Knee-Jerk Reaction to BPA Leads to Nanny-State Regulation, Potential Consumer Hazards
Washington, D.C., January 28, 2010—Media hysteria over a common chemical found in plastic is criticized in a new report by CEI and the Cascade Policy Institute. In a major move last week, the FDA announced it had "some concern" about Biphenol A, or BPA, which is a chemical intermediary used in the manufacturing of baby bottles, medical equipment, canned goods, and other commonly-used products. Several cities and states are considering partial bans on BPA use, and bills for federal bans are now pending in Congress.
However, the truth is that the FDA announcement is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the claims of environmental activists who are upset over several recent tests of BPA on rodents.
“Despite considerable fears raised by activists and the press, the science does not warrant regulations on BPA,” says CEI Director of Risk and Environmental Policy Angela Logomasini in her report published by the Cascade Policy Institute, The Nanny State Attack on BPA in Baby Bottles: Oregon and Beyond. In fact, BPA actually poses minimal risk to humans, who metabolize BPA much faster and better than rodents. BPA is classified as "weakly estrogenic,” a classification that applies to many healthy foods—including soy, which is very high in naturally-occurring phytoestrogens.
"Of course, activists aren’t pressing for laws against giving soy to children - that would be absurd," Logomasini points out.
If you read the attached study on BPA, you’ll see that bans on BPA use are just as absurd. According to Logomasini, BPA contributes in many ways to the health and sanitation of our modern society—for example, by preventing bacterial contamination in canned food. As Logomasini writes, “BPA has a 50-year record of safe use. Less-tested or inferior alternatives may increase hazards for consumers and are likely to come at higher prices.”
View the report, The Nanny State Attack on BPA in Baby Bottles: Oregon and Beyond by Angela Logomasini.