ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign up here to stay informed.
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
Dear CEO: It's time to reduce children's exposure to BPA
9 safer shopping tips from the pros @ Skin Deep
FEATURED
Dear CEO: It's time to reduce children's exposure to BPA
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
It's practically summer: Quick, Grab the (safe) sunscreen
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Enviroblog hosts: Carnival of the Green #141! | Main | Elected officials MIA; Instead, Wal-Mart and Burger King protecting your health »
FDA got it wrong. Here's why.
By now you may have heard about the Food and Drug Administration's draft assessment of bisphenol A, which says that the known endocrine disruptor poses no health risk.
They got it wrong. My colleagues put it much more judiciously when they wrote EWG Questions FDA Verdict on Plastic Chemical. They went on to list all the reasons why we question the report. I thought I'd parse that out a little bit for you here.
- The FDA review only examined studies that fed lab animals large amounts of BPA and looked for signs of obvious poisoning. Scientists believe that it's low levels of BPA, early on in brain development, that pose a risk for long-term damage. FDA relied on studies that completely miss the mark.
- Oh yeah, those studies FDA did look at? They were all funded by the chemical industry.
- The FDA review ignored more than 100 studies, including many funded by the government's own National Toxicology Program, that demonstrate that BPA is toxic at low levels.
- FDA claims that we'd have to get 2,000 times the amount of BPA we're now exposed to before we'd see any ill effects, but if they'd looked at the low-dose studies they'd see that low doses may be exactly where the danger is.
- On top of all that, FDA didn't even get infant exposure levels right. They underestimate BPA exposure for the smallest and hungriest babies, and they amount of BPA they assume babies are getting in formula is lower than what babies are probably actually getting.
I'm not sure why this is so complicated. It's a synthetic hormone. It's in our food. Why wouldn't the government want us to lower our exposure?
So, FDA is encouraging parents to continue exposing their children to BPA, even though safer alternatives exist. What do you think? Are you surprised, or is this business as usual for the government? Will you be switching back to BPA-laden baby bottles?
Top photo by Youkeo.
fwiw - I was at REI yesterday and noticed that the new Nalgene water bottles have great big "BPA FREE" stickers on them.
Randy
That's good to hear, Randy. It looks like it might be left up to manufacturers to give up the BPA ghost. How sad is that?
Is there a list of toys that are BPA free? How can I get one?