studies that included the term
"low dose" as it referred to human exposure by using such terms as
"low-concentration," "environmentally relevant," or
"human exposure." From the 130 studies found, he and his PNNL
biologist Sesha Hanson-Drury compiled all the doses that were actually used in
the studies.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
results showed that a small fraction of the "low doses” used in these
studies are within the range of human exposures, with the vast majority being
at least 10 to thousands of times higher than what humans are exposed to daily.
In addition, the range of concentrations spans from upwards of 10 grams per
kilogram of weight per day down to 100 picograms per kilogram of weight per day
(a picogram is one millionth of a gram).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background: whitesmoke; line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0.25in;">
<span lang="EN" style="color: #191919; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">"Unfortunately,
the low dose moniker has been used by some to promote the importance of
selected toxicity studies, for example, in arguments to ban BPA," says
Teeguarden. "For BPA and all chemicals, we need more accurate language to
present these findings so the public and scientists in other disciplines can
understand how human exposures compare to exposures in laboratory studies
reporting toxicity.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-92106696389530751502013-02-13T14:00:00.003-08:002013-02-13T14:00:24.093-08:00What the Sex Lives of California Mice Can Tell You<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">
</h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-8791865553487529269" itemprop="description articleBody">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzWzkN3In-hYdPQJf6HHw_8EZSRZCdixHCjPfLIO6SXdSceDbFxBeRUT30XSoyZ0nOe8HsEZGai48d8JMeDtNecnXTRrfW-av31-1NP0wg4KWiiuOACw-YCvlhIAJLaRvrP47XNDXT-_U/s1600/Mouse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_uid_680982761="3" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzWzkN3In-hYdPQJf6HHw_8EZSRZCdixHCjPfLIO6SXdSceDbFxBeRUT30XSoyZ0nOe8HsEZGai48d8JMeDtNecnXTRrfW-av31-1NP0wg4KWiiuOACw-YCvlhIAJLaRvrP47XNDXT-_U/s400/Mouse.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">By Alan
Caruba<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">According to Cheryl Rosenfeld, an
associate professor of biomedical sciences in the University of Missouri’s Bond
Life Science Center, loading up a bunch of California mice with a mega-dose of
bisphenol A (BPA) showed researchers that “What we have observed in those models
is that BPA affects male rodents differently from females.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">The
February 11 UM news release that announced this was titled <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-02/uom-baa021113.php"><span style="color: #378add;">“Bisphenol
A affects sex-specific reproductive behaviors in a monogamous animal
species”</span></a> with a sub-headline that said “Animal findings suggest that gender
may also influence chemical risks for humans.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">So,
humans are expected to demand that BPA be banned based on the behavior of
BPA-besotted California mice, but not the deer mice on which previous similar
research was conducted. As noted in the release, “The two rodent species have
contrasting mating behaviors.” That’s right, it depends on the sexual
proclivities of the species of the mice involved and one has to make a mighty
leap of faith that Ms. Rosenfeld’s research applies to
humans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">Rosenfeld’s earlier work received
notice in a January 2, 2013 <i><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130102140526.htm"><span style="color: #378add;">Science
Daily</span></a></i> article which pointed out that, “Following a three-year study
using more than 2,800 mice, a University of Missouri researcher was not able to
replicate a series of previous studies by another research group investigating
the controversial chemical BPA.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">A
synopsis of the earlier study noted that “Rosenfeld’s group extended the studies
to include animal numbers that surpassed the prior studies to verify their
findings were not a fluke and to provide sufficient numbers of animals to ensure
that significant differences would be detected if they existed. However, even
these additional numbers of animals and extended experiments failed to reproduce
the earlier findings.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">It’s
worth noting that Ms. Rosenfeld’s later research involving monogamous California
mice represented a dose that is a 1,000 times greater than a human would ingest.
This research suggests that the anticipated outcome would demonstrate that BPA
is harmful. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">It
reflects a global propaganda campaign to ban a chemical that has been safely in
use for fifty years. This campaign is the subject of my six-part series on BPA
that can be found at </span><a href="http://thebpafile.blogspot.com/"><span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";"><span style="color: #378add;">http://thebpafile.blogspot.com/</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">, a blog I maintain that includes
other articles on the subject.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">As
noted on The BPA File, “In 2011, ‘the German Society of Toxicology released a
review of more than five thousand previous studies of PBA exposure that
concluded that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the
human population, including newborns and babies. Researchers concluded that BPA
is neither mutagenic nor likely to be a carcinogen.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">Five
thousand studies! At what point does 50 years of safe use to coat the insides of
aluminum food cans, protecting the contents against food pathogens such as
botulism, put this campaign by environmental groups and others to rest? How many
more studies do we need to demonstrate the safety of BPA in making shatterproof
safety goggles, DVDs, and scores of other products we use every
day?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">In
March 2012 an Associated Press health reporter, Matthew Perrone, reported that
“The Food and Drug Administration has rejected a petition from environmentalists
(the Natural Resources Defense Council) that would have banned the
plastic-hardening chemical bisphenal-A from all food and drink packaging,
including plastic bottles and canned food.” The petition was rejected because
the “petitioners did not present compelling scientific evidence to justify new
restrictions…”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">How
compelling is yet another study that involved feeding California mice 1,000
times more BPA than humans would ever ingest? And how would any rational person
conclude that alleged changes in monogamous California mice—but not the
polygamous deer mice—could be extrapolated to suggest that humans would be
affected? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">An
August 8, 2011 editorial in The Wall Street Journal, “Postscript to a Panic”,
noted a study, “financed by the EPA…involved feeding (human) subjects a BPA-rich
diet for 24 hours. Researchers then monitored their blood and urine for traces
of the chemical” only to find that “the result was BPA levels too low to
detect.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">The
sheer absurdity of the campaign to get BPA banned reflects a deeper, more
sinister agenda by environmental organizations like the Natural Resources
Defense Council. It is the belief that the Earth’s human population must be
reduced to protect it. Banning BPA would put millions at risk of death from
food-borne diseases like botulism. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">Given
the tenacity with which such groups prosecute their agendas, we can be assured
that these obsessed anti-BPA “researchers” aren’t going to go
away.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">© Alan
Caruba, 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
</div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-20137408074279331462013-01-23T06:11:00.004-08:002013-01-23T06:13:16.475-08:00Dumb and Dumber BPA "Science"<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">by <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/author/angela-logomasini/"><span style="color: blue;">Angela Logomasini</span></a> on January 16, <u>2013</u></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript">
</script><span style="mso-no-proof: yes;"><v:shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter">
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0">
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0">
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1">
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth">
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"> </v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:f></v:formulas>
</v:stroke></v:shapetype></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Rationalizations to support claims
that the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) poses a real and serious health threat have
gone from dumb to dumber! Even reputable researchers make their case by
regularly citing one inconclusive study to suggest another inconclusive study
is meaningful. But science doesn’t work that way.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Used to make hard, clear plastics
and resins that line cans containing everything from soda to soup, BPA is a
target of the greens who get plenty help from researchers who use creative
rationalizations to spin their findings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">A recent example comes from one of
the authors of <a href="http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ki2012422a.html"><span style="color: blue;">yet another study</span></a> on BPA using data from the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). It suggests that BPA
levels could contribute to heart and kidney disease. But reliance on NHANES
data raises a host of questions about the study’s value, <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2012/12/06/researchers-repudiate-bpa-junk-science/"><span style="color: blue;">as explained in a prior post</span></a> and in a <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2012/12/06/researchers-repudiate-bpa-junk-science/"><span style="color: blue;">peer reviewed paper</span></a> detailing why it isn’t
reasonable to draw conclusions from this data. Without even considering that
serious defect, we can see from one of the researchers comments that the study
isn’t particularly compelling anyway. One of the study’s authors, Dr. Leonardo
Trasande, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109105714.htm"><span style="color: blue;">explains</span></a> in <i>Science Daily</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">While our cross-sectional study
cannot definitively confirm that BPA contributes to heart disease or kidney
dysfunction in children, together with our previous study of BPA and obesity,
this new data adds to already existing concerns about BPA as a contributor to
cardiovascular risk in children and adolescents.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In other words, the value of this
latest study rests at least in part on the value of the prior study for which
Trasande is also an author. This prior study appeared in the <i>Journal of the
American Medical Association</i> last year that suggested BPA contributes to
obesity, but, as I noted then, the authors say the findings are inconclusive.
Specifically, Trasande and coauthors state within the <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2012/10/03/medical-junk-science-canned-veggies-may-make-kids-fat/"><span style="color: blue;">JAMA study</span></a>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">BPA exposure is plausibly linked to
childhood obesity, but evidence is lacking to date … This cross-sectional
study, when considered in isolation, is at best hypothesis generating.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Why and how could a study with
findings are “at best hypothesis generating” strengthen an “unconfirmed” finding
of another study? Supposedly it can because the authors in the JAMA study
maintain that it is more than “hypothesis generating” because of findings from
yet another study. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685842/"><span style="color: blue;">This one</span></a> dates back to 2004, and it too is
inconclusive, as I detailed <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2012/10/03/medical-junk-science-canned-veggies-may-make-kids-fat/"><span style="color: blue;">in my post </span></a>on the JAMA study.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Perhaps most telling of all are the
studies that Trasnade and his colleagues don’t mention, including a recent <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/04/mice-study-questions-bpa-obesity-link/"><span style="color: blue;">rodent study</span></a> that could not find an association
between BPA and obesity. They also don’t mention an <a href="http://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/bep/ch882citizen_petition/Exhibit14/Tab%20-%20T-1%20Teeguarden%20et%20al%202011.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">EPA-funded study</span></a> that shows humans <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2012/08/17/lastest-junk-science-on-bpa-and-heart-disease/"><span style="color: blue;">pass BPA quickly</span></a> from the human body — making it
unlikely to have any impacts. Nor do they mention, the <a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/04/mice-study-questions-bpa-obesity-link/"><span style="color: blue;">study questioning</span></a> the underlying NHANES data.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In sum, ignoring evidence to the
contrary, Trasade suggests that his latest inconclusive study is meaningful
because of finding of the inclusive JAMA study, which is only made more than
“hypothesis generating” because of the existence of yet another inconclusive
study.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This very fishy line of reasoning
really isn’t about science. It’s about an agenda, as Trasnade explains in <i>Science
Daily</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">It [his research] further supports
the call to limit exposure of BPA in this country, especially in children …
Removing it from aluminum cans is probably one of the best ways we can limit
exposure. There are alternatives that manufacturers can use to line aluminum
cans.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">While he may mean well, this advice
is the more dangerous proposition because BPA resins are used to prevent the
development of pathogens like <i>E. coli</i> in our food. Without it, many
people could suffer from <a href="http://www.about-hus.com/"><span style="color: blue;">real kidney disease</span></a>, and some could die.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Source: OpenMarket.Org</span><br />
<a href="http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/16/dumb-and-dumber-bpa-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Openmarketorg+%28OpenMarket.org%29">http://www.openmarket.org/2013/01/16/dumb-and-dumber-bpa-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Openmarketorg+%28OpenMarket.org%29</a></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-83926783348997127492013-01-09T12:57:00.005-08:002013-01-09T12:57:50.678-08:00NYU School of Medicine Tells Big Lies About BPA
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<b><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The Dihydrogen
Monoxide Award <o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">January 9.
2013 ~ http://hansoffplastics.com</span><b><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 18pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We spend a lot
of time and effort ferreting through outrageous media coverage of science
issues in determining our Dihydrogen Monoxide Award winners but this time,
we’re doing something a little different.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This week’s
award goes to the dutiful flacks at the NYU School of Medicine for their
January 9, 2013 news release on the results of a study of the chemical
bisphenol A (BPA) whose co-lead author is a university researcher. In fairness,
we should state that a flack’s job is to get media coverage of whatever it is
they’re pushing. However, we don’t think that should include shopping around
false information in pursuit media coverage and the January 9 release is chock
full of blatantly false information.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Let’s start
with this whopper, which nicely sets the stage for whipping the media into a
frenzy. It’s a close cousin of the old “banned substance” lie:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“The study adds
to the growing concerns about BPA, which was recently banned by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration…” </span></i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<b><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">FACT:</span></b><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> The US Food
and Drug Administration has done nothing of the sort – ever! As a matter of
fact, the FDA has <a href="http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/nrdc-letter.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">explicitly refused</span></a> to ban BPA. Oh dear, did the good PR folks
at NYU forget that the FDA gave a gigantic smack-down to the Natural Resources
Defense Council when the agency rejected the NRDC’s petition to ban BPA? Not
very professional, kids. As an antidote for this sort of problem, we recommend
reading. It’s very helpful, especially for those interested in facts. Just
think of the motto of Faber College – <a href="http://pawatercooler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/pf_96592_oem-15mbjohn-belushi-college-posters.jpg" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Knowledge is Good</span></a>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Apparently not
content with promoting the exact opposite position of an American regulatory
agency, NYU’s School of Medicine decided to look north and east for new
positions to misrepresent:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“Its use has
been banned in the European Union and Canada…”</span></i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Wow! These guys
are just makin’ up stuff left and right! As recently as September 2012, Canada
went out of its way to <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/packag-emball/bpa/bpa_hra-ers-2012-09-eng.php" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">affirm the safety</span></a> of BPA in food contact applications. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Not only that,
but Health Canada also went so far as to note that their position affirming the
safety of BPA was the same as policies in the European Union, the United States
and Japan!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“… based on the
overall weight of evidence, the findings of the previous assessment remain
unchanged and Health Canada’s Food Directorate continues to conclude that
current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to
pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young
children. <u>This conclusion is consistent with those of other food regulatory
agencies in other countries, including notably the United States, the European
Union and Japan</u>.” (Emphasis added) </span></i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">As for the
European Union, not only has the <a href="http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/EFSA-reconfirms-safety-of-bisphenol-A-as-it-rejects-limited-French-fears" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">EU’s food safety body</span></a> declared BPA safe for use in food
contact, it went out of its way to explain why French efforts to ban the stuff
are wrong headed. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Whoa, Nelly!
How can a guy get so many fundamental facts wrong in ginning up a news release
and not get banned from writing future news releases? It’s a mystery to us too.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">There there’s
the classic “banned from baby bottles,” line. It thrives on misinterpreting the
facts:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“Its use has
been banned… in the United States for use in baby bottles and sippy cups.”</span></i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">This is a
factual statement. But what makes it such a cheap shot is the fact that the
only reason FDA took the action of banning BPA from baby bottles is because it
was asked to ban it for that purpose – BY THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE BABY BOTTLES! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Check out <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/MONEY/usaedition/2012-07-18-baby-bottles_ST_U.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">this coverage</span></a> by USA Today. First, we have the headline:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<b><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">After baby bottle makers voluntarily ban BPA, FDA makes
it official</span></b><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Then there’s
the third paragraph of the USA Today article, which we conveniently repeat hear
for your review:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">“Consumers can
be confident these products do not contain BPA,” <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Government+Bodies/Food+and+Drug+Administration" target="_blank" title="More news, photos about FDA"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">FDA</span></a> spokeswoman Shelly
Burgess said. She said the agency did not act because it believes BPA is unsafe
but because the bottle industry wanted a formal ban for baby products. “We
continue to support the safety of BPA for use in products that hold food.”</span></i><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Let me repeat
that: “<b>She said the agency did not act because it believes BPA is unsafe but
because the bottle industry wanted a formal ban for baby products.”</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">See what we
mean? The people who make baby bottles stopped using the stuff years ago and
asked the FDA to formally ban the stuff, which it did, and in the process the
FDA reiterated “… the safety of BPA.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">One thing that
was not factually flawed was how the news release tried to make the case for
more money for more research. After all, that may be the point here – to use a
bunch of false information to create a lot of bad reporting to raise more money
so more researchers can increase their prestige and salaries by conducting more
research. It’s kind of a vicious cycle, you know?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 20.4pt; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;">
<span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">So
congratulations to the cracker-jack flack squad at NYU’s School of Medicine for
winning this week’s Dihydrogen Monoxide Award! We give this award four stars.
After all, it manages to completely misrepresent the BPA policy positions
affecting a score of nations and hundreds of millions of people. It takes a
special kind of skill to pull a boner of this proportion. </span></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-53668766077148586772013-01-03T12:07:00.001-08:002013-01-03T12:07:54.543-08:00BPA Studies Alleging Toxicity Unreproduceable<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top"><img height="90" src="http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/logo-print.gif" width="275" /></td><td align="left" valign="middle"><em></em><br />
<em></em><br />
<em></em><br />
<strong></strong> </td><td align="right" id="printbutton" valign="middle"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div id="wrapper">
<h1>
Previous Studies On Toxic Effects of BPA Couldn't Be Reproduced</h1>
<br />
<div>
<div id="first">
<span class="date">Jan. 2, 2013</span> — Following a three-year study using more than 2,800 mice, a University of Missouri researcher was not able to replicate a series of previous studies by another research group investigating the controversial chemical BPA. The MU study is <strong><em>not</em></strong> claiming that BPA is safe, but that the previous series of studies are not reproducible. The MU study, published in the <em>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</em>, also investigated an estrogenic compound found in plants, genistein, in the same three-year study.</div>
<div id="seealso">
</div>
"Our findings don't say anything about the positive or negative effects of BPA or genistein," said Cheryl Rosenfeld, associate professor of biomedical sciences in MU's Bond Life Science Center. "Rather, our series of experiments did not detect the same findings as reported by another group on the potential developmental effects of BPA and genistein when exposure of young occurs in the womb."<br />
Creating reliable data on the effects of the chemicals on mice is important to human health since people are frequently exposed to BPA and genistein and humans share similar biological functions with mice. BPA is a chemical used in certain plastic bottles and may be found in the lining of some canned goods and receipt paper. Genistein occurs naturally in soy beans and is sold as a dietary supplement. Research by Fredrick VomSaal, professor of biological science at MU, and others suggests the chemicals may have other adverse effects on many animals, including humans.<br />
<br />
Researcher who conducted the original series of experiments claimed that exposure to BPA and genestein resulted in yellow coat color, or <em>agouti</em>, offspring that were more susceptible to obesity and type 2 diabetes compared to their brown coat color, healthy siblings. However, Rosenfeld and her team did not obtain the same results when repeating the study over a three-year period.<br />
After failing to repeat the original experiments findings with similar numbers of animals,<br />
<br />
Rosenfeld's group extended the studies to include animal numbers that surpassed the prior studies to verify that their findings were not a fluke and to provide sufficient number of animals to ensure that significant differences would be detected if they existed. However, even these additional numbers of animals and extended experiments failed to reproduce the earlier findings. However, the current studies demonstrate that a maternal diet enriched in estrogenic compounds leads to a greater number of offspring that express an <em>agouti</em> gene compared to those that do not, even though equal ratios should have been born.<br />
<br />
"This finding suggests that certain uterine environments may favor animals with a 'thrifty genotype' meaning that the <em>agouti </em>gene of mice may help them survive in unfavorable uterine environments over those mice devoid of this gene, Yet, the downside of this expression of the <em>agouti</em> during early development is that the animals may be at risk for later metabolic disorders, such as obesity and diabetes" Rosenfeld said. "In this aspect, humans also have an <em>agouti</em> gene that encodes for the agouti signaling protein (ASIP) that is expressed in fat tissue and pancreas, and there is some correlation that obese individuals exhibit greater expression of this gene compared to leaner individuals. Therefore, the <em>agouti </em>gene may have evolved to permit humans the ability to survive famine, but its enhanced expression may also potentiate metabolic diseases under bountiful food conditions."<br />
<br />
While the research casts doubt on the previous study, Rosenfeld said that by understanding the genetic profile of the mice in the first series of studies, scientists could learn more about the correlation between certain genes and obesity. This could eventually influence prevention and treatment programs for patients with diabetes and other obesity-related diseases in humans.<br />
<br />
<em>Web address:</em><br />
<strong> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/<br /> 130102140526.htm</strong></div>
</div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-5076522073381902172012-12-28T08:24:00.002-08:002012-12-28T08:25:09.590-08:00BPA Resubs Replacements May Be More Harmful<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 7.5pt 0in 10pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-outline-level: 2;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 15pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning: 18.0pt;">BPA
resin replacements may be more harmful<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: #111169; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">By Angela Logomasini, Independent Women's
Forum and Competitive Enterprise Institute </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">- <span style="color: #717171;">12/27/12 12:00 PM ET – The Hill, Congress Blog</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">As the year winds down, it’s a good
time to look back at what was one of the biggest alarm stories of the year: the
alleged health impact of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Were the claims true,
and what might we expect to happen in 2013?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In 2012, news headlines were awash with
faulty claims about dangers lurking in food, cosmetics, cleaning products, and
even cash register receipts — all allegedly posed by BPA. Green groups targeted
their message to women, who were — and continue to be--barraged with one-sided
stories suggesting that BPA containers pose a serious threat to our children.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia!important","serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">These
activists claim that BPA is an “endocrine disrupter” — a chemical that affects
human hormone systems. Supposedly, it impacts human development starting in the
womb and eventually leads to everything from breast cancer, heart disease,
obesity, and more. But as IWF scholars have explained many times on Inkwell and
elsewhere, women should be wary of such hype.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Manufacturers have used BPA for more
than 60 years to make hard, clear plastics and resins that line food
containers, and there are no documented cases of BPA-related illnesses from
consumer exposures. Research shows that the human body quickly metabolizes and
passes out trace-levels of BPA found in food, producing no adverse health
effects. Comprehensive studies conducted by researchers from the World Health
Organization, United States, European Union, Canada, Japan, and other places
have deemed the current uses of BPA safe.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Rather than focus on these comprehensive
reviews, greens continue to cite random and largely inconclusive studies that
claim to “link” BPA to health problems. But many of these studies are more akin
to junk science than hard science as they simply don’t have good data to assess
BPA exposures. In fact, researchers highlighted this problem in a recent
article in the journal PLOS One.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Nonetheless, governments have already
begun taking action on BPA merely to alleviate anxieties generated by
environmental activists rather than to address legitimate public health
problems. For example, following Canada’s lead, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration banned BPA use in baby bottles and sippy cups this year even
though it deemed those uses safe. And the French recently have banned its use
in food packaging.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">If there is anything to fear, it’s the
regulations that may result from the hype. In fact, products that replace BPA
may not be any safer and in some cases may be more dangerous.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Ironically, earlier this year,
researchers pointed out that the chemical used to replace BPA for plastic baby
bottles and reusable water bottles, known as Bisphenol S (BPS), is actually a
more potent “endocrine disrupter” and that the human body does not metabolize
BPS as easily! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Fortunately, there are many reasons to
doubt that trace exposures to BPS — or any synthetic chemical for that matter —
could have significant hormonal effects. Synthetic chemicals simply are not
potent enough. Consider the fact that natural substances in our diets that we
consume every day — such as soy, almonds and a variety of legumes — contain
endocrine mimicking” substances that are tens of thousands of times more potent
than synthetic chemicals! And we all know, soy and nuts aren’t only safe — they
are pretty good for you.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Accordingly while BPS plastic
alternatives probably are no more dangerous than BPA, they certainly are not
any safer.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Other options are potentially more
dangerous. For example, greens suggest glass, but who could seriously deem it
safer? We all know the risks associated with broken glass. Indeed, children
face far higher risks from cuts and subsequent infections than they do from a
trace chemical that has been used for decades without any documented adverse
health impacts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Bans on BPA resins that line cans may
pose more serious risks. Specifically, BPA resinsline food containers — from
soup to soda cans — to prevent the spread of deadly pathogens like E-coli.
Manufacturers pointed out in the Washington Post that there aren’t any good
alternatives for this use. Accordingly, bans that force us to buy inferior
alternatives may mean increased food-borne illnesses.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Now that’s something to worry about.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 11.25pt 15.75pt 10pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Logomasini serves as a senior fellow at
the Independent Women's Forum and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 10.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-10344263247556070832012-12-07T07:08:00.000-08:002012-12-07T07:08:07.292-08:00No BPA Link to Heart Disease<div class="user">
<a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/jonentine/">Jon Entine</a><span class="desc">, Contributor</span></div>
<hgroup><h5 class="slug">
<a href="http://www.forbes.com/opinions">Op/Ed</a>/Forbes</h5>
</hgroup><hgroup><h3>
12/06/2012 @ 11:14PM </h3>
</hgroup><hgroup><h1>
In Reversal, Bedrock Studies Linking Bisphenol A (BPA) to Heart Disease Challenged</h1>
</hgroup><!-- end div.article_head --><!-- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --><div class="fleft clearfix article" id="leftRail">
<div class="body">
<strong>Studies supposedly linking the plastic additive to </strong><strong>diabetes, heart disease and coronary artery disease have been called a “bombshell” by anti-BPA NGOs and many journalists. Now those conclusions, and a central contention of </strong><br />
<strong>campaigners, is in doubt. </strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong><a href="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonentine/files/2012/12/heart-disease-life-insurance-300x236.jpg"><img alt="" class="alignright size-full wp-image-895" height="236" src="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonentine/files/2012/12/heart-disease-life-insurance-300x236.jpg" width="300" /></a></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
The most explosive claim of anti-BPA campaigners—that the plastic additive BPA causes an array of heart-related diseases—is in question, according to a <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0051086&annotationId=58931">peer reviewed paper</a> on the science website PLOS One.<br />
<br />
Environmental health scientist Judy LaKind from Penn State University and the University of Maryland and epidemiologist Michael Goodman from <a href="http://www.forbes.com/colleges/emory-university/">Emory University</a> reviewed data from the National <a href="http://www.forbes.com/health/">Health</a> and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) that previous researchers concluded linked BPA to chronic diseases. Johns Hopkins mathematician Daniel Naiman did the analysis.<br />
<br />
In contrast to those previous studies, which looked at only one, two or three datasets, these researchers found no associations between urinary BPA and heart disease or diabetes across four NHANES datasets. Their conclusions challenge one of the central contentions of researchers who believe that BPA is harmful.<br />
The influence of the NHANES data in creating the popular belief that BPA is harmful cannot be overstated. The controversy originated just a few years ago, when bisphenol A was still a relatively obscure plastic additive that a group of obscure scientists had targeted as dangerously toxic.<br />
<br />
Based on controversial studies of rodents injected with the chemical, they had come to believe that BPA was what they called an “endocrine disruptor” that did its dirty work at low doses. It distorted hormonal functions, they claimed, and could be blamed for a host of problems from cancer to reproductive and metabolic issues to heart disease. It was a controversial contention, as toxicity has traditionally been linked to exposure—the dose makes the poison, in Paracelsus’ famous phrase.<br />
<br />
<strong>Heart disease theory rests on questionable data?</strong><br />
<br />
A key turning point in the debate came in 2008 with the release of a <a href="http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=182571">study based on the NHANES data covering 2003/4</a> of nearly 1500 adults in the <em>Journal of the American Medical Association</em>. A team of researchers led by David Melzer, an epidemiologist at the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Exeter in the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/places/united-kingdom/">United Kingdom</a> concluded that respondents with higher amounts of BPA in their urine were more likely to report having heart disease and diabetes.<br />
<br />
“This is a big deal,” <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-09-16-bpa-heart_N.htm">said</a> University of Missouri biologist Frederick vom Saal, the chief proponent of the “endocrine disruptor” hypothesis, who <a href="http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=182555">co-authored an </a><br />
opinion piece that accompanied the study in<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonentine/files/2012/12/bpa.jpg"><img alt="" class="alignleft wp-image-896" height="180" src="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonentine/files/2012/12/bpa-300x225.jpg" width="253" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<em>JAMA</em>. He and John Peterson Myers, a biologist and longtime collaborator, demanded immediate regulatory restrictions on BPA and phthalates, another class of chemicals they contend is dangerous.<br />
<br />
The associations were modest, which led the Food and Drug Administration to immediately reaffirm its belief that BPA was safe. But that’s not how it was played in the media and by advocacy NGOs, which flooded the Internet with hundreds of stories “linking” BPA to heart disease. Thousands of articles have since cited the NHANES study as “proof” of BPA’s harmful effects or otherwise casually asserted that BPA is “linked to” or “associated with” chronic heart problems.<br />
<br />
After the release of yet another Melzer study based on more recent NHANES data, in 2010, the Natural Resources Defense Council hyperbolically <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/bpa_and_heart_disease_new_scie.html">characterized the findings as a “bombshell”</a> as part of its campaign to connect common exposure to everyday chemicals to serious diseases, such as cancer—claims that are not supported by the evidence.<br />
<br />
“Health care reform should be linked directly to toxic chemical reform,” <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/gsolomon/bpa_and_heart_disease_new_scie.html">wrote</a> Gina Solomon, a scientist and former blogger for the NRDC. “Chemicals such as BPA are a potentially preventable cause of serious illness, and prevention saves lives and dollars.”<br />
<br />
<strong>Cherry picking data?</strong><br />
<br />
The LaKind-Goodman study identified what appear to be two anomalies in the analysis by Melzer and two other related papers released in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008673">2010</a> and <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026868">2011</a>. A diabetes study included as diabetic people who did not have diabetes but had borderline symptoms—a non-standard definition of diabetes. Without those people included, the BPA-diabetes link disappeared.<br />
<br />
The heart disease <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026868">study</a> found a weak association between BPA and heart disease—but it excluded six people who had the highest BPA concentrations. It turns out that none of those left out had heart disease. The inclusion of those respondents would have led to a finding of no association between BPA and serious heart problems. This contentious evidence led to the “bombshell” finding the NRDC crowed about.<br />
<br />
The only explanation for leaving out the healthy respondents provided in the Melzer paper is that those excluded were “outside the range of BPA in the original 2003/04 sample,” which topped out at 80.1 ng/mL. According to <br />
epidemiologists I spoke with, they made an odd and arbitrary choice. In a blistering <a href="http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=58881">online response</a> to the LaKind-Goodman study they now maintain that the excluded samples, which range from 83.6 to 150, and one outlier at 383, might have been “contaminated.”<br />
<br />
In their response, Melzer et al. sharply challenged the overall thrust of the new study, calling it “unfocused” and “poorly documented, and noted that the LaKind-Goodman research was supported by the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council. According to the paper, and under the rules of the peer review process, “the ACC was not involved in the design, collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation or approval of the manuscript.”<br />
<br />
In more substantive criticism, Melzer said that the new study had left out more than 400 survey respondents, implying those excluded could have skewed the results. LaKind and Goodman wrote they excluded survey respondents who omitted their age, body mass, smoking behavior or other variables to keep the data consistent. Melzer and the primary author of the diabetes study, University of Michigan doctoral pre-candidate Monica Silver, also pointed out that the new study included children in the diabetes assessment, which could also account for the different conclusions. Regardless, responded Lakind and Goodman, they claim they consistently found no associations between urinary BPA and heart disease or diabetes across four NHANES datasets.<br />
<br />
Melzer pointedly noted that in a more recent study, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22354940">published earlier this year</a>, his team found that those who developed coronary artery disease tended to have higher urine BPA concentrations up to ten years earlier than those who did not develop heart disease.<br />
<br />
The dispute over the data threatens to obscure the LaKind and Goodman’s most salient conclusion. NHANES is a robust and critically important public health database, they maintain. However, it only measures concurrent exposure to chemicals as reflected in urine, and not long-term impacts.<br /><!--nextpage--><br /> <strong>Limitations of NHANES survey to analyze BPA</strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
“Our results don’t shed light on whether BPA is or isn’t a risk factor for diabetes or heart disease,” said LaKind. “Rather, the point we are making is that using data from cross-sectional studies like NHANES surveys to draw such conclusions about relations between short-lived environmental chemicals and chronic diseases is inappropriate.”<br />
<br />
Melzer brushed off that point completely in his response. But Monica Silver, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0026868">who headed the diabetes study</a> using the NHANES data, emailed me: “I completely agree [with LaKind and Goodman on this point] and make similar conclusions in our paper. NHANES’ utility is not in making broad statements of causation of a given disease by a given exposure, but rather in providing preliminary, hypothesis building evidence that can inform future work.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonentine/files/2012/12/endocrine.jpg"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-898" height="300" src="http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jonentine/files/2012/12/endocrine-248x300.jpg" width="248" /></a><br />
<br />
Many science-challenged journalists and activist NGOs, like the NRDC and Environmental Working Group that put advocacy ahead of science, consistently misrepresent and hype studies that show the presence of chemicals in urine, as if that signals likely toxic effects. The use of biomonitoring data is problematic, say scientists, particularly as it pertains to BPA. According to the <a href="http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm064437.htm">FDA</a> reflecting the emerging scientific consensus, “[O]ral BPA administration [of BPA] results in rapid metabolism of BPA to an inactive [and therefore harmless] form.” In other words, BPA is detoxified and excreted.<br />
<br />
That was confirmed in what is considered the state-of-the-art, <a href="http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/123/1/48.abstract">independent study</a> financed by the Environmental Protection Agency on the potential harm of BPA—headed by Justin Teeguarden, a senior scientist at Battelle’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, one of the nation’s premier research centers, to assess how humans process BPA. Their conclusion: Despite the presence of the chemical in urine, human blood concentrations of BPA are infinitesimally low—undetectable in most cases and thousands of times lower than any level that is likely to cause harm to humans.<br />
<br />
Although low doses of certain chemicals <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778">can induce non-monotonic effects</a>, scientists who have reviewed these studies, time and again, have come away unconvinced these effects consistently or even generally suggest harm. Since 2007, there have been more than a dozen comprehensive reviews of BPA studies by independent government scientists around the world, including in <a href="http://www.forbes.com/places/canada/">Canada</a>, Europe, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/places/japan/">Japan</a>, Australia and the United States, and each has concluded that current uses of the chemical are safe.<br />
<br />
<span style="text-decoration: underline;">The <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/cef100930.htm">European Food Safety Authority</a></span> in summer 2010, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">a joint UN Food and Agriculture Organization/WHO expert panel on BPA</span> in November 2010, and a <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21438738">special Advisory Committee of the German Society of Toxicology</a></span> in spring 2011 have all independently concluded that the collective body of evidence demonstrates that BPA does not pose serious neurological dangers or cause cancer in humans, and has not even been shown to be an “endocrine disruptor,” although it does have modest but not necessarily harmful endocrine effects.<br />
Most recently, in October, Health Canada and that country’s Bureau of Chemical Safety <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/packag-emball/bpa/bpa_hra-ers-2012-09-eng.php#a3">upheld its prior scientific finding </a> that found BPA poses no serious threat. “Based on the overall weight of evidence,” reads the report, “the findings of the previous assessment remain unchanged and Health Canada’s Food Directorate continues to conclude that current dietary exposure to BPA through food packaging uses is not expected to pose a health risk to the general population, including newborns and young children.”<br />
<br />
<strong>More on science literacy <a href="http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/">at the Genetic Literacy Project</a></strong><br />
<strong><a href="https://twitter.com/JonEntine">Follow Jon on Twitter</a></strong><br />
<strong><a href="http://www.jonentine.com/">Jon Entine</a> is senior fellow at the <a href="http://chrc.gmu.edu/scholars.html">Center for Health & Risk Management</a> and <a href="http://www.stats.org/">STATS</a> at George Mason University.</strong></div>
<!-- end div.body --><div class="print_foote">
<hr size="2" style="color: #cccccc;" />
<br /><b> This article is available online at: <br /><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/06/in-reversal-bedrock-studies-linking-bisphenol-a-bpa-to-heart-disease-challenged/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/12/06/in-reversal-bedrock-studies-linking-bisphenol-a-bpa-to-heart-disease-challenged/</a></b></div>
</div>
<!-- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --><!-- div.globalwrapper --><!-- Start: Pixels -->
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" id="borderTab"></a>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-19089703612125843182012-11-10T15:56:00.000-08:002012-11-10T15:56:02.860-08:00More False BPA "Science" By News Release<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name">
</h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-5099234359458242033" itemprop="description articleBody">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9hAwyFVZ8SIXawS92CIqgmQchh_c7lw-HMBpU-I5jVMjFdyWIi4_1reG6t3ORJmoCngm9ZzWNwcWosPIEdqTxmDHqDGRdbdGwozfJpIrBWIIFuz_B0ZyulXTff4UL-R5uzXUSBL9Hd44/s1600/bad+science.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_uid_6h9nzw="3" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9hAwyFVZ8SIXawS92CIqgmQchh_c7lw-HMBpU-I5jVMjFdyWIi4_1reG6t3ORJmoCngm9ZzWNwcWosPIEdqTxmDHqDGRdbdGwozfJpIrBWIIFuz_B0ZyulXTff4UL-R5uzXUSBL9Hd44/s320/bad+science.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif";">By Alan Caruba</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">News
releases trumpeting not merely inaccurate, but false, science have become a way
of life for Americans and others around the world. There is rarely, if ever, any
fact checking done by the editors and reporters who pass along often dangerously
false science on a wide range of topics, with many reports designed to alarm
consumers. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Such
is the case with bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical that has been in use for some 60
years to protect the contents of metal food containers and create shatter
resistant plastics. In 2011 I wrote <a href="http://thebpafile.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #378add;">a
four-part series</span></a> about the efforts to ban BPA which has been subjected to
more than 5,000 studies, none of which has found harm or undue risk in normal
use. Its safety was reaffirmed earlier this year by the refusal of the Food and
Drug Administration to ban it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">But
the anti-chemical drumbeat continues. A recent study at the University of
California-San Diego that purported to show a risk of danger when BPA was
metabolized and this finding was announced by a news release issued by the
university. It was reviewed and approved by researcher Michael Baker and
contained the traditional hype we see when organizations want to whip up public
concern when none is warranted. Remarkably, the tactic was exposed in a lengthy
article by <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/"><span style="color: #378add;">Jon
Entine</span></a> in Forbes magazine.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">News
releases trumpeting information that is not merely inaccurate but false have
become a way of life for Americans and others around the world. There is rarely,
if ever, any fact checking done by the editors and reporters who pass along
often dangerously false pseudo-science on a wide range of topics, from chemicals
to the climate. But Entine’s article revealed something many has suspected but
few have ever admitted. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Baker
confessed to Entine that “I have no evidence, none at all, that BPA causes any
problems in humans. This was a theoretical exercise, and it would be trumped by
what actually happens in the real world. Based on what I know now, neither BPA
nor its metabolites are harmful. I am upset that my structural study is misused
by some.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">“Misused”?
Hardly. More like part of the massive effort by the opponents of the real
science regarding BPA and it is designed and intended to frighten people because
fear is the most potent weapon that the many advocates of false causes that mask
themselves as saving lives or even saving the Earth.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Writing
in the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/332574"><span style="color: #378add;">National
Review</span></a>, Julie Gunlock noted that reports on Baker’s study, read by those
without knowledge of the real facts about BPA, “causes moms like me to gnaw off
their fingernails at the thought that we might be poisoning our children with
chemicals. But that’s okay; regular moms and dads (already struggling with high
food and fuel costs) can just run out and support the cottage industry that has
sprouted up in the wake of these terrifying headlines—the BPA-free
industry.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">“Of
course, what parents won’t hear about is Baker’s mea culpa because if there’s
one thing parents can count on from today’s science writers is an absolute
dearth of Entine-esque journalism when it comes to BPA.” She could not be more
correct. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Science
writing today is one of the most debased forms of popular journalism found in
newspapers and magazines and BPA is just one example. Consider our food supply.
A recent commentary in <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203897404578078422651627156.html?KEYWORDS=save+the+whales+forget+the+children"><span style="color: #378add;">The
Wall Street Journal</span></a> by Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician, molecular biologist
and fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, cited the way
Greenpeace, one of the leading environmental organizations, “has always had a
flair for publicity” to become “a $260 million-plus per year behemoth with
offices in more than 40 countries.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Dr.
Miller warns that the Greenpeace PR machine “is now spearheading an effort to
deny the poorest nations the essential nutrients they need to stave off
blindness and death. The targets are new plant varieties collectively called
‘golden rice.’ Rice is a food staple for hundreds of millions, especially in
Asia. Although it is an excellent source of calories, it lakes certain nutrients
necessary for a complete diet. In the 1980s and 1990s, German scientists Ingo
Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed the ‘golden rice’ varieties that are
biofortified, or enriched, by genes that produce beta-carotine, the precursor of
vitamin A.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Hundreds
of millions of children of pre-school age are at risk of vitamin A deficiency,
leading to blindness and death within a year for about 70% of those children and
Greenpeace is using its multi-million dollar flacking apparatus to ply its
nonsense to a gullible and uncritical news media and reduce access to this
valuable food source.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"><strong>Now
ask yourself how many children and adults would die from botulism in unprotected
cans and bottles of food?</strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">These
and countless other examples represent the deep commitment of environmental
organizations to limit and reduce billions of human lives which they regard as a
nuisance that harms the Earth. Like golden rice, BPA saves lives. It is just one
of countless chemicals that protect and extends life every day.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">The
real threat is the researchers and agenda-driven scientists intent on advancing
the environmental movement’s objective of killing as many people as possible to
“save the Earth.” They accomplish this through a media that either approves of
this agenda or is just so starved for ratings and financial survival they’ll
report any sensational headline available. The real threat is the debased
“science journalism” that aids and advances this agenda.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin: 1em 0in;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">©
Alan Caruba, 2012</span></div>
</div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-61769763127043006592012-11-06T15:41:00.002-08:002012-11-06T15:43:14.508-08:00BPA Found Safe...By a Researcher Who Doesn't Want to Admit It<div class="blog_title">
<a class="blog_title" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/332574/bpa-found-safe-researcher-who-doesn-t-want-admit-it/julie-gunlock">BPA Found Safe . . . By Researcher Who Doesn’t Want to Admit It</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 10px; position: relative; width: 100%;">
<div class="blog_author">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" style="color: black; text-decoration: none;">By </a><a class="story_subtext" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/author/194639">Julie Gunlock</a></div>
<div class="blog_author_date" style="float: left; height: 30px; margin-top: 3px; text-align: left;">
<a class="blog_date_permalink" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/332574/bpa-found-safe-researcher-who-doesn-t-want-admit-it/julie-gunlock">November 6, 2012 4:54 P.M.</a></div>
</div>
<div style="clear: both;">
</div>
<div id="resizetext">
<div class="blog_news">
<div class="blog_text">
<div style="margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
I’ve <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/278409/chemical-warfare/julie-gunlock">written</a> on this site several times before about bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical used in everyday products like baby bottles, storage containers, and in the lining of canned food and the bad science surrounding efforts to ban it. Now science writer Jon Entine has a <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/">must-read article in <em>Forbes</em></a> that confirms long-held suspicions about the motivations of activists opposed to the use of BPA.</div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="rtecenter">
<img alt="" src="http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u58382/2012/pic_related_11612_LZ_1.jpg" style="height: 216px; width: 550px;" /></div>
<div class="rtecenter">
</div>
Entine explains that University of California-San Diego researcher Michael Baker hyped the results of his BPA research in a <a href="http://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2012-10-04-metabolized-BPA.aspx">press release</a> – a press release that Baker himself now renounces (how convenient for him to backtrack after his specious press release generated dozens of terrifying headlines). <br />
<br />
Baker actually admitted his error to Entine, saying “I have no evidence, none at all, that BPA causes any problems in humans. This was a theoretical exercise, and it would be trumped by what actually happens in the real world. Based on what I know now, neither BPA nor its metabolites are harmful. I am upset that my structural study is misused by some.”<br />
<br />
Oopsie. <br />
<br />
Just a tiny little mistake that causes moms like me to gnaw off their fingernails at the thought that we might be poisoning our children with chemicals. But that’s okay; regular moms and dads (already struggling with high food and fuel costs) can just run out and support the cottage industry that has sprouted up in the wake of these terrifying headlines — the BPA-free industry. <br />
<br />
Parents won’t mind that these products are much more expensive. After all, isn’t your baby’s health worth it? Surely parents aren’t already cash-strapped with the truck-load of diapers they purchase on a monthly basis along with the toys, books, and other baby items one simply must supply a child with these days.<br />
<br />
Of course, what parents won’t hear about is Baker’s <em>mea culpa </em>because if there’s one thing parents can count on from today’s science writers it is an absolute dearth of Entine-esque journalism when it comes to BPA. Baker’s study might not have generated such dramatic headlines if these journalists had revealed, as Entine does, that Baker has <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/3/">zero prior expertise</a> in studying BPA or that his study didn’t include humans or even animals but rather was <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/2/">a computer simulation</a>. Even more stunning, Entine discovered that Baker was unaware of the quite impressive <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/10/31/bisphenol-a-bpa-found-not-harmful-yet-again-so-why-did-so-many-reporters-and-ngos-botch-coverage-yet-again/3/">body of research </a>that shows BPA is safe.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2011.558487">In fact, thousands of studies</a> conducted have shown BPA to be perfectly safe, yet those with an evangelical interest in continuing the hand-wringing about BPA cling desperately to any shred of information, no matter how far-fetched, supporting their position. And now, the very researchers who study BPA can’t be counted on to stick by their own findings that BPA is safe. <br />
<br />
Don’t expect anti-BPA activists to be bowed by this latest blow to their religious crusade. Their ideology might still be intact but the science is proving them wrong. That’s a good thing for parents who have grown weary of these alarmist claims and who just want to keep their kids safe without spending a fortune.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/332574/bpa-found-safe-researcher-who-doesn-t-want-admit-it/julie-gunlock#" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;" title="http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/332574/bpa-found-safe-researcher-who-doesn-t-want-admit-it/julie-gunlock#">http://www.nationalreview.com/home-front/332574/bpa-found-safe-researcher-who-doesn-t-want-admit-it/julie-gunlock#</a><br />
</div>
</div>
</div>
Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-4065437115641179922012-09-19T12:24:00.003-07:002012-09-19T12:24:37.518-07:00The BPA Wars: Junk Science and Junk Journalism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmvVw-PPtRgGF_2fLTDvLG38n2MUN4hN7FFluVGKHlup00iaMWhtd0Ae7TqdPI4ZXOkvx6591UYW-BeW96aw6rIFKtXvDB9gjtPmAEK30bq2VQvA3d1eRivYLcxUHlNEiDQ-TuZuDplq8/s1600/Cans+%233.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_uid_8vhkel="3" hea="true" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmvVw-PPtRgGF_2fLTDvLG38n2MUN4hN7FFluVGKHlup00iaMWhtd0Ae7TqdPI4ZXOkvx6591UYW-BeW96aw6rIFKtXvDB9gjtPmAEK30bq2VQvA3d1eRivYLcxUHlNEiDQ-TuZuDplq8/s400/Cans+%233.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
By Alan Caruba</div>
<br />On Tuesday, September 18, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/18/chemical-found-in-soda-cans-linked-to-childhood-obesity/"><span style="color: #0066cc;">FoxNews.com</span></a> posted an article by Alex Crees, a health news reporter, “Chemical BPA linked to obesity in children, teens.” If Ms. Crees had done any research to verify the facts she recounted in “a new study”, she would have known it was yet another bogus effort to correlate eating food with BPA.<br /><br />Bisphenol-A, more commonly called BPA, is<em> a chemical that has been in wide, safe use for over 50 years</em>. It is used to coat the insides of aluminum cans and plastic bottles and protects them against food pathogens such as botulism and has the added value of protecting plastic bottles against breakage. <br /><br />As I noted in my six-part series, <a href="http://thebpafile.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #0066cc;">The BPA File</span></a>, In 2011 “the German Society of Toxicology released a review of more than five thousand previous studies of BPA exposure that concluded that BPA ‘exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.’” Researchers concluded that BPA is neither mutagenic nor likely to be a carcinogen.’”<br /><br />Let me repeat that, “more than five thousand previous studies.” At what point can one expect a Fox News journalist to actually check her facts?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />A graduate of New York University, Ms. Crees studied journalism, psychology, and Spanish. There is no indication she studied chemistry. If “journalism” is defined as mindlessly repeating some news release that says BPA “may increase the risk of obesity in children and teens”, permit me to suggest that eating lots of snacks, ice cream and candy “may” also increase that probability!<br /><br />Anyone who wants to learn the truth about BPA is advised to visit Junkscience.com, the website of Steve Milloy who has gained a solid reputation for debunking so-called “science based” fear campaigns. <a href="http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunkosaurus/index.php/Bisphenol_A_(BPA)"><span style="color: #0066cc;">His data on BPA reveals that there is no scientific evidence that BPA:</span></a><br /><br />• Has ever harmed anyone despite 50 years of use;<br /><br />• Acts as an endocrine disruptor; and<br /><br />• Has any health effects at low doses;<br /><br />Furthermore, the data debunks some of the most oft-cited and false claims about BPA.<br /><br />• BPA is not carcinogenic or mutagenic;<br /><br />• BPA does not adversely affect reproduction or development at any realistic dose;<br /><br />• BPA is efficiently “metabolized” and rapidly excreted after oral exposure<br /><br />My series on BPA confirms Milloy’s findings, but Ms. Crees has written an article intended to add to the multitude of similar distortions while questioning the facts offered by authoritative sources. <br /><br />The effect of this avalanche of articles has triggered a number of governments to ban some uses of BPA despite more than a half century of its use without any evidence of alleged harm, but governments are famous for acting on the bogus “precautionary principle” that essentially says that anything that might cause harm should be banned.<br /><br />Going back centuries, it has been known that it is the amount of any given chemical that represents harm. Let’s understand a fundamental determination of what is toxic or not. As Paracelsus (1492-1541) said long ago, “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison.”<br /><br />Ms. Crees’ article noted that “the study’s lead investigator Dr. Leonardo Trasanda, associate professor of pediatrics and environmental medicine at the New York University School of Medicine, told FoxNews.com, ‘This study raises concerns about the need to reconsider that stance (the presence of BPA).” <br /><br />Excuse me, but what the heck is “environmental medicine” other than an excuse to scare people with studies about every chemical known to man and God? As for Dr. Trasanda’s study, it set out to correlate extremely low amounts of BPA in the urine of children and adolescents ages 6 to 19 years old.<br /><br />In the event no one has pointed it out to Dr. Trasanda and Ms. Crees, urine is excreted by the body, but Dr. Trasanda said, “We are especially concerned that children who ate too many calories might also ingest BPA.” <br /><br /><strong>The operative word here is “might” and the likelihood that eating “too many calories” might play a far larger role in obesity than any other factor!</strong><br /><br />To her credit, at the very end of the article, Ms. Crees quoted Steven Hentges of the Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry Council, who she identifies as a representative of “chemical manufacturers”, as saying that “Attempts to link our national obesity problem to minute exposures to chemicals found in common, everyday products are a distraction from the real efforts underway to address this important health issue.”<br /><br />“Due to inherent fundamental limitations in this study, it is incapable of establishing any meaningful connection between BPA and obesity.”<br /><br />Ms. Crees is guilty of both junk science and junk journalism. The Steven Hentges quote should have been the lead paragraph, not the last.<br /><br />© Alan Caruba, 2012 Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-89915621425371690972012-08-31T08:36:00.001-07:002012-08-31T08:36:23.136-07:00Green Calls for BPA Bans are Dangerous<strong>By</strong> <a href="http://www.realclearpolicy.com/authors/?author=Angela+Logomasini&id=24929"><b>Angela Logomasini</b></a><br />
<br />
<div class="article_body" id="article_body">
This past July the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of the chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) to make baby bottles and sippy cups. Environmental activists would like you to believe the move was designed to protect public health and that more bans are necessary. But the greens are wrong on both counts -- and their advice could imperil public health.<br />
<br />
For more than 50 years, manufacturers have safely used BPA to make hard, clear plastics for food containers, medical devices, safety goggles, and more. They also make resins that line aluminum and steel cans to reduce contamination of food and extend shelf-life.<br />
<br />
Much of BPA's alleged risk to humans is based on studies of rodents that were administered massive doses, often by injection. The relevance of these studies to humans who are exposed to trace amounts in food is highly questionable. In addition, activists have attempted to use a number of studies conducted on humans to make their case even though reputable scientific bodies around the world have dismissed these studies as seriously flawed or inconclusive.<br />
<br />
Activists also condemn BPA simply because it shows up in human urine. All this fact proves is that the human body, unlike rodents, quickly metabolizes BPA without ill effects. An EPA-funded study conducted on human volunteers who were exposed to high levels of BPA underscored this point. The chemical passed through the humans quickly, never reaching levels that pose problems to rodents.<br />
<br />
Scientific panels around the world have investigated BPA many times -- examining the full body of research and focusing on the best science available. In <a class="external_link" href="http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/japan/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink">Japan</a></div>
, the European Union, Canada, Norway, <a class="external_link" href="http://realclearworld.com/topic/around_the_world/france/?utm_source=rcw&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rcwautolink">France</a> and elsewhere, researchers have found no public health risk related to consumer exposure to BPA. Even the Environmental Protection Agency -- which is well known for exaggerating chemical risks -- states that consumer exposure to BPA is likely 100 to 1,000 times lower than EPA's estimated safe-exposure levels for both infants and adults.
<br />
Because of activist group petitions, lobbying, and media campaigns, the FDA has continued to spend taxpayer dollars to study and re-study BPA during the past several years, but it has not been able to find a serious risk. Even as the agency issued its ban on BPA bottles and sippy cups, a representative explained to The New York Times: "based on all the evidence, we continue to support its [BPA's] safe use."<br />
The ban came at the request of industry rather than to address health problems. <br />
<br />
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), explained in a press statement: "Although governments around the world continue to support the safety of BPA in food contact materials, confusion about whether BPA is used in baby bottles and sippy cups had become an unnecessary distraction to consumers, legislators and state regulators." Accordingly, the ACC supported a ban because it "provides certainty that BPA is not used to make the baby bottles and sippy cups on store shelves, either today or in the future."<br />
<br />
But green groups use this industry driven-ban to advance a larger anti-BPA crusade. "This is only a baby step in the fight to eradicate BPA," says Sarah Janssen of the Natural Resources Defense Council in a press release. "To truly protect the public, FDA needs to ban BPA from all food packaging," she explains.<br />
Janssen offers seriously bad advice because BPA resins control dangerous food-borne pathogens such as E. coli and botulism. And there are no good alternative products to replace BPA resins.<br />
<br />
In fact, packaging manufactures have responded to the politically charged debate on BPA during the past several years by attempting to find alternatives -- without much success. One industry representative told The Washington Post, "We don't have a safe, effective alternative, and that's an unhappy place to be ... No one wants to talk about that." As a result, BPA resin bans may eventually translate into an increase in serious food-borne illnesses.<br />
<br />
Still, some people argue that we should at least seek substitutes to "be on the safe side." They forget that every product of the market prevailed because it was the best to perform the job at an acceptable price at the time. Politically driven substitutes will always be second to the products that won in the marketplace. Thus, unless there is a verified and significant risk, banning products isn't a good idea.<br />
<br />
Banning safe, useful products simply wastes investment that went into designing them, discourages innovators who fear similar repercussions, and diverts resources from useful enterprises into production of second, best substitutes. And for consumers, the result can be dangerous.<br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
</script><div id="article-author">
</div>
<em>Angela Logomasini is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.</em><br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<em>August 31, 2012</em></div>
<!-- stopprint --><!-- sphereit end -->Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-11728316494120830332012-06-19T05:08:00.003-07:002012-06-19T05:10:17.733-07:00Sour Grapes Over BPA<div class="titlebox">
<div class="byline">
By <a href="http://spectator.org/people/henry-i-miller" rel="author">Henry I. Miller</a> on 6.19.12</div>
<div class="byline">
The American Spectator</div>
<div class="byline">
<br /></div>
<div class="summary">
When activists don't get their way at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.</div>
</div>
Certain political activists and the peddlers of pseudo-science who support them have been in high dudgeon ever since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its March 30 denial of a petition to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from food contact applications. BPA, a ubiquitous chemical, has been used safely for more than 50 years in polycarbonate plastics and in the lining of canned food to prevent bacterial contamination.<br />
<br />
Research findings by federal government laboratory scientists, the results of which were announced last year, should have put the scare-mongering over BPA to rest. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21705716" target="_blank">A human exposure study</a> found that because of the way BPA is processed in the body, it would be virtually impossible for it to cause health effects in adults, children, or even fetuses. But the response from those who did not prevail in the FDA decision was sadly predictable: They smeared the agency and its scientific reviewers.<br />
<br />
After more than two months of trashing the FDA, activists have taken a new tack to try to discredit the agency and its March decision. The argument, advanced by long-time BPA critic Frederick vom Saal and collaborator Patricia Hunt, claims there is a "Catch-22" imposed by the FDA on university researchers.<br />
This disconnect is supposedly that the FDA rejected the conclusions of many experiments because researchers did not use enough laboratory animals due to federal restrictions on how many such animals may be used in experiments.<br />
<br />
Vom Saal and his acolytes believe this to be the Silver Bullet that discredits the FDA's decision. But vom Saal, notorious for his ridiculous claim that feeding an infant with a shatterproof baby bottle was akin to giving the child a birth control pill, contradicts his own argument.<br />
<br />
While
denouncing the FDA decision because of its protocols involving lab animals (in the same commentary appearing in two different publications on June 8 and<a href="http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2012/op-ed-the-fdas-catch-22" target="_blank"> June 10</a>) , he states in both articles that "The FDA should know that the strength of conclusions that can be drawn from data is not directly dependent on the number of animals used."<br />
<br />
On this count, vom Saal is correct. The FDA rejected arguments to ban BPA because none of the studies purporting to show harm conducted by vom Saal or anyone else demonstrated relevance to human health and the regulatory process. This central point is conspicuously absent from vom Saal's commentary because it does not mesh with his ideology. That's not how science works.<br />
<br />
Vom Saal also hauled out the old cliché about the unreliability of research funded by industry, but that's another dog that won't hunt.<br />
<br />
Vom Saal should know that FDA's various regulatory units routinely perform scientific reviews of industry-performed or funded research.<br />
<br />
By implying an "industry-funding" conflict of interest, vom Saal neglects his own. Many university researchers, including vom Saal, are dependent to some degree on taxpayer-funded research grants. The formula among this cadre is simple: Find a way to show that something may cause harm and the tax dollars continue to flow for further research and for the care and feeding of the investigator. Research that shows no harm, on the other hand, runs the risk of turning off the spigot of grant money, and is seldom of interest to journal editors.<br />
<br />
The FDA rejected the petition to ban BPA for a simple reason. There was no data that demonstrated harm or undue risk associated with <em>normal consumer exposure</em> to BPA. Recall the fundamental tenets of toxicology: Harm is a function of toxicity and exposure, and the dose makes the poison.<br />
<br />
Scientists can and do disagree, but the incendiary approach of vom Saal and his collaborators coarsens the discussion and fails to advance either science or regulation. If there is anything toxic about BPA, it is the manner in which its ideological critics assault those with whom they disagree. Whether their unhappiness is driven by ignorance or self-interest, they have had their say and it is time to move on.<br />
<br />
<div class="letter-editor">
</div>
<div class="author-bio">
<h3>
About the Author</h3>
<span class="person-name">Henry I. Miller</span>, a physician and former FDA official, is the Robert Wesson Fellow of Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover institution.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/19/sour-grapes-over-bpa" title="http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/19/sour-grapes-over-bpa">http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/19/sour-grapes-over-bpa</a></div>
</div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-44944101839268822702012-03-30T12:41:00.000-07:002012-03-30T12:41:14.667-07:00FDA Rejects Call to Ban BPA from Food Packaging<div id="gbqfbw"><span style="font-size: large;">FDA rejects call to ban BPA from food packaging</span></div><div> </div><div class="g-doc-800"><div class="g-section hn-article" id="hostednews-article" itemref="hostednews-article-desc hostednews-article-url" itemscope=""><div class="g-unit g-first"><div class="hn-copy"><div class="g-section"><div class="hn-byline">By MATTHEW PERRONE, AP Health Writer </div><div class="hn-byline">March 30, 2012</div><div class="hn-byline"><br />
</div><script type="text/javascript">
if (gbar.lPWF) {
gbar.lPWF(function() {
gapi.plusone.render('plusone-div',
{ "size" : "small",
"count" : "true",
"href" : "http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jBisGpOnm7DAYrYi211GRVxUQ7lw?docId\x3d4a2774fb0dc7405ea6974b47a1e98cbc"
});
});
}
sandbarSharebox.registerMicrodataParser(
window.top, document.getElementById('hostednews-article'));
</script>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration has rejected a petition from environmentalists that would have banned the plastic-hardening chemical bisphenol-A from all food and drink packaging, including plastic bottles and canned food.<br />
<br />
The agency said Friday that petitioners did not present compelling scientific evidence to justify new restrictions on the much-debated chemical, commonly known as BPA, though federal scientists continue to study the issue.<br />
<br />
The Natural Resources Defense Council's petition was the latest move by public safety advocates to prod regulators into taking action against the chemical, which is found in everything from CDs to canned food to dental sealants.<br />
<br />
About 90 percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies, mainly because it leaches out of bottles, canned food and other food containers.<br />
<br />
Some scientists believe exposure to BPA can harm the reproductive and nervous systems, particularly in babies and small children, potentially leading to cancer and other diseases. They point to results from dozens of BPA studies in rodents and other animals.<br />
<br />
But FDA reiterated in its response that that those findings cannot be applied to humans. The agency said the studies cited by NRDC were often too small to be conclusive. In other cases they involved researchers injecting BPA into animals, whereas humans ingest the chemical through their diet over longer periods of time. The agency also said that humans digest and eliminate BPA much more quickly than rats and other lab animals.<br />
<br />
"While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans," the agency said in its response.<br />
<br />
The National Resources Defense Council petitioned the FDA in 2008 to ban BPA as a food additive, including all uses in food or beverage packaging. Petitions on various safety issues are routinely filed by advocacy groups, companies and even individuals. When the FDA failed to respond within the required timeframe, the environmental group sued the agency. In December a federal judge ruled that the agency had to respond by the end of March.<br />
<br />
The agency's official position is that there is "some concern" about BPA's effects on young children. The government is spending $30 million to conduct additional studies on the chemical's impact on humans. Several federal studies published in the last two years suggest that even human embryos retain far less BPA than other animals.<br />
<br />
Many companies have already responded to consumer demand by removing BPA from their products. In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Toys "R'' Us said they began phasing out bottles, sippy cups and other children's items containing BPA. By the end of 2009, the six leading makers of baby bottles in the U.S. went BPA-free. Earlier this month Campbell's Soup said it would begin removing BPA from its most popular soups, though it did not set a time frame.<br />
<br />
But the vast majority of canned goods in the U.S. are still sealed with resin that contains BPA to prevent contamination and spoiling. Canned food manufacturers have used the chemicals since the 1950s, and the practice is approved by the FDA. The chemical industry says BPA is the safest, most effective sealant.<br />
Some manufacturers have begun switching to alternatives. Heinz reportedly uses BPA-free coatings for its Nurture baby formula cans, and ConAgra and General Mills say they have switched to alternative sealants for some canned tomatoes.<br />
<br />
The federal government has been grappling with the safety of BPA for more than four years. The FDA revised its opinion on BPA in 2010 saying there is "some concern" about the chemical's impact on the brain and reproductive system of infants, babies and young children. Previously the agency said the trace amounts of BPA that leach out of food containers are not dangerous.<br />
<br />
While older children and adults quickly eliminate the chemical through their kidneys, newborns and infants can retain it for longer. Scientists pushing for a ban on the chemical argue that BPA mimics the effects of the hormone estrogen, interfering with growth.<br />
<br />
<!-- google_ad_section_end(name=article) --><div id="hn-distributor-copyright"><span>Copyright © 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. </span></div></div></div></div></div></div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-46629595860995957212012-03-01T13:59:00.002-08:002012-03-01T16:41:29.695-08:00Media Hypes BPA Ban, Endangers Everyone's Health<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-5355635650610862711"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdB0syTZxuauRA-4GCYwzryTdqPrrlP-IpMqEyaymSYnCgluzzAWFH10nuiC4Zuyx3lNeH_S7OcqSj2xMSb3-SSSS3kJVEF2nY16WRIZD2qkYJKwn1CN6rTkRg0sv0VJV14Az8YBwkEhs1/s1600/BPA+-+Baby+Bottle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" closure_uid_p6cp2f="3" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdB0syTZxuauRA-4GCYwzryTdqPrrlP-IpMqEyaymSYnCgluzzAWFH10nuiC4Zuyx3lNeH_S7OcqSj2xMSb3-SSSS3kJVEF2nY16WRIZD2qkYJKwn1CN6rTkRg0sv0VJV14Az8YBwkEhs1/s200/BPA+-+Baby+Bottle.jpg" uda="true" width="133" /></a></div>By Alan Caruba<br />
<br />
A direct threat to the health of millions worldwide is being hyped by the media, continuing the anti-science, anti-fact, and pro-illness agenda of environmental organizations to ban BPA, a chemical that protects against food-borne disease and increases the safe use of all plastic containers.<br />
<br />
From January through June 2011, I wrote and posted a six-part series called <a href="http://thebpafile.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #0066cc;">“The BPA File”</span></a> that anyone can read on the blog I created for the series. Thoroughly research and documented, it was written because of my concern that this particular effort to ban the chemical would, like the ban on DDT, cause millions to die.<br />
<br />
On February 16, Matthew Glans, the Midwest Director of The Heartland Institute’s Center on Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, posted a commentary on its “Somewhat Reasonable” blog, <a href="http://blog.heartland.org/2012/02/media-biggest-proponent-for-bpa-ban/"><span style="color: #378add;">“Media Biggest Proponent for BPA Ban.” </span></a>My research files are filled with hundreds of examples of this and one need only Google “BPA” to find thousands of references to the chemical with the single theme of banning it.<br />
<br />
As Glans points out and my series confirms, “Chemical BPA is a chemical used in plastics for many consumer products. Amongst other uses, BPA (is) most commonly used in hardened plastics and as part of the <em>safety liner for food and beverage cans</em>.” (Emphasis added)<br />
<br />
BPA is an acronym for Bisphenol-A and it has been in use for more than six decades, tested hundreds of times, and <em>never </em>found to post a threat to health, but rather as an essential packaging element to protect it.<br />
<br />
Glans quotes an article by Business and Media Institute’s Julia Seymour who wrote that the “Fear of chemicals and ‘toxins’ is rampant among the so-called ‘environmental’ left. Unfortunately, that phobia infects national media coverage as well. For more than a decade, the Left has been on the attack against BPA, a product that is commonly found in plastics and other products.”<br />
<br />
Ms. Seymour noted that “The Food and Drug Administration has a deadline of March 31 to respond to a petition by the National Resources Defense Council—an environmental group—that seeks to ban BPA. NRDC argues that the FDA should ban BPA on the basis that it causes harm to humans.” <br />
<br />
If you read my BPA series, you will learn that BPA has been tested here and in other nations and has been found to pose no health threat whatever.<br />
<br />
“Meanwhile,” said Ms. Seymour, “the media have exaggerated the threat of BPA for years. On the Feb. 25, 2010, CBS ‘Early Show’ broadcast, Katie Lee crossed the line from hype into outright falsehood when she said of BPA: ‘And that’s been shown to cause liver disease, heart failure, all sorts of things.” <br />
<br />
“The Business & Media Institute analyzed ABC, CBS, and NBC reports as well as The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal that discussed BPA from Jan. 1, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2011.” <br />
<br />
Incredibly, Canada, Japan, Denmark and France have banned the use of BPA for several products, including baby bottles. To date, “the FDA has been unwilling to declare BPA unsafe.” There’s a reason for that. Its history and the many tests of BPA have found it to be entirely safe.<br />
<br />
Let’s understand a fundamental determination of what is toxic or not. As Paracelsus (1492-1541) said long ago, <a href="http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html"><span style="color: #378add;">“All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison.”</span></a><br />
<br />
If you take too much aspirin, too many sleeping pills, too many pain-killers, too many of any medication, it will likely kill you. This is why directions for their use are printed on every bottle. Substances like arsenic can be found in potatoes, but the amount of arsenic is so low that its ingestion poses no threat whatever. Moreover, our bodies possess organs that clean such substances from our bodies and evacuate them every single day.<br />
<br />
The real toxins are the lies the media prints and broadcasts without researching the claims of environmental organizations that thrive on the income such scare campaigns generate and whose fundamental agenda is the reduction of the world’s population “to save the Earth.”<br />
<br />
© Alan Caruba, 2012 </div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-56450950736437563152011-08-08T05:31:00.000-07:002011-08-08T05:31:12.777-07:00Wall Street Journal editorial: August 8, 2011<img alt="The Wall Street Journal" src="http://s.wsj.net/img/wsj_print.gif" /> <br />
<div class="articleSection first"><br />
</div><div class="dateStamp"><small><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><strong>AUGUST 8, 2011</strong></span></small></div><!-- ID: SB10001424053111903366504576486493398617216 --><!-- TYPE: Review & Outlook (U.S.) --><!-- DISPLAY-NAME: Review & Outlook --><!-- PUBLICATION: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition --><!-- DATE: 2011-08-08 00:01 --><!-- COPYRIGHT: Dow Jones & Company, Inc. --><!-- ORIGINAL-ID: --><!-- article start --><!--
CODE=DJII-COMPANY SYMBOL=epagy
CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=G/EPA
CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/CDJ
CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/INT
CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=N/PLT
CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/NME
CODE=DJII-DJN SYMBOL=R/US
CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=namz
CODE=DJII-REGION SYMBOL=usa
CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gcat
CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gepa
CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=ginda
CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gpir
CODE=DJII-SUBJECT SYMBOL=gpol
CODE=SUBJECT SYMBOL=OPIN
--><h1><span style="font-size: large;">Postscript to a Panic </span></h1><h2 class="subhead">New science debunks a chemical scare. </h2><div class="mastertextCenter" done1="5" done3="5" done5="5" id="articleTabs_panel_article"><div class="padding-left-big" done1="5" done3="5" done5="5"><div class="col6wide colOverflowTruncated" id="article_story"><!-- end module saveToArtMini-collapsed --><div class="adSummary ad-freePass" id="adEmailCircAdE"></div><div class="articlePagination" id="article_pagination_top"></div><div class="article story" id="article_story_body"><div class="articlePage">Even by the standards of the environmental movement, the panic over bisphenol-A (BPA) was remarkable. A new study funded by that shill for business known as the Environmental Protection Agency has now debunked this chemical scare. <br />
<br />
<a href="" name="U502681520145KUD"></a>BPA has been used for five decades around the world and been found to be safe after extensive testing. In 2008, however, green campaigners abetted by trial lawyers began warning that BPA could "disrupt" hormones in the human body. BPA was said to be implicated in everything from cancer to obesity to impotence. Canada and several U.S. states banned its use in baby bottles. California Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to get it banned in the U.S. as well. <br />
<br />
Too bad they didn't wait for the science. The most recent study—financed by the EPA, led by Justin Teeguarden at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and published in the journal Toxicological Studies—involved feeding subjects a BPA-rich diet for 24 hours. Researchers then monitored their blood and urine for traces of the chemical. <br />
<br />
<a href="" name="U502681520145G7C"></a>The result was BPA levels too low to detect—despite eating the stuff, a veritable worst-case scenario. Critics will no doubt point out that these results don't preclude potential long-term damage from the use of BPA in packaging. But the evidence suggests that not enough of it is present in the body to cause that kind of harm.<br />
<br />
The results, which were duplicated in two government labs, come too late to help the likes of Sigg Switzerland USA, the U.S. distributor of those now-ubiquitous metal drinking bottles. Sigg initially benefitted from the scare as consumers ditched their plastic drinking bottles. But once it transpired that the lining of Sigg's aluminum bottles manufactured before August 2008 also contained trace amounts of BPA, its U.S. distributor was hit with lawsuits and public vilification that sent it into bankruptcy. Where does the economy get those jobs back?<br />
<br />
<!-- article end --></div></div><div class="articlePagination" id="article_pagination_bottom"></div><div class="col6wide"><div id="printModeFooterAd"></div><div class="printSummary pfFooter">Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved</div></div></div></div></div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-73965398484830676072011-06-13T07:13:00.000-07:002011-06-13T10:44:27.017-07:00Introduction to The BPA Files<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZY4RgrpRkGUlARx7mzhCkgupCxPy99VCJiD15KzaNAJm80Mg-PFeCQLsEt5T1yC6kNKK_CzeomKCxqrjTpoRwbnx7ZNasDEUB991LncuJw1AlU9a8SuZ8BKaZpx9QFbFA_Mg2R50kxiw/s1600/alan-newphoto-sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZY4RgrpRkGUlARx7mzhCkgupCxPy99VCJiD15KzaNAJm80Mg-PFeCQLsEt5T1yC6kNKK_CzeomKCxqrjTpoRwbnx7ZNasDEUB991LncuJw1AlU9a8SuZ8BKaZpx9QFbFA_Mg2R50kxiw/s200/alan-newphoto-sm.jpg" t8="true" width="135" /></a></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">From January through June 2011, I wrote a six-part series called The BPA Files. The reason, simply put, was my thorough disgust with the avalanche of lies being disseminated on the Internet and everywhere else regarding Bisphenol-A, a chemical that had been safely in use for more than fifty years to protect cans of food and beverage against spoilage, as well as to harden and make shatterproof plastic containers. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><strong>The use of BPA protects the health of everyone using metal cans and plastic bottles</strong>. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Extensive research went into the writing of The BPA Files and I hope you will share it in whole or part with anyone being indoctrinated to abandon its use. This is occurring in a number of U.S. States and elsewhere in the world where deceptive information, ignoring more than 6,000 tests, labels BPA as a danger and seeks to have its use banned..</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Try to imagine living in a world without the protection BPA provides. As this is written, there are no available substitutes. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">To your health!</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Alan Caruba</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">June 2011</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-89596890081664463432011-06-13T07:09:00.000-07:002011-06-13T07:56:51.203-07:00Demonizing Bisphenol-A, The BPA File, Part 1<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvuSUUN_L02pP_2uthqlKpWel49Zyq6RSfETH8NyX7zELhkX7hROWzEumsjsv0W__LgGo-hbFTs9ygCJinJNA8RVIMtm1en8KQXSdhSWReBxzEzSY1VvQcCkkEmOsZU9_MF8yqb0VmSHw/s1600/Cans+%25231.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvuSUUN_L02pP_2uthqlKpWel49Zyq6RSfETH8NyX7zELhkX7hROWzEumsjsv0W__LgGo-hbFTs9ygCJinJNA8RVIMtm1en8KQXSdhSWReBxzEzSY1VvQcCkkEmOsZU9_MF8yqb0VmSHw/s1600/Cans+%25231.jpg" t8="true" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial;">By Alan Caruba</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In July 2010 I wrote a commentary about Bisphenol-A, more commonly called BPA. It is a chemical that has been in wide, safe use for over 50 years, but has come under a horrendous and unrelenting attack by a variety of specious environmental and consumer groups. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Out of curiosity mostly, I initiated a Google Alert earlier this month to inform me whenever BPA was mentioned in a news story on the Web. Within three weeks I received 20 alerts, almost one a day, and each contained notifications on 15 – 25 different article references. That’s just nuts! </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Why are Americans being bombarded in the space of a single month with more than 400 articles in magazines, newspapers, and on the Internet that are designed to frighten them into thinking that a good, safe thing is a bad thing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It piqued my curiosity and prompted me to dig deeper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems that finding out who is behind these attacks on BPA, none of which has any credible science to support their claims, is proving to be a real detective game.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The result is that I have decided to follow the BPA story on a periodic basis in order to track and report how this classic scare campaign is maintained and spread. My research and writings will appear in “The BPA File”, a series that will ultimately be published on the website of The National Anxiety Center. It will appear monthly and elsewhere in places where readers have grown accustomed to seeing my writings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">I founded the <place><placename><a href="http://www.anxietycenter.com/">National</placename> <placename>Anxiety</placename> <placetype>Center</a></placetype></place> in 1990 as a clearinghouse for information about just such scare campaigns and this fresh examination of BPA will be published alongside previous works including, “The Subversion of Education in <country-region><place>America</place></country-region>” and “The Enemies of Meat,” as well as the archive of commentaries written before I began my daily blog, <a href="http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/">“Warning Signs.” </a></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The reason for this new series is that we have already seen any number of beneficial chemicals and products targeted in this fashion, often to be driven from the marketplace by class action lawsuits or banned by federal agencies and states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Classic examples range from Alar and DDT to saccharine, all of which came under withering criticism from questionable sources using junk science, yet all of which have been proved over time to be perfectly safe and harmless when properly used. The same is happening today with BPA. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">When the American Council on Science and Health, a consumer advocate group, listed “<a href="http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.1926/pub_detail.asp">The Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2010”, </a>number one on its list was BPA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ACSH wrote, “Bisphenol-A has been in use for over five decades in the manufacturing of certain life-saving medical devices as well as in baby and water bottles, dental devices, eyeglass lenses, DVDs and CDs and other electronics.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">BPA also plays an important role in maintaining a healthy food supply.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“In addition,” said the ACSH, “it (BPA) has been used to coat the inside of nearly all metal food cans to protect consumers against deadly diseases like botulism.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If activists are successful in their pressure campaigns to ban BPA, my fear is that less-tested and less-safe alternatives will be forced upon unsuspecting consumers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Here’s a simple question. If any of the charges against BPA are true, why then – in more than 50 year’s time! – has there been no direct connection drawn between BPA and the disease conditions claimed by anti-chemical activists?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Answer: because none has ever been established through reliable scientific testing. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Human beings are chemical-processing machines. That’s what our bodies do all day, every day. We live longer, healthier lives precisely because of the discovery and use of chemicals, many of which exist solely to enhance our health and well-being. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Ultimately, as any chemist, pharmacist, or physician will tell you, “The poison is in the dose.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the amount of exposure and the route of exposure that determines whether something is harmful or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps the best example of this ancient axiom is water. Too much and you can drown in it. Too little and you will suffer dehydration. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The same holds true for other chemicals, many of which are found in nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most crops produce their own pesticides to protect against natural predators and the human race has been ingesting trace elements of these chemicals since the dawn of humanity, along with the fruits and vegetables we know to be healthy elements of our diet. The amounts, however, are so miniscule – parts per billion – that they pose no threat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">This exact pattern exists with BPA as well; the so-called ‘endocrine disruptor’ we’re so breathlessly warned about in BPA is identical to a chemical found in soy products like tofu and soy sauce, soy milk and other related products.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Strangely, we’re not hearing panicked cries to banish vegetarian food, Chinese carry-out and alternative dairy products for the lactose-intolerant from American society. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">So, with Part One of The BPA File we shall begin an investigative journey that will, I promise, astonish you with the brazenness of a global campaign of lies intended to actually endanger your life by denying you the benefits of this particular chemical. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">© Alan Caruba, 2011</span></div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-58885814774967871842011-06-13T07:06:00.001-07:002011-06-13T08:05:18.549-07:00Using Fear to Ban BPA - The BPA File, Part 2<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpRdDNrPqAON-Q_LVnVjCvcHelJyMUvImyW8SNtiwQPt-z-VNVzcr6E5mwYCHvhLOvX3hsCGy4c0C86L23mtf5kPrCGBCSP5bDA0F9_9NVJ2ozgOMcCdPen6Mu-KGzC4MxUxx7_wpIqQ/s1600/Cans+%25232.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYpRdDNrPqAON-Q_LVnVjCvcHelJyMUvImyW8SNtiwQPt-z-VNVzcr6E5mwYCHvhLOvX3hsCGy4c0C86L23mtf5kPrCGBCSP5bDA0F9_9NVJ2ozgOMcCdPen6Mu-KGzC4MxUxx7_wpIqQ/s200/Cans+%25232.jpg" t8="true" width="200" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial;">By Alan Caruba</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Writing for </span><a href="http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest297.html"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Health News Digest.com</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> in early February, <a href="http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest297.html">Michael D. Shaw</a> noted that bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical used to make polycarbonate plastics and an ingredient in the epoxy resin used as a protective coating in metal cans, “is one of the most heavily studied chemicals of all time. Indeed, there are more than 6,000 scientific papers devoted to this compound.” <br />
<br />
That’s a remarkable amount of research. What’s more remarkable is that no peer-reviewed research has ever shown any harm to humans from BPA in normal consumer use. After a three-year study published in the <city><place>Oxford</place></city> journal Toxicological Sciences, even the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_619483458">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/27468/EPA_Study_Finds_No_Harm_From_BisphenolA.html"> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a>(EPA) found that there is no threat from BPA.<br />
<br />
Despite decades of studies that show no harm, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration still wants to take what it calls “reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply.” Yet it is BPA’s use in lining cans and plastic containers that reduces human exposure to botulism and other deadly food-borne illnesses. <br />
<br />
What is “reasonable” about limiting something that protects public health and safeguards the American food supply? <br />
<br />
Shaw called BPA the “perhaps the favorite target of fear entrepreneurial and ‘environmental’ fund-raising groups, even though there is not a scintilla of evidence shows harm to humans at any rational level of exposure to this chemical.” <br />
<br />
Shaw’s observation is best illustrated by news stories promoting studies showing that BPA has been detected in the urine of more than 90 percent of Americans, but those same stories do not mention that BPA measured in human urine samples amounts to 2.6 micrograms per liter, which is 1,000 times less than the EPA reference dose. <br />
<br />
If humans were exposed to massive amounts of BPA every day of their lives, they would still face no harm, but actual “exposure” is so small as to be virtually beyond measure.<br />
<br />
If science does not support the many claims against BPA then why are there efforts by legislators to introduce new laws to ban BPA and other beneficial chemicals? Politics and fear are no substitute for science. They are used as fund-raising tools for environmental groups and to give politicians the appearance of acting in the public interest. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the failure to check the facts has made some news media co-conspirators in this scare campaign, whenever they repeat baseless claims about BPA.<br />
<br />
This false BPA narrative is so prevalent that in January, Rep. Edward Markey, (D-MA) introduced a bill to prohibit BPA in food and drink containers. Never mind the innumerable studies showing no harm from BPA, the complete absence of any study showing consumer harm from BPA and the half century of safe BPA use. <br />
<br />
Rep. Markey claims his bill “will help keep BPA out of our bodies while also ensuring that all food and beverage containers are free from dangerous chemicals.” The truth is that banning BPA from use in metal or plastic food containers would invite potentially fatal health risks from food poisoning. <br />
<br />
Eight states, plus <country-region><place>Canada</place></country-region> and the European Union have already approved limitations on BPA, none of which is based on any evidence that BPA causes harm to human health. The justification has always been the “Precautionary Principle” which requires the banning of something unless it can be proved to be not harmful. Use of the Precautionary Principle in science is akin to malpractice because it is impossible to prove a negative. <br />
<br />
The confusion over BPA has so far resulted in sharp divides over whether and how to further regulate it. </span><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">While the Massachusetts Public Health Council approved new BPA restrictions last year, the <a href="http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news.org/article/29084/Massachusetts_Enacts_California_Rejects_BPA_Ban.html">California Senate rejected a similar ban in that state in 2010</a>.</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> In <state><place>Maine</place></state>, state regulators sought draconian restrictions on BPA only to have Governor Paul LePage offer a regulatory reform program reversing those regulators in favor of having <state><place>Maine</place></state>’s standards parallel those of the federal government. <br />
<br />
At the federal level, the U.S. Senate last year defeated attempts by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to impose a federal ban on BPA in certain products while the World Health Organization last November recommended against any further regulations to further limit or ban BPA. <br />
<br />
Fear tactics, not scientific fact, are the primary drivers being used to deprive Americans of a necessary and safe component in valuable shatterproof plastics and a proven method of protecting food and drink. Only by overcoming a legion of fear-mongers can BPA continue to do so. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Alan Caruba writes a daily post at <span style="color: navy;"><a href="http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: navy;">http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com</span></a></span>. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">© Alan Caruba, 2011 </span></div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-21808385034104613742011-06-13T07:04:00.000-07:002011-06-13T08:16:34.428-07:00The Big BPA Lie - The BPA File, Part 3<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFJuXxbXXhzjgPXL4wkQ1UDgAWqqAyt2Fudkqb6YBiCR4DDW7Qu3TVnw6H6ZtKorx_slbhB56SM4fRWRkINXZErwgBPlVvu1oT1O66RnUHeawsqQoCwsweya6V_Cx_tyLUncKnVhsr7B4/s1600/Cans+%25233.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFJuXxbXXhzjgPXL4wkQ1UDgAWqqAyt2Fudkqb6YBiCR4DDW7Qu3TVnw6H6ZtKorx_slbhB56SM4fRWRkINXZErwgBPlVvu1oT1O66RnUHeawsqQoCwsweya6V_Cx_tyLUncKnVhsr7B4/s400/Cans+%25233.jpg" t8="true" width="400" /></a></div><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">By Alan Caruba</span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
<br />
When I began this series about bisphenol-A, BPA, I instituted a Google Alert for Internet posts that mentioned it. From January through March it generated a report each day filled with notifications of newspaper, magazine, and Internet posts all denouncing BPA as a hazardous chemical that threatened the health of everyone from infants to adults. <br />
<br />
More than one thousand posts were reported. Virtually all spread false information.<br />
<br />
Such things do not happen by accident. They are the result of a concerted effort to defame BPA and they are indicative of a massive public relations effort. Serendipitously, on March 2nd the National Review published an article by <a href="http://www.aei.org/article/103306">Jon Entine,</a> </span><a href="http://www.aei.org/article/103306"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">“Don’t Rush to Ban Chemicals”</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> that revealed how public opinion is manipulated by the use of dubious “scientific studies” and the way most people, unschooled in science, do not realize that “one part per billion” of any substance poses no risk at all.<br />
<br />
Entine cited a survey that found that “Canadians on average have about one part per billion of BPA in their urine, while Americans have twice that amount” noting that this “is not just meaningless, let alone news by any definition, but is part of the massive public relations campaign to get BPA banned”<br />
<br />
“Labeling a chemical ‘toxic’ or a ‘contaminant’ is meaningless,” said Entine. “Toxicity is a question of degree; exposure is different from effect. Apples, bananas, broccoli, cabbage, citrus fruits, mushrooms, turnips, and many more foods contain occurring chemicals that are toxic—they cause cancer at large lifelong doses in laboratory rodents. Tofu is more estrogenic than BPA.”<br />
<br />
Anyone who wants to learn the truth about BPA is advised to visit Junkscience.com, the website of Steve Milloy who has gained a solid reputation for debunking so-called “science based” fear campaigns. His data on </span><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">His <a href="http://www.debunkosaurus.com/debunkosaurus/index.php/Bisphenol_A_(BPA)">data on BPA</a> </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">reveals that “there is no scientific evidence that BPA:<br />
<br />
• Has ever harmed anyone despite 50 years of use;<br />
<br />
• Acts as an endocrine disruptor; and<br />
<br />
• Has any health effects at low doses;<br />
<br />
Furthermore, the data debunks some of the most oft-cited and false claims about BPA.<br />
<br />
• BPA is not carcinogenic or mutagenic;<br />
<br />
• BPA does not adversely affect reproduction or development at any realistic dose;<br />
<br />
• BPA is efficiently “metabolized” and rapidly excreted after oral exposure<br />
<br />
So where does the worldwide anti-BPA public relations campaign originate? <br />
<br />
The answer to that has to be by inference, but many trace it to Fenton Communications whose founder, David Fenton, has left-wing associations and affiliations dating all the way back to the domestic terror group, the Weatherman, for whom he was a photographer.<br />
<br />
In a lengthy profile on DiscoverTheNetworks.org, one learns that in 1982, he established </span><a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=814"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Fenton Communications</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">, specializing in advancing the agendas of “left-wing groups.” “One of Fenton’s most widely publicized achievements was his 1989 attack against the producers of Alar, a preservative (used on apples) that he erroneously characterized as carcinogenic.” The cost to American apple growers and distributors was catastrophic. It was deceptive. <br />
<br />
The anti-BPA scare campaign is patterned on the anti-Alar campaign and a further link is found in the fact that two of Fenton’s longtime clients, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the </span><a href="http://www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-blog/category/know-your-toxins/bpa/"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Environmental Working Group</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> are <a href="http://www.ewg.org/kid-safe-chemicals-act-blog/category/know-your-toxins/bpa/">leaders in the anti-BPA campaign</a>. Moreover, BornFree, a company that specializes in products that do not contain BPA, is also a Fenton client. <br />
<br />
In the book, “The Fear Profiteers”, Fenton Communications was identified as having “played a key role in a growing number of health scare campaigns.” At the time the book was published, Fenton was linked to “scares about Alar and apples, swordfish, leaky breast implants, and a front group (a favorite PR ploy) Health Care Without Harm that put forth lies about the alleged, but unproven danger of phthalates; chemicals used to make plastic flexible products for IV bags, nipples, and children’s toys.<br />
<br />
Suffice to say Fenton Communications is opposed to anything that has to do with plastic, no matter how useful and safe the product may be. BPA has been in use for over fifty years to line the insides of metal and plastic food containers, protecting against spoilage. More than 6,000 studies have been made over the years and none have demonstrated any hazard.<br />
<br />
“If you have been scared about food or pesticides in the last ten years,” said ‘The Fear Profiteers’, “chances are <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=814">Fenton Communications</a> played a key role in provoking that fear. The fears just don’t ever stop. But they all have one thing in common—a lack of evidence and abundance of deceit.”<br />
<br />
The </span><a href="http://www.junksciencemom.com/2010/04/bpa-scare-campaign-exposed-david-fenton.html"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">anti-BPA propaganda</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;"> that has been put in motion is multiplied by the countless journalists who simply repeat the lies, accounting for some of the most meretricious misinformation on a daily basis. This in turn is multiplied by the seemingly endless blogs and alleged “health” websites that repeat and repeat it, primarily targeting expectant and new mothers. Another favorite target are men who are told BPA affects their sex drive.<br />
<br />
The problem for everyone, everywhere in the world, occurs when governments or entities such as the European Union ban the use of BPA despite overwhelming evidence of its safe use. That puts everyone at risk for the food-related illnesses that occur when containers no longer have the protection that BPA provides.</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">© Alan Caruba, 2011 </span></div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3599899362100636970.post-6296404144508265782011-06-13T06:58:00.000-07:002011-06-13T08:20:55.995-07:00Scaring Mothers and All Others - The BPA File,Part 4<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaXSjur2YNPe7zDbC_n6J5OioUooKdmGq7PwzCMOnRcAh1E4CiUO5sEfDb4jd0_evTZ89vDhjpqc4jfcmhSbhigTbACrxrApxVxPQE02zewazL-2aVHD6CEtwy2I7Z8eFHq3H5hXc-v4/s1600/BPA+-+Baby+Bottle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaXSjur2YNPe7zDbC_n6J5OioUooKdmGq7PwzCMOnRcAh1E4CiUO5sEfDb4jd0_evTZ89vDhjpqc4jfcmhSbhigTbACrxrApxVxPQE02zewazL-2aVHD6CEtwy2I7Z8eFHq3H5hXc-v4/s200/BPA+-+Baby+Bottle.jpg" t8="true" width="133" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">By Alan Caruba</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In a revealing article in the April issue of <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/04/beyond-bpa-could-bpa-free-products-be-just-as-unsafe/237246/">The Atlantic</a>, “Beyond BPA: Could ‘BPA-Free’ Products Be Just as Unsafe?” the effort to scare American consumers and others around the world comes full circle. In essence, the people and organizations behind campaigns to ban bisphenol-A (BPA) and anything made from plastic exist to frighten everyone about everything.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">From the snake oil salesmen who pitched their phony medicines in the days of the early West to today’s purveyors of fear about a wide range of chemicals that protect health and extend life, the key element remains the same; they lie to enrich themselves.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">As <a href="http://www.aei.org/article/103306">John Entine</a> wrote in an article, “Scared to Death”, “When it comes to stories on so-called toxic substances, the public discourse seems infected by a malady worse than microscopic residues: chemophobia.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">“Webster’s defines chemophobia as the irrational belief that ‘chemicals’ are bad and ‘natural’ things are good. Labeling a chemical ‘toxic’ or a ‘contaminant’ is meaningless. Toxicity is a question of degree, exposure is different from effect.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In plain terms, our bodies are designed to process and excrete all manner of things we breathe or ingest. Our bodies are, in fact, chemical factories that produce chemicals to protect and maintain their functions while, at the same time, removing what it does not require. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">A massive campaign has been underway for several years to demonize bisphenol-A, BPA, a chemical in use for more than 50 years to line cans and plastic containers for the precise purpose of protecting their contents against contamination up to and including botulism, a lethal food-borne disease.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">One might think that more than a half-century of its use without any evidence that it poses any harm would be sufficient to support its use, but liars who defame BPA are catering to other, more sinister agendas and fear is the means they use to advance them.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In a lengthy analysis available on Junkscience.com, it is noted that “BPA is one of the best tested substances” and has “been evaluated by regulatory bodies around the world” that found that:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">BPA is not carcinogenic or mutagenic</span></li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">BPA does not adversely effect reproduction or development at any realistic dose</span></li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">BPA shows weak estrogenic effects only at extremely high dose levels never reached in daily life</span></li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">BPA is efficiently ‘metabolized’ and rapidly excreted after oral exposure. </span></li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">A primary target for the scare campaigns waged against BPA are women and, in particular, pregnant woman and mothers of infants. The product most targeted is plastic baby bottles.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Countless articles have been published in magazines, newspapers, and on Internet sites and blogs devoted to “environmental” topics and health issues that “report” various clinical studies all purporting that BPA represents a great risk to women. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Women unfamiliar with the scientific process are particularly vulnerable to reports that a small study of few females “may” or “could” or “might” reflect a connection between BPA and the alleged results, particularly if they are reported in medical journals that routinely publish such studies. The language of such studies is always couched in vague terminality such as indications of a “strong association” with the condition cited. In real life terms, this is meaningless.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Other reports exhibit both ignorance and bias such as a Huffington Post article that asserted “There’s no ‘Safe’ Plastic, Already!” Such a claim is absurd on its face. Lacking any basis in fact, the author claimed that “the latest science shows that plastics are really, really bad news” ignoring the fact that plastic containers of food and drink are ubiquitous. The claim itself sounds like it came from an ignorant child.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The sheer numbers involving plastic bottles should indicate their use is safe. For example, nine billion gallons of bottled water are sold every year in the <country-region><place>United States</place></country-region>. That’s 50 billion bottles. If they posed a health threat, it would be evident, but they do not, nor do the huge numbers of baby bottles, but expectant and new mothers are repeatedly told they should be avoided, especially by manufacturers who trumpet the news they do not use BPA.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">A report in the Los Angeles Times claimed that eating canned food poses a health threat, repeating the tired and extensively disputed claims about BPA. The study, however, was released by two environmental groups that thrive on scare campaigns, the Breast Cancer Fund and the Silent Spring Institute. Out of hundreds of thousands of families in the <country-region><place>U.S.</place></country-region>, the study was based on just five! </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">What is not reported is the fact that modern science can detect infinitesimal amounts of any chemical substance and it is the fact that they are so small that means they represent no threat. As always, it is the amount of exposure that determines hazard and mere “trace” amounts that can only be detected in a laboratory represent a phantom hazard.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In the end, telling new mothers and everyone else that they should not eat or drink anything from a can or bottle protected by BPA is, in fact, to put them, their babies, and everyone else at a far greater risk.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">© Alan Caruba, 2011</span></div>Alan Carubahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10901162110385985193noreply@blogger.com0