THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIII, Issue # 55, February 23, 2011
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
USING FEAR TO BAN BPA: THE BPA FILE, PART TWO
By Alan Caruba
THE EFFORTS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS & OPPORTUNISTIC POLITICIANS TO OBTAIN A LEGISLATIVE BAN AGAINST THE USE
OF BISPHENOL-A IN THE U.S.A.: NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE DRIVE TO BAN BPA -- BASIS OF THE DRIVE
TO DEPRIVE AMERICANS OF A NECESSARY & SAFE COMPONENT IN VALUABLE SHATTERPROOF PLASTICS & A PROVEN
METHOD OF PROTECTING FOOD & DRINK: POLITICS, RADICAL IDEOLOGY, & FEAR TACTICS
FULL STORY:
Writing for Health News Digest.com in early February, 2011, Michael D. Shaw 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.”
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 Oxford Journal
Toxicological Sciences, even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that there is no threat from
BPA.
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.
What is “reasonable” about limiting something that protects public health and safeguards the American food supply?
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.”
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.
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.
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 environmentalist groups and to give politicians the appearance of acting in the public interest.
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.
This false BPA narrative is so prevalent that, in January, 2011, U.S. Representative Edward Markey, (Democrat -
Massachusetts) 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.
Representative 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.
Eight U.S. states, plus Canada 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.
The confusion over BPA has, so far, resulted in sharp divides over whether and how to further regulate it. While the
Massachusetts Public Health Council approved new BPA restrictions last year, the California Senate rejected a similar
ban in that state in 2010. In Maine, 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 Maine’s standards parallel
those of the U.S. federal government.
At the federal level, the U.S. Senate last year defeated attempts by Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat - California) to
impose a federal ban on BPA in certain products. And the World Health Organization last November recommended
against any further regulations to further limit or ban BPA.
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.
Editor's Note: You can read The BPA File, Part One here.
----------------------------------
© Alan Caruba, 2011
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Science, Ethics, & Human Health:
Human Health & Public Policy
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Alan Caruba writes a daily post at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, commentator and business and science writer,
he is the Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a clearinghouse for information about "scare campaigns" designed to influence
public opinion and public policy.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIII, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity