Letters to the Editor

Putting plastic in perspective

The Washington Times does consumers no favors by publishing Gilbert Ross’ pro-industry dismissal of the health dangers of drinking from hard plastic (polycarbonate) bottles (“Plastic hysteria strikes again,” Commentary, April 24) without also informing consumers that Dr. Ross’ serious-sounding group, the American Council on Science and Health, gets considerable funding from the chemical industry. In fact, ACSH’s funders are a virtual who’s who of the nation’s biggest chemical companies, including American Cyanamid, Monsanto, Pfizer, Archer Daniels Midland, Ciba-Geigy, Ethyl, Exxon, Chevron, Dow, DuPont and Union Carbide — just to name a handful — according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest.

This biased article completely ignores a broader category of health concerns, including those related to bisphenol-A (BPA) and phthalates in toys and other products used to feed and care for children, about all of which the National Institute of Health’s National Toxicology Program has recently issued warnings. You would have helped consumers to determine the veracity of the speaker by letting them know the money behind the voice.

ELISA ODABASHIAN

Director

West Coast office

Consumers Union

San Francisco

•

Contrary to the insinuations of Dr. David O. Carpenter, my organization, the American Council on Science and Health, accepts only no-strings-attached donations (“Plastics caution,” Letters, Saturday). We will accept support from almost anyone, including foundations, corporations and a growing number of individuals — as long as it is understood that the contributions will have no effect on the high quality of our research and conclusions, which are published in peer-reviewed journals.

Our 400-member advisory panel — made up of scientists, physicians and academicians — serves on a voluntary basis. These facts explain why, contrary to Dr. Carpenter’s assertions, our science-based position on bisphenol-A (BPA) is immune to the “industry funding” smear so often resorted to by those with no other arguments to support their theories.

In fact, our position is at odds with that of the plastics industry itself. The spokespeople for the makers of BPA have acquiesced to the media and regulatory storm provoked by the recent government report. They have chosen to “call for more research” rather than simply to call a spade a spade; that is, pointing out that the report’s “concerns” were based on rodent tests, of no relevance to the health of humans of any age.

We published a report evaluating all the scientific information on BPA in 2004. This report was written by an expert in the field and peer-reviewed by nine volunteer academicians with no ax to grind. Our conclusion was that BPA is safe to use as we’ve been using it since the 1950s. The current uproar derives from inappropriate, unscientific extrapolations from “low-dose” rat tests to human health. If these tests are to be the benchmark for environmental “safety,” we would be left with none of our commonly used consumer goods and precious few of our foods, as well. Even the EPA has pulled back from such judgments. As but one example: Peanut butter contains trace levels of the animal carcinogen aflatoxin. Will Dr. Carpenter and his colleagues’ next scare involve PB&J;?

Dr. Carpenter’s spurious linkage of the “risks” of BPA with those of smoking are clearly alarmist: While no one has ever been harmed by BPA, the toll of cigarettes in our country alone reaches into the millions.

The substitutes for BPA are much less studied and will likely be subject to a similar scare campaign in the near future. If BPA is banned, the American consumer will pay the price. Meanwhile, scientists who have spoken out on this hysteria — yes, it’s hysteria, not merely “concern” now — are apparently to be hounded by Congress as well as by Dr. Carpenter and his minions. However, I wouldn’t retract a word from my Commentary, as the scientific facts are behind me.

Story Continues →