Just as Co2 Is Not A Pollutant, BPA (Bisphenal A) is Not harmful. To anyone…
As always, when it doesn’t make sense, Follow The Money.
Well whoda thunk it? Chucky comes out against the FDA findings, and in favor of Personal Injury Lawyers. I don’t find it at all unusual, in fact it is business as usual. John Edwards will probably be getting in on this action.
Who needs the Food and Drug Administration?
New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and personal injury lawyers certainly don’t — at least to the extent that the agency gets in the way of their political grandstanding and a multimillion-dollar payday, respectively.
This column recently reported on the sad tale of the chemical bisphenol A — that is, how junk science-fueled anti-chemical activists successfully rigged the scientific review process at the federal National Toxicology Program to cast doubt on the safety of BPA, which led to decisions by Wal-Mart and others to stop selling plastic baby bottles made with the chemical.
Steve Milloy has the rest HERE.
Previously on this blog: More Scare Tactics
A must read article from The Washington Times. It seems the Rodent Doctors have come up with the latest threat to mankind.
A new health scare — over the safe and useful plastic component, bisphenol-A (BPA) — has taken wing, fomented by the usual suspects: “experts” in rat toxicology working with alarmist, chemical-hating “environmental” activists and self-serving media scaremongers. Soon, we know all too well, will come the plaintiffs’ lawyers to “protect” the public from the non-existent (but lucrative) threats lurking in our plastic bottles.
Once again, our environmental stewards have ventured into an area to which they are ill-suited: human health. The new draft report on the chemical, issued by the National Toxicology Program (NTP, a branch of the EPA), is being trumpeted by greeniacs everywhere as if a cure for cancer had been discovered or malaria eradicated.
The facts buried in the report are quite the opposite of the newspaper headlines. There is no cause for concern, much less alarm, over the tiny exposures we face from plastic bottles made with BPA. The hysteria, aggravated by reports of moms nationwide throwing out “toxic” baby bottles with the number 7 on them, is based (as usual) on rat tests and “general themes” of toxicity, rather than on anything approaching scientific evidence.
This new scare is part and parcel of the “back to nature” school of public health. There is no substance to the dogma promulgated by technophobes that “natural is good, synthetic is bad.” All of the great epidemic infections we have conquered are of “natural” origin — and we beat them with technology. The same folks who warn us against BPA — and phthalates in toys and all the other phony threats — tend to oppose gene-splicing technology, which holds the promise of relieving food scarcity now threatening world health and stability. But they’d rather rant about non-existent health threats they invent than deal with real-life problems. They have been warning us about the dangers of cosmetics, French fries and vaccines — while ignoring real problems, such as smoking and underutilization of interventions such as colonoscopy and adult immunizations.