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. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Being Clean and Pretty Has Toxic Costs
Test your knowledge of cosmetics safety: 8 myths debunked
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
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?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Thank You For Buying Our Toxic Plastic | Main | Recycling CFLs in Maine... and beyond »
The week from hell for BPA
This post was written by EWG's Jovana Ruzicic and Alex Formuzis
Beginning last weekend, the food and chemical industries began what could only be described as a "week from hell." An email that included the minutes from a May 28 strategy meeting of their respective Washington lobbyists and spin doctors on how to burnish the image of BPA in the media and kill efforts to move BPA legislation in California somehow wound up in articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Washington Post. Bummer.
Success in CA Senate - despite industry's underhanded tactics
And, to make matters worse, yesterday the California State Senate passed legislation that would actually protect future generations of babies from further exposure to the toxic hormone disrupting chemical by removing it as an ingredient in baby bottles, sippy cups, formula and food containers for children 3 and younger. That's a shame.
It seems the plans to implement "fear tactics" and targeting pregnant women, young children and minorities with the specter of 'no more baby food' and sky high food prices if BPA wasn't part of the daily diet didn't have the sway industry had hoped on the majority of the California Senate. The upper chamber ultimately stood on the side of California's families and passed the Toxics-Free Babies and Toddlers Act (SB 797), authored by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and sponsored by Environmental Working Group (EWG).
If this measure becomes the law of California not only will future generations of babies born and raised in the state be safe as a result, but California's actions will make it almost impossible for the federal government not to take action to impose a nationwide restriction on the how the chemical can be used.
Congress puts the heat on industry
As if both of these defeats weren't enough for the chemical and food guys, yesterday Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee's oversight subcommittee, announced plans to investigate the skullduggery of the food and chemical lobbyists and called on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reassess its previous decision that low-dose exposure to BPA posed no health risks.
It must be nice to be The Chairman.
Less than 24 hours after Chairman Waxman and Rep. Stupak sent their letters to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and the Chairman John Rost of The North American Metal Packaging Alliance (NAMPA), who attended the now infamous gathering at DC's Cosmos Club when industry hatched its "fear tactics" strategy, we're seeing action.The FDA has announced plans for a top-down review of the agency's previous deliberations on BPA with a goal to be finished within weeks, and Mr. Rost and NAMPA have hired a crisis consultant, according to today's article by Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Regarding the fate of Senator Pavley's BPA bill in California: it now must be considered by the General Assembly, where last year the chemical industry was able to kill a similar measure, afterward throwing a big shindig to celebrate another year of BPA-laced baby bottles available on store shelves in California.
As the sponsor of the bill, I can assure readers that EWG will not stop our efforts to see it signed by the Governor, nor will we let up on industry's shenanigans. It's important that any lawmakers on the fence about this bill understand just who they'll be standing with when it comes time to vote.
Photo credit: GETTY
California BPA Bill Moves Forward. There are some more details on this and BPA, in general, here: http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/6590#more-6590
What a great piece. Thanks so much for the update. If anyone knows WHO the "crisis consultant" is that NAMPA hired, I'd love to know... Similar "crisis consultants" for the Formaldehyde Council have left comments on my blog and the blogs of other Green Moms Carnival members. It would help to know who is representing NAMPA. You can email me at organicmania at gmail dot com.
I hope they're spending as much money on science and strategy as they are on PR. PR and crisis people can only do so much if there is no substance behind the arguments. I spent a lot of time reviewing the NAMPA website and their arguments before I posted my own take on the situation. All I could take away from the BPA lobby's arguments is this: BPA protects us from contaminants. BPA is approved by the FDA. Therefore, BPA is fine.
What they don't say is that BPA's use in products for young children has been banned in Canada and is under review in Denmark. What they don't say is that many peer-reviewed university studies have questioned the safety of BPA for young children. What they don't say is the two studies that support BPA's continued usage, which the FDA used to justify its continued support for BPA, were funded by NAMPA and other industry insiders.
We need to look at BPA - and 1,4 dioxane and formaldehyde - and all the other chemical ingredients that have been linked to cancer and other health issues as part of a comprehensive strategy to assess potential risks to fetuses, babies, children and young people of child bearing age. I've come to believe, based on the tactics of the chemical companies, (to whom I initially gave the benefit of the doubt) that The Kid-Safe Chemical Act is a our best bet to address this issue.
Still, I hope the BPA people are correct in asserting that BPA is not a danger, and that they've simply done a crappy job of communicating about all this. Why? The alternative -- that they are wrong - is just too sad to imagine.
this is a matter we all as to pursue, denounce pesticide and animal growth harmone in our kids food. healthy foods is the key to a healthy life style
Also this week The Boston Globe ran a story on a just-published scientific study that used Harvard students as BPA guinea pigs:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/22/harvard_study_backs_bottle_concern/
In a class, their professor warned them about drinking from polycarbonate water bottles. After the students questioned her warning, they agreed to do a study. Students were given stainless steel bottles from which to drink for a week. The BPA levels were then measured from their urine. Then they were given polycarbonate bottles to use for the next week. Their BPA levels almost doubled by the end of the week of polycarbonate bottle use. The full scientific report can be read here:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2009/0900604/0900604.pdf
Its going to be hard for industry to fool these Harvard students about BPA any more. But it shouldn't take a Harvard education to see through industry lies.