There has been a lot of recent attention concerning Bisphenol-A (BPA), and its supposedly harmful properties as an additive to many household plastics. The BPA scare brought with it–of course!–lots and lot and lots of calls for new regulations.
And the whole controversy only served to waste people’s time. The linked post is a short one, but this following passage really is worth noting:
Missing in this debate is that it’s not just ‘industry groups’ that think BPA shouldn’t be banned — or just industry-sponsored studies that say it’s safe. Scientists, regulators, politicians in Europe, Australia, and Japan have all rejected the evidence that the chemical is harmful as methodologically flawed, badly conducted, or irrelevant — with some warning that banning it could actually endanger the public. Now that the National Institutes of Health has acknowledged that it funded a lot of poorly-designed research on BPA — the very research that is touted as evidence that the chemical is deadly — it’s time to ask whether America has been spun by clever marketing rather than clever science.
In addition, Canada has found that contrary to recent concerns, BPA is not a health threat in infant formula, that BPA is not a health threat as an additive to baby food sold in glass jars with metal lids, and that BPA poses no threat as an additive in bottled water.
And finally, we learn that California will not list BPA as a harmful chemical.
There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to carry water for BPA. But a public health scare was raised over the additive, one that might have led to unnecessary regulation had more people succumbed to the sense of fright that BPA-detractors were trying to inculcate in the public consciousness.