FDA Throwing BPA Panel Under the Bus
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 11. 3.08
On Friday The FDA Science Board, a group of outside experts, backed up critics who found major flaws in the agency's decision to declare BPA safe for babies. According to USA Today:
The science board agreed with the finding that that the FDA was wrong to base its August decision that BPA is safe only on studies funded by the chemical industry. Excluded studies suggest that BPA, which acts like the hormone estrogen, could pose harm to children at levels at least 10 times lower than what the agency allows.
Sonya Lunder of the Environmental Working Group points out that "BPA was initially used as a sex hormone. It should never have been allowed to come into contact with infant formula."
FDA Commissioner throws up his hands
FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach was nonplussed.
"We would not have asked them (the science board) to do this if we weren't open to listening and learning from this input and incorporating it into our decision-making," von Eschenbach says.In a presentation to the science board, he said, "There's no shame in having one's hypothesis or previous tenets questioned or disproved. That's the purpose of science: to test hypotheses and theses appropriately and have a healthy debate about where the data do and do not lead us."
Right. In other words, scratch that August report and let's start over.
What bottle to buy for baby? Check out Planet Green's Buy Green: Baby Bottles
More in USA Today
Background on BPA:
BPA Update: Canada Declares it Toxic, FDA Chair's Donor was Michigan's "First Polluter"
FDA Chair Studying BPA Took $5 Million Donation From BPA Supporter
Final Report on Bisphenol A: It May Harm Kids
FDA Says BPA Is Safe For Babies
Bisphenol A: How Wal-Mart Became the New FDA
Quotes of the Day: Opinions on the FDA Declaring BPA Safe
Don't Buy A Nalgene Water Bottle Until You Read This
Nalgene Dumps Bisphenol A Like Hot Potato :
Possible Effects of BPA
More Bad News About Bisphenol A: It Interferes with Chemotherapy Treatments
Yet Another Bisphenol A Pile-on: Linked to Heart Disease, Diabetes and Liver Problems
New Study: BPA May Make You Stupid and Depressed
Sources of BPA:
Bisphenol A Is In Your Tomato Sauce
Bisphenol A Could Be In Your Teeth
BPA Danger may be greater from Tin Cans than Water Bottles
Polycarbonate Water bottles
Canada Calls Bisphenol A "Dangerous"
Time to Pack In the Polycarbonates
Bottled Water - Lifting the Lid :
MEC Nixes Nalgenes
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Ditch Bisphenol A (BPA) Now if You Want to Have Kids!
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Green Glossary: Naturopathy
- Lipstick Danger: Don't Let Lead Poison your Pout
- Surf Green with Eco-Friendly Surf Gear
- Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
If the FDA put half as much effort into research it puts into keeping big businesses happy America would be a much safer place; especially for babies.
We use glass baby bottles at home. They are fantastic. They clean much easier, and no they don't break easily. I've had one chip, and that was after heavy abuse. I strongly recomend them to everyone with children on a bottle.
Why does the FDA cut corners when doing these studies? Because they are underfunded. It is much more cost-effective to use the data and research already prepared for you (quite eagerly) by private-sector industry. If a sufficient budget was allotted to the FDA, it could hire its own researchers and lab techs. That is also why there aren't food inspectors in every processing plant and slaughterhouse around the clock. I believe the same is true for the EPA, hence the movement this year to "streamline" the process by which the impact of development on endangered species is assessed. Less actual work is being done because there are neither the personnel nor the funds within the EPA to do it. The same is true of the Forest Service, Fish & Wildlife, etc. All of our watchdog and protective agencies are underfunded, while the lion's share goes to defense projects. And of course, the minute any progressive or liberal-minded politician considers strengthening the revenue stream (i.e. raising taxes), we all cry foul. These agencies can't look out for us properly on shoestring budgets. Think about how much better the FDA could do its job for an entire year with the amount of tax revenue it takes to pay for the munitions and rockets used by the military for one week.
Waaa? Am I the only one that read the package? Pre-sterilized disposable? We really need to DISPOSE of the words disposable and trash. Freaking disgusting how far the human race has fallen.
I was raised as a baby in cloth diapers and drinking from glass bottles! It's sad that so many parents are either unaware or uncaring about the fact that they are doing damage to their babies and to the environment with these horrible products.
It won't be so convenient when the environment is ruined, and those babies you are raising are struggling to live in toxic world.
Even though the FDA is not coming our against BPA I think there is enough data out there to suggest that it poses a significant health risk that deserves attention. I'm very proud of the fact that the company I work for, as well as many others out there, are making food and beverage containers that are BPA free. I think it starts with education, awareness, and a conscious decision to minimize your exposure in as many ways possible. Please take a look some of the product my company makes ( http://www.aladdin-pmi.com/ ) ...i think they are going in the right direction. We need to support all companies that are moving away from BPA in their products (water bottles, baby bottles, canned food companies, ect.)