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.
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
Toxic cosmetics in teenage girls
FEATURED
Elected officials MIA; Instead Wal-Mart and Burger King protecting your health
Back to school: Are we ready? Are we non-toxic?
Fire retardants: Disproportionate risk to small children
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
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
« Marie Claire: What's your shoe size? | Main | FDA proposes sunscreen regulations »
WaPo ignores BPA in baby formula
The hot topic among mothers at a play group this weekend was bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. That's a shame, because it means those mothers -- and the Washington Post -- missed some crucial science.
The article, which ran in the business section today, quotes spokespeople for the American Chemistry Council (representing the plastics industry) and the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, who argue that parent's concerns are unfounded and being fueled unnecessarily by "some environmental groups".
Who, us? Concerned? Just because many studies demonstrate BPA's toxicity at low doses and across a variety of systems?
You bet we are.
"It just doesn't seem like the science is there yet," says Daddy Types blogger Greg Allen, and he's right, although not the way he thinks. There isn't enough science for us to continue exposing children to this harmful chemical. The fact that an NIH subcommittee found that there was cause for "some concern" (even while basing their opinion on incorrect and biased materials), and that there is dispute in the scientific community, should be enough cause to initiate further investigation, stronger restrictions, and careful precautions on the part of consumers.
The scariest part, though, is that the Washington Post article never once mentions that babies' exposure to BPA from plastic baby bottles is very small compared to their exposure from what goes in the bottles. For one in three cans of infant formula tested, a single serving contained enough BPA to expose an infant at levels that caused serious adverse effects in animal tests. The chemical is used to line the inside of food cans, and from there can leach into the food. This appears to happen at a much higher rate than leaching from plastic food and beverage containers.
The plastics industry would have you believe that calling attention to these potential dangers is scaring parents witless. Parents are terrified! They can't handle it! They're so scared of poisoning their children they might just stop feeding them altogether!
What an insult. I hope that real-life, sensible, running-the-show parents reject this headless-chicken image. Reducing your exposure and your children's is as easy as making a few simple changes. Then you can go back to worrying about the important things, like your child's first steps, first teeth, first love, first time behind the wheel... y'know, the good stuff.